Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[WTC Dust]

If I posted a video of a ping pong ball being fired through a sheet of plywood, or a watermelon being fired through a Dodge van, (and leaving a perimeter hole) how would that affect your understanding of the forces of impact velocity on a target?

It would not affect me at all. I already know that acceleration is a feature of collisions. (Deceleration is a kind of acceleration, by the way. So is torsion.)

What's required is an exactly equivalent force applied in exactly opposite directions. The force can take a number of different forms. Acceleration. Twisting. Deformation. These are all evidence of a collision.

Nothing was seen in any of the videos that shows evidence of a collision between any object and the south wall of WTC 2.

 

[WTC Dust]

Ok, so where is the Advanced technology? All you've brought up is essentially magic, since you have not given it any substance.

Don't confuse advanced technology with magic.
I don't know anything about the weapon except what it
does to buildings.

 

[LSSBB]

It would not affect me at all. I already know that acceleration is a feature of collisions. (Deceleration is a kind of acceleration, by the way. So is torsion.)

What's required is an exactly equivalent force applied in exactly opposite directions. The force can take a number of different forms. Acceleration. Twisting. Deformation. These are all evidence of a collision.

Nothing was seen in any of the videos that shows evidence of a collision between any object and the south wall of WTC 2.

There was deformation shown in the video and photographic evidence. The building exterior was deformed, the plane parts show it was demolished.

 

[WTC Dust]

There was deformation shown in the video and photographic evidence. The building exterior was deformed, the plane parts show it was demolished.

Nice try.

A plane would have shown evidence of a collision, not just the building.

 

[beachnut]

It would not affect me at all. I already know that acceleration is a feature of collisions. (Deceleration is a kind of acceleration, by the way. So is torsion.)

What's required is an exactly equivalent force applied in exactly opposite directions. The force can take a number of different forms. Acceleration. Twisting. Deformation. These are all evidence of a collision.

Nothing was seen in any of the videos that shows evidence of a collision between any object and the south wall of WTC 2.

Dening Flight 11 and 175 is nonsese. Not based on physics, based on fantasy.

Jet fuel fireballs match the fuel on board... oops, someone is spreading silly lies.
No-plane nonsense uses no math, no physics, no science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpUKM0MFNaM

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Rec_Radar_Data_Study_all_aircraft.pdf

Science steps in and expose no-plane claims as lies, silly fantasy. aka, nonsense.

Nice try.

A plane would have shown evidence of a collision, not just the building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpUKM0MFNaM
The visual record proves no-plane claims are idiotic claptrap.
No-plane pushers don't do RADAR, that is classic.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

What numbers? I said "some debris". Some debris would qualify.
You don't need numbers to express a quantity.

"Can I have 11 butters?" makes no sense.
"Can I have some butter?" makes sense.

Amounts do not always have to have numbers associated with them.
Some amount of debris bouncing backwards is enough to disprove
my theory. Any amount bouncing backwards is enough.

You are correct, in that your statement "some debris" is uselessly nonspecific and unquantifiable.

How big of a piece of "some debris" would be visible on a VHS camcorder filming something 1000' up and anything from 100' to 5 miles from the impact?

Try not to just use obfuscation as a comprehension-avoidance technique. It does not lend you the appearance of intellect.

 

[LSSBB]

Nice try.

A plane would have shown evidence of a collision, not just the building.

Reading comprehension... the plane parts show the plane was demolished. Deformation of the plane, no?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Nice try.

A plane would have shown evidence of a collision, not just the building.

How rapidly would you expect the "evidence of a collision" to propagate through the structure of the plane? Do you think it would move faster or slower than 660 feet per second?

Yes, I'm flailing on about numbers again.

 

[WTC Dust]

You are correct, in that your statement "some debris" is uselessly nonspecific and unquantifiable.

How big of a piece of "some debris" would be visible on a VHS camcorder filming something 1000' up and anything from 100' to 5 miles from the impact?

Try not to just use obfuscation as a comprehension-avoidance technique. It does not lend you the appearance of intellect.

I'm not trying to impress you with my intellect, so it doesn't matter.
No evidence is no evidence. At least we agree that there is no evidence
of anything like a plane collision. Slowing. Stopping. Twisting. Breaking.
Any of these would qualify and any of these would disprove my theory.

My theory can be disproved.

 

[WTC Dust]

How rapidly would you expect the "evidence of a collision" to propagate through the structure of the plane? Do you think it would move faster or slower than 660 feet per second?

Yes, I'm flailing on about numbers again.

We could get into the details, but I don't see a reason why, since I've
made things so easy.

Any evidence of a plane collision into the south face of WTC 2 would
disprove my theory.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

We could get into the details, but I don't see a reason why, since I've
made things so easy.

