Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[dtugg]

Is it still your position that there was no mention of al Qaeda in the media prior to 1998? This is a yes or no question.

Is there a reason that you ignored this question, no-planer-bs?

No-planer-bs?

 

[GlennB]

There would be some margin of error of course but not a significant one I believe.

Bzzzzttttt! Fail.

If you don't know the margin of error, then you don't know what is the smallest effect you can detect. If you don't know that, then you can't claim not to have observed anything. Your analysis is completely worthless.

Dave

The only explanation for Bill's experimental "results" would be that:

a) the experiment was not accurate enough to measure a real deceleration.
b) there was no plane at WTC2

Either way Bill is in a pickle.

 

[bill smith]

The only explanation for Bill's experimental "results" would be that:

a) the experiment was not accurate enough to measure a real deceleration.
b) there was no plane at WTC2

Either way Bill is in a pickle.

There is a third possibility. Maybe the columns were tampered with to weaken them. We know from the 'In Plane Site' video that there was a flash in both buildings right where the planes entered just before impact, so we know that the planes sruck exactly where they were supposed to strike.

 

[funk de fino]

There is a third possibility. Maybe the columns were tampered with to weaken them. We know from the 'In Plane Site' video that there was a flash in both buildings right where the planes entered just before impact, so we know that the planes sruck exactly where they were supposed to strike.

No, we dont.

 

[tfk]

I took a video that showed the approach of the plane and it's complete penetration into the building.

Then I froze he video at the exact moment it's nose touched the columns.

I put a mark on my screen exactly at the end of the tail.

Then I flew the plane again until it's nose just touched the mark and froze it.

Then I clicked the plane through until it's nose just touched the columns again. I counted how may clicks it took to fly that one plane length in other words.


Then I clicked the plane into the building until it was fully in.

Guess what ?

The same amount of clicks .

First off, I am massively skeptical. Why don't you post a link to the video that you used.

Second. You don't know what you are doing...
What makes you think that the velocity of the TAIL of the plane represents the velocity of the PIECES of the plane that have passed into the building?

Why don't you do the same test to the F4 flying into the concrete wall.

When you measure that the tail of that plane does not slow down significantly (and it won't), please come back & explain that the F4 "didn't slow down when it turned to powder on the side of the concrete".

 

[stateofgrace]

I have measured the velocity of the plane entering the building myself Dave and I know that it lost no velocity passing through the 33 columns into the building.. My method was primitve but accurate enough for this purpose.

There is no real point in arguing this with Dave so I ask the critical reader to read my post and then to read his reply. You have to decide for yourself.

Correct your method was primitive and quite frankly laughable. You then use this primitive method to jump to laughable conclusions in order to excuse murderous terrorists who committed mass murder and to try and accuse innocent people of mass murder.

I have decided this all by myself, thank you very much.

 

[tfk]

Well now Dave let's just see...

The plane struck the 500,000 ton building one third of the way down. The plane weighed 150 spread out tons of aluminium, some as thin as 1mm.

This 150 tons represents one three-hundreth of one percent the weight of the building.

So are you saying that this miniscule item smashed through 33 well braced steel box columns and went on to destroy up to ten truly MASSIVE core columns before some parts exited the other side through maybe a dozen more steel box columns. All this destruction happening in the blink of an eye.

We saw the plane enter the building seamlessly and without any apparent loss of velocity.

Are you saying that this plane weighing one three-hundreth of one percent the weight of the building had the energy to destroy the massive columns and set the 500,000 ton building swaying for four minutes- all without any apparent sign of an impact?

Every single sentence in this post proves beyond doubt that you have absolutely zero clue what you are talking about.

You've been told this time & time again. It doesn't slow you down. It doesn't get you to ask for help. It doesn't get you to even TRY to understand where you are screwing up.

You just repeat your same nonsense.

You invoke STATIC comparisons (i.e., the weight of the plane & the tower) to attempt to analyze a DYNAMIC phenomenon.

People have pointed out to you time and again that the SPEED of the plane when it hit plays a KEY role in the phenomenon.

The jet put ENERGY into the building. That energy is converted into damage, noise, & oscillation of the building. While the building oscillates, that energy is being converted back & forth between kinetic energy (velocity of the building) and potential energy (strain in the building's deflections), just like in an oscillating spring. And the energy is being dissipated in the dampening system (i.e., turned into heat).

