Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[TjW]

The lack of plane debris bouncing backwards off the south face
of WTC 2 indicates that this is not a collision between physical objects.

Newton's 3rd law isn't the kind of law that can be disobeyed.
It's an inherent property of the universe.

This F4 doesn't bounce off this (much sturdier than steel and glass) solid concrete wall.
Is it breaking the laws of physics?
It's going about the same speed. As a fighter, it is designed for higher loads than a commercial airliner.

 

[beachnut]

New Physics for 911 Truth, and those who have dustification weapons of woo

The lack of plane debris bouncing backwards off the south face
of WTC 2 indicates that this is not a collision between physical objects.

Newton's 3rd law isn't the kind of law that can be disobeyed.
It's an inherent property of the universe.

You are joking. That is pure nonsense.

Feel free to show the math for this incredibly stupid statement.

The no plane theory is the most intelligent one.

fyp


http://i44.tinypic.com/wmbo5.gif

How 1984; are you the new minister of lies?

Changing a post to make an idiotic fantasy come true. Evidence by changing posts? Does it make the fantasy real?

... The no plane theory is the least intelligent one. ...

... changed a post, how cool. Going to throw in some silly Balsamo style physics to justify the claim? Is this a joke to make fun of the delusional no plane claims?

No plane fringe group can't do RADAR. Anti-science, anti-intellectual nonsense = no planes.

Next time don't show an aircraft in video, which matches RADAR data to support the fantasy of no planes - it makes the no-plane claim dumber; and that is hard to do. You could cut out the extra effort to be self-debunking.

Newton's 3rd Law
“ Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi. ”
“ Law III: To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions. ”


There's nothing stupid about being perplexed when witnessing what is supposed to be a plane flying inside a building. If anything, you are being the stupid one, in thinking that a plane would do anything other than bounce off the building.

911 truth and physics don't know each-other. They quote physics, which debunks their claims; they can't do physics.

 

[Craig4]

The lack of plane debris bouncing backwards off the south face
of WTC 2 indicates that this is not a collision between physical objects.

Newton's 3rd law isn't the kind of law that can be disobeyed.
It's an inherent property of the universe.

Don't know much physics there "scientist". To think you once said I wasn't one of your better students. The idea that you'd think your "work" is good enough to educate me is just so darkly comic.

 

[dafydd]

Don't know much physics there "scientist". To think you once said I wasn't one of your better students. The idea that you'd think your "work" is good enough to educate me is just so darkly comic.

Unless proof of the contrary is provided I will continue to believe that Ms. Blevins has never had a science lesson in her life.

 

[Loss Leader]

The lack of plane debris bouncing backwards off the south face of WTC 2 indicates that this is not a collision between physical objects. Newton's 3rd law isn't the kind of law that can be disobeyed.
It's an inherent property of the universe.

Well, it certainly wasn't a collision between two solid objects capable of exerting the same force on each other. I think it might have been a collision between a rigid object with a massive amount of potential energy due to its weight and speed and an object that was mostly glass, air and laticework on the surface with steel beams at its core that nobody could see.

 

[CastorTroyy]

I read some debunking attempts, but nothing that was
a solid refutation of DEW.

I seem to remember an argument that depended on
the weapon being directly ABOVE ground zero, but I find
this to be unnecessarily restrictive. The weapon could
have been anywhere, not just directly above Ground Zero,
and I don't see why anyone should accept this as a
precondition.

I don't have an opinion on where the weapon was physically
located. Could have been deep in the sea or far away on a
mountain top, as far as I'm concerned.

As a layman, even I could tell you why the need to be above the towers is a perfectly plausible condition....

...Because, you would need line of sight to target the buildings.

What exactly do you think the size of this weapon is, or how it is used? Without any of this info, which is pretty basic, you can't assume a DEW was used just because you don't like the way the collapse appeared.

Unless this DEW is the size of a pistol or something that some guy across the street could've pointed and shot at the towers, it'd have to be above the towers aiming down, because If this device was a large weapon at street level, it surely would have been noticed by someone.

Being that NYC is a bunch of towers of concrete/steel/what have you, If it was absolutely anywhere else but in close proximity to the towers with line of sight, ANY other structure in the DEWs its path would be dustified as well. Does this weapon have the ability to weave around other structures? If so, where is your evidence of this? Hence - line of sight is necessary.

A mediocre, sophomoric attempt, but I believe I got my point across.

Does that compute?

 

[Clayton Moore]

How is posting an image of an airplane crashing into a building supposed to show that no aircraft hit the buildings?