Any evidence of a plane collision into the south face of WTC 2 would
disprove my theory.

Reality disproves your ideas, They are not theories in any sense of the word.

 

[WTC Dust]

Reality disproves your ideas, They are not theories in any sense of the word.

My theory can be disproved.

 

[LSSBB]

We could get into the details, but I don't see a reason why, since I've
made things so easy.

Any evidence of a plane collision into the south face of WTC 2 would
disprove my theory.

/thread. WTCDust's theory was apparently then disapproved nearly 12 years ago.

 

[Loss Leader]

My theory can be disproved.

It has been, just not in a way that satisfies your ego.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I'm not trying to impress you with my intellect, so it doesn't matter.
No evidence is no evidence. At least we agree that there is no evidence
of anything like a plane collision. Slowing. Stopping. Twisting. Breaking.
Any of these would qualify and any of these would disprove my theory.

My theory can be disproved.

The videos if the 2nd impact do not contain any footage of the airplane within the structure. Any damage to the airplane would happen on impact with the structure. The visible portions of the airplane are undamaged because they have not yet impacted anything.

Too much too fast for you?

 

[CastorTroyy]

Don't confuse advanced technology with magic.
I don't know anything about the weapon except what it
does to buildings.

Then how can you say for sure that it exists, and it is what destroyed the towers?

Seems like a gargantuan leap of "faith," to me....

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Any evidence of a plane collision into the south face of WTC 2 would disprove my theory.

Okay, so, care to address the video link I've presented previously, googled with "all known footage second impact"?

Every one of these videos was taken from a different location, at a different angle, at a different distance. Every single one of these shows the same incoming trajectory, the same impact point, the same debris ejecta. These videos are either all true, or all false. If all false, then somehow the "perps" managed to convince 5 million potential witnesses to not grab the camcorder and a random tape and leave it on pointed at the smoking tower of the first impact, or "they" managed to secure every single video tape in a 10 mile radius that might have been put into a camcorder on the 11th. Or the footage shows magical 3-d "holograms" that can be projected into clear air in broad daylight over a several mile zone of incoming aircraft trajectory.
(somehow I can't help but think it would be easier to just convince a score of religious maniacs to take over actual airplanes)

The debris ejecta shown in the above videos can be corroborated with debris found downrange of the impact, including a spiraling smoke trail corresponding to the engine found at Church and Murray, and a 100 square foot chunk of fuselage on top of a 40 story building.

A video of the second impact not in the above collection (perhaps someone else remembers the name of this particular clip? I can't at the moment and I'm up WAY past my bedtime for 0430 formation) shows the impact of the plane from the left with another building between the camera and the south tower. The tower can be seen to move on impact, at a timing consistent with the mass of the airplane encountering the core of the tower. The building flexes in the direction of impact and continues to oscillate for several minutes.

Any one of these topics would meet your criteria were you to listen with your fingers out of your ears.

 

[WTC Dust]

Then how can you say for sure that it exists, and it is what destroyed the towers?

Seems like a gargantuan leap of "faith," to me....

Not really.
The WTC dust has a lot of iron fragments in it.
This is not a matter of faith.

The videos of 9/11 don't show any plane debris bouncing
backwards. No faith here, either.

If you know of a way to turn gargantuan steel buildings into
powder at low temperature, let me know. Maybe I've missed
something obvious.

Just don't expect me to believe that an office fire weakened
the building so that gravity destroyed it.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

My theoryIdea/hypothesis can be disproved.

FIFY
And it was, eons ago.

Please learn what a Theory is

 

[CastorTroyy]

Not really.
The WTC dust has a lot of iron fragments in it.
This is not a matter of faith.

Not unexpected given the construction of the towers.

The videos of 9/11 don't show any plane debris bouncing
backwards. No faith here, either.

A simple misunderstanding of physics. I'm not even a physicist and I didn't expect to see anything "bounce backwards." Not to mention I was at P.U. that day in class and saw it hit.

If you know of a way to turn gargantuan steel buildings into
powder at low temperature, let me know. Maybe I've missed
something obvious.

Yes, fly planes at very high speeds, filled with fuel, into the buildings, let 'em burn for an hour un-fought.
Also, the towers weren't turned into dust... As seen by the countless photos of steel wreckage.

Why does your weapon selectively not "dustify" the steel in the towers? Why did it not "dustify" the people who survived in the debris?

Just don't expect me to believe that an office fire weakened
the building so that gravity destroyed it.

Okay, but because you don't believe it does not mean it isn't true, especially when there is tons of evidence to support it. Don't expect me to believe a DEW did it when absolutely no evidence is presented.