Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[Mudcat]

There was a small error in your post that I have corrected.

While that's certainly true, I was hoping to provide a starting point. Why, if the Truthers take on too much I'm afraid their poor little minds will explode.

 

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post






What does your response have to do with the OP or what I said in my post?

What do your posts have to do with reality? Do you believe that the steel was turned to dust by an energy beam weapon? If you do then there will be three believers in the world. I presume that you have read and under stood the title of this thread.

 

[dafydd]

Did I broach the energy weapon? Nope.
.

You are giving support and credence to Dusty. Do you believe in the existence of the energy beam weapon? It's a simple question, why can't you answer yes or no?

 

[Clayton Moore]

You are giving support and credence to Dusty. Do you believe in the existence of the energy beam weapon? It's a simple question, why can't you answer yes or no?

Did I broach the energy weapon? Nope.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Aristotle

 

[abaddon]

Did I broach the energy weapon? Nope.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Aristotle

Have you entertained the thought of an energy weapon?

 

[Dcdrac]

so you accept there was no energy weapon, and an educated man would be able to very quickly see the truther position for what it is, an absurd sub Capricorn 1 style fantasy

 

[dafydd]

Did I broach the energy weapon? Nope.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Aristotle

It is the mark of an educated mind not to believe in stupid conspiracy theories.-Dafydd Surely you can answer the question? I don't believe in energy beam weapons, do you?_

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQWzdc175A

At 1:45 of the video the nose of Flight 175 exits the tower INTACT. Can you explain that?

Yes. It isn't the "nose" of the plane.


What it is is a column of air and fuel from the fuselage and center tank which then explodes.

 

[dafydd]

Yes. It isn't the "nose" of the plane.


What it is is a column of air and fuel from the fuselage and center tank which then explodes.

How dare you burst a twoofer fantasy bubble!

 

[Clayton Moore]

Yes. It isn't the "nose" of the plane.


What it is is a column of air and fuel from the fuselage and center tank which then explodes.

A column of air and fuel exits the tower before an explosion?

The alleged plane crashes into the tower and there is no explosion until after this instance of an exit in the video?

Also at 1:45 before the alleged plane even enters the tower it is hidden by the New York Good Day logo.

 

[Dcdrac]

no serious rational person doubts that two planes were crashed into those buildings

 

[Clayton Moore]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg

Note how parts of the alleged plane keep disappearing before and AS itslides into/hits the tower.

 

[abaddon]

[qimg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg[/qimg]

Note how parts of the alleged plane keep disappearing before and AS itslides into/hits the tower.

For starters, you embedded a yootoob video inside image tags.

Oh you super intelligent scallywag.

Have you ever heard of compression artefacts? No? Not on the super intelligent reading list?

 

[Mycroft]

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.

Newton's third law just says that when a body exerts force on another body, that other body exerts force in return. It doesn't require that anything "bounce".

In this case the force exerted on the airplane by the building resulted in the destruction of the airplane. It's not very surprising when you consider that both the airplane and the building were relatively fragile structures with lots of hollow space inside.

 

[LSSBB]

For starters, you embedded a yootoob video inside image tags.

Oh you super intelligent scallywag.

Have you ever heard of compression artefacts? No? Not on the super intelligent reading list?

Hey, I'm sure there are 98.7 other people out there who also do not understand compression artifacts.

 

[tsig]

I have to admit to a certain morbid curiosity about what Truthers think should have happened with the WTC.

Some think the top should have nestled down and came to rest, others think the 20 top floors should have destroyed 20 lower floors and stopped, others think it should have slid off the side and still others who think the whole building should have toppled like a tree. The one I like best said the top should have slid off and bounced down the street.

 

[Mudcat]

Some think the top should have nestled down and came to rest, others think the 20 top floors should have destroyed 20 lower floors and stopped, others think it should have slid off the side and still others who think the whole building should have toppled like a tree. The one I like best said the top should have slid off and bounced down the street.

Thank you for your response. Some of those sound like they could happen, others sound like the believers are living in an alternate reality where cartoon physics are in play.

 

[JohnG]

Seeing as Truthers believe the conspirators made so many mistakes, what with the "bad actors", software "glitches", living hijackers and shameless violations of the laws of physics, what would have happened to the conspirator's plans if a software glitch had caused the holographic planes to dissolve in a burst of holographic voxels* prior to "striking" the towers?

If the conspirators were trying to convince the world that planes crashed into buildings, wouldn't it have been simpler and "safer" (from the conspirators' POV) to crash real planes into the buildings?







*Oh god, I've given the Truthers a new term to babble on about. Apologies in advance to rational, intelligent people of the world.

 

[abaddon]

Oh god, I've given the Truthers a new term to babble on about. Apologies in advance to rational, intelligent people of the world.

Prove voxels do not exist.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg

Note how parts of the alleged plane keep disappearing before and AS itslides into/hits the tower.

How do you think that 200 frames per second footage was obtained? Do you imagine somebody was recording the crash at 200 fps?

This video is just the equivalent of that magic image "enhance" function beloved by CSI type shows. It's not real. It starts with a copy of the original footage, shot at presumably 30fps, and then a computer makes up all the frames that fit in between the real ones.

You can't analyse that to glean new information, because all the new information it contains is entirely fabricated by a computer.