You don't even know the correct quantities to measure. The oscillating frequency of the building is unrelated to the plane. It is determined by the properties of the building (its construction & its dampening system) only.

It would have the same oscillating frequency if hit with a gust of wind or a tennis ball. (Except that the frequency was likely shifted slightly due to damage the oscillation dampening SYSTEM.)

The quantity that you should be invoking is the MAGNITUDE of the oscillation.

And it did NOT "oscillate back & forth for 4 minutes". It oscillated back & forth from the strike right up to the moment that it collapsed. In smaller & smaller amounts. Just like any spring-mass-damper system that has suffered an impact. It got "imperceptible" to someone at 4 minutes.

Bill, all the above explanation are just going to go into your mental trashcan. I don't know if you even bother to read them. I don't frankly care anymore. The only clear thing is that you ignore all the info that everyone gives you and prance along with your nonsense.

Meanwhile, you understand NOTHING.

You don't know the answers.
You don't even know the right questions.
You don't know how to identify experts & amateurs.
You certainly don't know how to gather or analyze your own data.

You are a font of ignorance.
You attempt to compensate with arrogance.

Oh yeah, and "lol-ing".

Now, back on ignore you go.

tk

 

[bill smith]

Every single sentence in this post proves beyond doubt that you have absolutely zero clue what you are talking about.

You've been told this time & time again. It doesn't slow you down. It doesn't get you to ask for help. It doesn't get you to even TRY to understand where you are screwing up.

You just repeat your same nonsense.

You invoke STATIC comparisons (i.e., the weight of the plane & the tower) to attempt to analyze a DYNAMIC phenomenon.

People have pointed out to you time and again that the SPEED of the plane when it hit plays a KEY role in the phenomenon.

The jet put ENERGY into the building. That energy is converted into damage, noise, & oscillation of the building. While the building oscillates, that energy is being converted back & forth between kinetic energy (velocity of the building) and potential energy (strain in the building's deflections), just like in an oscillating spring. And the energy is being dissipated in the dampening system (i.e., turned into heat).

You don't even know the correct quantities to measure. The oscillating frequency of the building is unrelated to the plane. It is determined by the properties of the building (its construction & its dampening system) only.

It would have the same oscillating frequency if hit with a gust of wind or a tennis ball. (Except that the frequency was likely shifted slightly due to damage the oscillation dampening SYSTEM.)

The quantity that you should be invoking is the MAGNITUDE of the oscillation.

And it did NOT "oscillate back & forth for 4 minutes". It oscillated back & forth from the strike right up to the moment that it collapsed. In smaller & smaller amounts. Just like any spring-mass-damper system that has suffered an impact. It got "imperceptible" to someone at 4 minutes.

Bill, all the above explanation are just going to go into your mental trashcan. I don't know if you even bother to read them. I don't frankly care anymore. The only clear thing is that you ignore all the info that everyone gives you and prance along with your nonsense.

Meanwhile, you understand NOTHING.

You don't know the answers.
You don't even know the right questions.
You don't know how to identify experts & amateurs.
You certainly don't know how to gather or analyze your own data.

You are a font of ignorance.
You attempt to compensate with arrogance.

Oh yeah, and "lol-ing".

Now, back on ignore you go.

tk

Shields up Mr.T. lol

 

[Toke]

Interesting, the distance of the camera and angle to direction of flight would give some error, some trigeometry should tell how big. A much bigger error comes from the above mentioned speed difference between nose and tail. And of course the quality of the video.

Well, if studies of grainy youtube video gives results that does not fit, the obvius solution must be holografic missiles.

 

[DavidJames]

Well, if studies of grainy youtube video gives results that does not fit, the obvius solution must be holografic missiles.

What we witness here many times a day is the result from the perfect storm of Ignorance and Arrogance.

 

[bill smith]

Interesting, the distance of the camera and angle to direction of flight would give some error, some trigeometry should tell how big. A much bigger error comes from the above mentioned speed difference between nose and tail. And of course the quality of the video.

Well, if studies of grainy youtube video gives results that does not fit, the obvius solution must be holografic missiles.

Yes. it is amazing- that difference in speed between the nose and the tail of an aircraft. Refresh my memory would you ? Is the the tail catching up with the nose or is the plane just getting longer all the time ?

 

[Toke]

Yes. it is amazing- that difference in speed between the nose and the tail of an aircraft. Refresh my memory would you ? Is the the tail catching up with the nose or is the plane just getting longer all the time ?