Pretty much because it ENTERED the building unscathed it didn't CRASH into it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Pretty much because it ENTERED the building unscathed it didn't CRASH into it.

Is absolutely everyone here a disinfo agent sent to undermine truthers?

 

[beachnut]

... If a plane flies into a building such as the twin towers, at the speed it's going, it would hit the steel frames of the building then bounce back and fall to the ground. ...

lol, this is the best 911 truth has. fantasy

RADAR is too hard? yes
Reality, too hard? yes
Lies and fantasy, the easy way out for a fringe few.

Who needs physics when 911 truth has overwhelming woo.

Pretty much because it ENTERED the building unscathed it didn't CRASH into it.

wow, unscathed...

 

[Tomtomkent]

Pretty much because it ENTERED the building unscathed it didn't CRASH into it.

Are you sure you aren't thinking of the barnstorming opening to Octopussy?

 

[DGM]

Checked in on this thread just to see. Carry on kids.

 

[beachnut]

oh look, ...?

More overwhelming evidence.

Science, RADAR, physics, math, video, and reality are hard. No wonder you picked fantasy. Physics is hard, and only the smart kids take it; I wish I was smart.

 

[WTC Dust]

Yes, you beat me to it.

It basically defies the laws of physics. But these plane huggers will have you believe that planes can just blend into buildings like that, and consequently cause the building to collapse due to a fire

Ridiculous. Also, there's no evidence of a wake of air slamming into
the side of WTC 2.

Like boats, planes have a wake. If there had been a plane, there
would also have been a wake. The dust cloud already coming
from WTC 1 was not disturbed as it would have been if
a plane had come flying to within a block of the building.

 

[WTC Dust]

Newton's 3rd Law
“ Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi. ”
“ Law III: To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions. ”


There's nothing stupid about being perplexed when witnessing what is supposed to be a plane flying inside a building. If anything, you are being the stupid one, in thinking that a plane would do anything other than bounce off the building.

Right on, bro! Are you with the "video fakery" camp, or are you with
the "fake plane" camp?

 

[WTC Dust]

Why is it assumed that an oppossing reaction would cause any debris to bounce back? Do we live in a universe where bullets bounce of babies? Where I can knock the Earth out of orbit by spitting? Or it possible the reactive force slowed, but did not repell the large fast moving aircraft?

The bottom line is that there would be visible debris crashing
against the steel exterior columns of the WTC. You don't see this,
you don't have a collision.

Nothing else matters if you already proved there was no collision.
Or at least cannot support a collision theory with the available video
evidence. There might be a very high quality video out there that
has been missed. This video might show some plane debris
bouncing in the southerly direction.

But until then, the fact remains that none of the videos show this
kind of evidence.

 

[WTC Dust]

People died on those "imaginary" planes, and those who claim differently are just "dancing on their graves".

Talk about the lowest scum of the earth.

No plane debris bouncing backwards means no collision took place.
You cannot get around this.

 

[WTC Dust]

Well, it certainly wasn't a collision between two solid objects capable of exerting the same force on each other. I think it might have been a collision between a rigid object with a massive amount of potential energy due to its weight and speed and an object that was mostly glass, air and laticework on the surface with steel beams at its core that nobody could see.

This reply is full of ridiculousness.
It's full of "strong plane" and "weak building" misconceptions.

 

[WTC Dust]

As a layman, even I could tell you why the need to be above the towers is a perfectly plausible condition....

...Because, you would need line of sight to target the buildings.

What exactly do you think the size of this weapon is, or how it is used? Without any of this info, which is pretty basic, you can't assume a DEW was used just because you don't like the way the collapse appeared.

Unless this DEW is the size of a pistol or something that some guy across the street could've pointed and shot at the towers, it'd have to be above the towers aiming down, because If this device was a large weapon at street level, it surely would have been noticed by someone.

Being that NYC is a bunch of towers of concrete/steel/what have you, If it was absolutely anywhere else but in close proximity to the towers with line of sight, ANY other structure in the DEWs its path would be dustified as well. Does this weapon have the ability to weave around other structures? If so, where is your evidence of this? Hence - line of sight is necessary.

A mediocre, sophomoric attempt, but I believe I got my point across.

Does that compute?

Why do you think you need line of sight?

 

[WTC Dust]

Pretty much because it ENTERED the building unscathed it didn't CRASH into it.

Nothing crashed against the south face of WTC 2, true.

 

[CastorTroyy]

Why do you think you need line of sight?

If you find it necessary to ask that question, you clearly didn't even read the post haha.

Would you care to answer a couple of the questions within my post, as well as why you believe you don't need line of sight?

Just to get an idea.