Merged No Planes At WTC (Split from: WTC Dust)

[WTC Dust]

Maybe photoshop software wasn't used but in the video the plane went cleanly into the building which was impossible.

It was a fake plane, Clayton. A hologram-like object. "Help me, Obi Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope!"

 

[WTC Dust]

No maybe about it. Perhaps you could enlighten with how you think it was 'accomplished'?


Who aside from 'truthers' said it went in "cleanly"? IIRC, there was some walloping great damage to the building. From your deep background in physics, are you suggesting it should've bounced-off or been sticking out the side or somesuch?

Fitz

Fitz: I think Clayton is also referring to the lack of plane debris at the south face of WTC 2.

My question to you is, "How large was the force that the building exerted onto the plane?" I'm not asking about the force that the plane exerted on the building.

 

[SUSpilot]

Nope. That a meat bird can destroy an aluminum wing of an airplane.

Um....

Damage. Not destroy. Try again.

 

[WTC Dust]

Excellent point!

Either meat is stronger than aluminum or sometimes, something soft can penetrate something hard.

Let's start building planes out of chickenpigeon! We already know that pigeons can fly and pigeon flesh is stronger than aluminum, right?

You are conflating two different things. I doubt you are confused. I suspect you might be arguing just to argue.

But it's what I do, so I'll continue to do it.

The answer to the question, "Which objects get destroyed if they collide?"
is a complex answer. It depends on more than just the materials the objects are made of. It depends more than just on conservation of momentum. Conservation of momentum always occurs, but the way the objects are constructed is key.

Would I expect an aluminum airplane to be able to pierce through a 0.01 millimeter thin slice of steel? Maybe yeah. I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. A four inch thick wall of steel? No. Absolutely not. Steel is almost miraculously strong when it is four inches thick.

A plane impact might be able to break a four inch thick wall, but not pierce through it undamaged like the videos seem to show.

 

[WTC Dust]

What reason do you have to believe there should have been recorded evidence of that, even if it happened? What reason do you have to believe that there is not recorded evidence of that?

Why must the null hypothesis be that there were no planes unless X videos and pictures exist? We have no video or stills of the crusades. Does that mean they didn't happen?

This is maybe where your thinking goes a bit wrong.

WE HAVE VIDEO! It doesn't show plane debris.

This is not like the crusades, where we don't have video.

This is evidence of absence, not absence of evidence.

 

[WTC Dust]

Other than it bursting into flames upon impact.

Plane-like object, that's rich.

Watch the videos again. The plane-like object didn't burst into flames.
WTC 2 burst into flames.

 

[WTC Dust]

Um....

Damage. Not destroy. Try again.

It can damage it enough to render it unusable, so that's destroyed in my book.

 

[R.A.F.]

Ah, but a real plane would have broken apart at the south face of WTC 2.

...and what of the people on that plane?


No, I'm serious...what is your explanation for the deaths of the people on that plane?, or are all those people, and their relatives "in on it" too?


Go ahead....tell us all about those imaginary dead people.

 

[R.A.F.]

I say the planes were faked.

..and as has been pointed out to you by beachnut...radar proves you WRONG.

 

[Skibum]

Would I expect an aluminum airplane to be able to pierce through a 0.01 millimeter thin slice of steel? Maybe yeah. I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. A four inch thick wall of steel? No. Absolutely not. Steel is almost miraculously strong when it is four inches thick.

A plane impact might be able to break a four inch thick wall, but not pierce through it undamaged like the videos seem to show.

You do realize it wasn't a 4 inch thick steel wall don't you? It wasn't. Perhaps if you would take the time to learn the facts, you wouldn't be so incredulous about what really happened and you could stop living in this fantasy you have made up.

 

[phunk]

Would I expect an aluminum airplane to be able to pierce through a 0.01 millimeter thin slice of steel?

A sneeze could blow a hole in a 0.01mm sheet of steel. Why do you choose such ridiculous numbers?

Maybe yeah. I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. A four inch thick wall of steel? No. Absolutely not. Steel is almost miraculously strong when it is four inches thick.

A plane impact might be able to break a four inch thick wall, but not pierce through it undamaged like the videos seem to show.

Four inch? Again with the ridiculous numbers. The columns were made of 1/4" steel.

 

[Resume]

Watch the videos again. The plane-like object didn't burst into flames.
WTC 2 burst into flames.

The plane entered the building, causing the fuel to erupt into flames, destroying the plane, and subsequently the building.

The more you call it a plane-like object, the sillier your argument seems. And that's a tall order.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

WE HAVE VIDEO! It doesn't show plane debris.

You don't know that.

The video does show debris. You have no way of assessing what proportion of it is plane debris. You have no way of estimating how much of it ought to be plane debris.

 

[WTC Dust]

...and what of the people on that plane?


No, I'm serious...what is your explanation for the deaths of the people on that plane?, or are all those people, and their relatives "in on it" too?


Go ahead....tell us all about those imaginary dead people.

All I can say is that I do not know anything at all about the people you are referring to.

 

[WTC Dust]

..and as has been pointed out to you by beachnut...radar proves you WRONG.

The air traffic controllers never give a consistent story.
Richard D. Hall seems pretty smart, and he talks about the
radar, so I'm guessing that it exists.

Radar isn't my thing. I might be able to use radar, given a bit
of training, but I certainly wouldn't know how to validate radar,
even if I tried, so I don't.

If Richard D. Hall says radar exists, and that it means something,
then I'm ok with that. On the other hand, if it turns out not to
exist, it wouldn't rock my world, either.

 

[Resume]

All I can say is that I do not know anything at all about the people you are referring to.

Most of the rest of the world knows what happened to those people. Why do you disrespect their memories with comments like the above?

 

[WTC Dust]

You do realize it wasn't a 4 inch thick steel wall don't you? It wasn't. Perhaps if you would take the time to learn the facts, you wouldn't be so incredulous about what really happened and you could stop living in this fantasy you have made up.

It was thicker than four inches, but what are you talking about? How would you characterize the construction of the south wall of WTC 2?

 

[WTC Dust]

The plane entered the building, causing the fuel to erupt into flames, destroying the plane, and subsequently the building.

The more you call it a plane-like object, the sillier your argument seems. And that's a tall order.

Exactly the problem. You say the plane entered the building. You don't say a plane collided with the south face of WTC 2. The collision is what I'm talking about, yet you refer to it as "entering" the building.

 

[WTC Dust]

You don't know that.

The video does show debris. You have no way of assessing what proportion of it is plane debris. You have no way of estimating how much of it ought to be plane debris.

OK. There is undoubtedly debris falling down from the building. It came after the explosion. I'm talking about after the object passed into the building but before the explosion.

If it had been a real plane really crashing into the south face of WTC 2, you would have seen evidence of that collision in all the videos of the events, and you don't.

Yeah, debris fell from the building, but after the explosion. The explosion was real. A collision did not take place before the explosion.

 

[Resume]

Exactly the problem.

There is only one problem here and that's the one you seem to be having with the reality of what happened on that terrible day. You should really develop a new hobby/fantasy/whatever you might call it.