The plane is getting shorter as the nose decelerates/shreeds against the collums.

 

[FineWine]

He's been all over the place and can't quite decide what lie he wants to push. He's trying to play median between no-planer and conventional truther loon... the reputation for trying to argue both gets worse, not better from doing that.

Happy Birthday to you, Grizzly Bear. I'll toast your health with a fine wine.

 

[FineWine]

I don't think that that's an exact representation of what I said about Al-Quaeda but there you have it. Please be advised that I do not actually make the claim for no-planes.
I am simply looking at the feasibiities involved.

You've been caught lying again. Your foolish parroting of the nonsense fabricated by Morgan Reynolds, Ace Baker, and Jim Fetzer stamps you as a no-planer. There isn't exactly a great controversy raging about whether or not a 100-ton projectile moving 500 mph can break windows and steel columns. If you can allow yourself to entertain such fantastic idiocy, you are a no-planer.

 

[FineWine]

Well now Dave let's just see...

The plane struck the 500,000 ton building one third of the way down. The plane weighed 150 spread out tons of aluminium, some as thin as 1mm.This 150 tons represents one three-hundreth of one percent the weight of the building.

STOP! The plane struck specific columns and windows. It did not, and could not, strike the entire building. Reynolds, Baker, and Fetzer are certifiably insane.

So are you saying that this miniscule item smashed through 33 well braced steel box columns and went on to destroy up to ten truly MASSIVE core columns before some parts exited the other side through maybe a dozen more steel box columns. All this destruction happening in the blink of an eye.

This is well explained in Mackey's lecture, the one you lied about watching.

We saw the plane enter the building seamlessly and without any apparent loss of velocity.

You have been caught lying again. The deceleration was measured by Frank Greening, among others.

Are you saying that this plane weighing one three-hundreth of one percent the weight of the building had the energy to destroy the massive columns and set the 500,000 ton building swaying for four minutes- all without any apparent sign of an impact?

Stop being a total jackass and learn something. Your schtick is boring.

 

[A W Smith]

BS answers his own question

I have measured the velocity of the plane entering the building myself Dave and I know that it lost no velocity passing through the 33 columns into the building.. My method was primitve but accurate enough for this purpose.

Especially when the plane is made of aluminium ? Some of it as thin as 1mm ?

There is no real point in arguing this with Dave because I am such a fool I do not realize that my previous claim that the plane is only made of aluminum 1 millimeter thick debunks my claim that the plane did not decelerate and was strong enough to decelerate the tail during impact. So I ask the critical reader to read my post and then to read his reply. You have to decide for yourself.

 

[FineWine]

I took a video that showed the approach of the plane and it's complete penetration into the building.

Then I froze he video at the exact moment it's nose touched the columns.

I put a mark on my screen exactly at the end of the tail.

Then I flew the plane again until it's nose just touched the mark and froze it.

Then I clicked the plane through until it's nose just touched the columns again. I counted how may clicks it took to fly that one plane length in other words.


Then I clicked the plane into the building until it was fully in.

Guess what ?

The same amount of clicks .

You're a liar, Bill (Whoa! Stop the presses!). You did absolutely nothing. You're parroting the bogus nonsense Ace Baker peddles. Baker is insane, however, and got everything wrong. Steve Wright, the video compositing expert who destroyed Baker in their debate, actually did measure the progress of the plane through the building. Guess what? It slows down.

 

[FineWine]

Well let's leave that to any eventual readers to assess for themselves Dave.

Hmmm, Dave Rogers has a PhD in physics, and Bill Smith is an agenda-driven know-nothing. This is a tough one.

 

[FineWine]

There is a third possibility. Maybe the columns were tampered with to weaken them. We know from the 'In Plane Site' video that there was a flash in both buildings right where the planes entered just before impact, so we know that the planes sruck exactly where they were supposed to strike.

You've lost your mind, Bill. Seriously. Your desperate efforts to bring your absurdly impossible conspiracy into existence have driven you stark raving mad.

 

[FineWine]

There is a third possibility. Maybe the columns were tampered with to weaken them. We know from the 'In Plane Site' video that there was a flash in both buildings right where the planes entered just before impact, so we know that the planes sruck exactly where they were supposed to strike.

If you regard my conclusion that you've gone a step too far, taken a dive into an empty pool, fallen into that gaping abyss, as harsh, consider that you have been reduced to pretending that "the planes struck where they were supposed to strike"--the planes, that is, that you doubt existed in the first place.