Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[Resume]

Nobody is talking about the Deutsche Bank as evidence of advanced weaponry, except me.

There's a reason for that.

Nothing in the images provided changes my opinion. I still smelled the WTC stench as last as 2009, coincident with the published article about "smoke" accumulation.

Olfactory hallucinations (phantosmia) are quite common.

 

[Dash80]

There's a reason for that.

Olfactory hallucinations (phantosmia) are quite common.

Deleted.

Not worth getting a warning

 

[WTC Dust]

Oh but it is, a clear sign of a vortex. Look at the pictures again, look at pictures of tornadoes. Different circumstances but same basic principle. A vortex. Do tell us what else it could be, because obviously you know better.

It doesn't look like the wake of an airplane to me, but I'm considering it. Do you have anything else to add that might push me towards accepting it as evidence of a wake?

 

[WTC Dust]

There's a reason for that.

Olfactory hallucinations (phantosmia) are quite common.

Stats on that assertion?

 

[WTC Dust]

The things you talk about resemble a deluded thought process as you refuse to use the application of physics to test against these wild theories. That is a fundamental step you will not take to make your arguments compelling. You'll never get conclusive answers proceeding in this manner. But hey, that's you.

You don't have any business lecturing me about physics, if you think a fragile aluminum airboat can break through steel beams without destroying itself at the south face of WTC 2. It's a stupid story, and you're the one who got suckered by it.

 

[Dash80]

It doesn't look like the wake of an airplane to me, but I'm considering it. Do you have anything else to add that might push me towards accepting it as evidence of a wake?

If it's not evidence of a wake vortex what should that look like? Because it sure as hell looks like one to me, and I'm not the only one. You are the one saying it doesn't look like it, so you explain what we should see.

If you can be bothered to watch the impact videos you will see the vortex in motion, rotating. I don't see how it can be made any clearer to you.

ETA: The smoke, dust and debris allows this vortex to be seen, in the same way a tornado is not technically visible without moisture to create the condensation funnel.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Uh, it can't and it didn't. The plane wasn't visible in the hole for a reason, just not the one you think.

 

[Travis]

Nobody is talking about the Deutsche Bank as evidence of advanced weaponry, except me. Nothing in the images provided changes my opinion. I still smelled the WTC stench as last as 2009, coincident with the published article about "smoke" accumulation.

And nobody seems to be talking about how the Care Bears were pro apartheid propaganda but me.

Why is that? What does everyone have to hide?

 

[phiwum]

You don't have any business lecturing me about physics, if you think a fragile aluminum airboat can break through steel beams without destroying itself at the south face of WTC 2. It's a stupid story, and you're the one who got suckered by it.

With due respect, which is admittedly little, yes, indeed, folks who have studied physics have business lecturing you about that subject.

Now, I'm not one of those folks and I don't know whether Millikin is either, but there certainly are plenty of those folks here and they've told you that you're all wet.

It takes enormous ego to assume that all of the people pointing out the role of momentum in determining the effects of a collision are wrong. To be sure, you've no reason to believe that any of them are experts, without independent verification, but why would so many people oppose you (given that you don't believe in a vast conspiracy)? Do they all have physical intuitions inferior to your own?

Is a fantastic new weapon that foamifies (some) steel, but curls bronze really more plausible to you?

God help your medical test subjects.

 

[Dash80]

You don't have any business lecturing me about physics, if you think a fragile aluminum airboat can break through steel beams without destroying itself at the south face of WTC 2. It's a stupid story, and you're the one who got suckered by it.

I'm sorry are you implying the plane stayed INTACT?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

if you think a fragile aluminum airboat can break through steel beams without destroying itself ...

Where did you dream up that straw man argument? Nobody believes the planes weren't destroyed. You can scarcely be unaware of that.

Would you like us to repeat listing fragile things which can smash through strong things while being destroyed in the process?

Let me start:
1) The soft copper core of an antitank shell punches through thick steel armour but it itself destroyed.

 

[Resume]

Stats on that assertion?

Might have overstated. Olfactory hallucinations are common among migraine sufferers (25% of women report such headaches) and some of those afflicted with sinusitus.

 

[Resume]

You don't have any business lecturing me about physics, if you think a fragile aluminum airboat can break through steel beams without destroying itself at the south face of WTC 2. It's a stupid story, and you're the one who got suckered by it.

Yes, one would be stupid to advance the idea that the planes weren't destroyed. Just look at all the various airplane parts recovered at and around ground zero.

 

[triforcharity]

How surprised would you be if Elvis walked in and offered you a unicorn sandwich?

About that much.

Not at all then? She's most likely experienced that. I mean, come on.....

 

[Dash80]

Yes, one would be stupid to advance the idea that the planes weren't destroyed. Just look at all the various airplane parts recovered at and around ground zero.

The B-25 bomber that hit the steel and masonary clad ESB penetrated, in fact aircraft debris (including an engine) shot right through the other side... Fancy that!

 

[000063]

Since the evidence is that they did, then your musings are incorrect. Not too terribly difficult to understand, is it?

Apparently so.

 

[WTC Dust]

You never considered 20,000+ gallons of fuel in these airliners. That's over 80 tons: Combine that with the plane, the plane's cargo and passengers, this becomes a 200+ ton vehicle flying at over 500mph to smash into the buildings.
Oh yeah, this did some major damage.

You're not clairvoyant, so don't make that claim, or the JREFers might start looking to you for that million dollars.

No amount of jet fuel is going to do THAT to the WTC.

 

[WTC Dust]

...and you don't necessary have to cut through the column..just break the 4 bolts that hold them together:

[qimg]http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i41/macgyver1968a/fig-B-7-1.gif[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i41/macgyver1968a/fig-B-1.jpg[/qimg]

Looking at the steel that was left over is valuable and interesting. Just don't ignore the steel that was turned into dust.

 

[twinstead]

No amount of jet fuel is going to do THAT to the WTC.

You keep saying that. It doesn't get any righter the more often you claim it. Stick to your strengths; pardon me if I want the opinion of real experts.

 

[WTC Dust]

Missing the point again. All kinds of counterintuitive things can happen in extreme conditions. I once saw a video of two skydivers colliding in midair. One person had his legs sheared off and the other guy died. Are you really going to stand by your claim that relatively "fragile" objects can't do significant amounts of damage when propelled to high velocities???

Not at all. I'm saying that fragile things can't cause damage to stronger things without also damaging themselves.

No evidence of a plane crashing into the south face of WTC 2? No plane crash.