Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[BigAl]

I just thought of something Twinstead. The distance between the floors of the Towers was I believe 12 feet and three inches. But the diameter of the fuselage of a 767 is fifteen feet six inches...are you with me ?

So would the concrete floors, not have carved off some of the only millimeters thick lightweight aluminium as the plane went in ? And would the emerging plane have looked as it did ?

This video explains what happened and why
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrirlTw8c

 

[bill smith]

This video explains what happened and why
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrirlTw8c

I'll look later.

 

[twinstead]

I just thought of something Twinstead. The distance between the floors of the Towers was I believe 12 feet and three inches. But the diameter of the fuselage of a 767 is fifteen feet six inches...are you with me ?

So would the concrete floors, not have carved off some of the only millimeters thick lightweight aluminium as the plane went in ? And would the emerging plane have looked as it did ?

Note that no debris fell down the entry side of the building.
I hope you guys have a good answer....

http://nomoregames.net/presentations/Madison_No_Planes_Final_August_07.ppt_files/slide0045_image034 Nose Cone
http://nomoregames.net/presentation...al_August_07.ppt_files/slide0046_image035.png Nose cone 2

PS

In several videos of the penetration and emergence the nose going in and the nose coming out they are the same size. (the micro-precision match) But that must mean that the plane is to small going iin.... 12 feet 3 inces or less when we know that he diameter of a 767 is fifteen feet six inches.

Dude. Arguments from incredulity are NOT impressive. I'm sorry you don't understand. Enough people DO to satisfy me.

 

[TruthersLie]

Controlled demolition is proof of inside job. No planes is proof the networks were in on it. That's all we need for now. Speculation about flight 93 doesn't add to the evidence or strengthen the arguments and it lets the debunkers have a field day.

Great. If you have proof of Controlled Demolitions please present it. So far you have just handwaved it away. Provide proof.

explosives make noise, flashes of light and create seismic disturbances. None found. And massive sections of the interior have to be cut away to do it. No one ever said anything to anyone.

verinage uses massive hydraulic pumps with huge hydraulic jacks. Takes up even more space, and more things need to be done.

thermite/thermate? Prove it can cut through a steel beam horizontally or obliquely, and then prove that you can have multiple beams cut at nearly the same time.

nanothermite? Prove it. Not paint flecks in bad science, but actually prove it. Even s jones is backing away from that quackery.

so do we have some unknown CD method that has never been seen before? Provide proof. It should be simple.

You start from a BOGUS hypothesis, and then make bad assessments. It should be easy to prove it was CD. Please provide some.

I'm guessing he formulated the list of necessary conditions while he was working on his reconstructions of the 9/11 composites. His composites are just as realistic as the ones that were broadcast by the TV networks on 9/11, which is to say, not very...

and I'm guessing that Ace baker and no planers are really no brainers with no experience and even less education. Please prove me wrong.

If the first plane had hit the south face of the south tower, there would have been no smoke in the way of the second plane as it approached the north face of the north tower. More crucially, the TV cameras would have been guaranteed to film the plane crash into the side of the building.

arguments from absurdity noted. Please try to focus on reality. YOu might want to ask the group home folks for better meds.

If the footage was so important to the Jihadists, why did they risk there not being any footage of the impact, by flying the second plane in on the blind side of the studios?

ROFLMAO. Next time, I'm sure that UBL will make sure they set up IMAX quality high speed cameras so no one will steal his credit.

You believe Armstrong walked on the moon???

Feel free to tell that to Buzz Aldrin. I'd love to watch it.

Is it cowardly to admit you don't know everything? Is it cowardly to want to avoid speculating? Is it courageous to swallow a story based on 19 arab hijackers when there's no evidence they even boarded the planes?

No it is cowardly to go on an internet chat board and accuse tens of thousands of people of being conspiracies to commit murder. It is cowardly to state that the FDNY murdered their own.

Not only are you a moral and ethical dwarf, you are also a great hypocrite.
your own hypocrisy is noted here

Is it cowardly to want to avoid speculating?

When you speculate that there were no planes, when you speculate that the US government (or Mossad or whoever) murdered 3000 people even though the evidence (the mountains of physical evidence) clearly demonstrates that 19 arab fundamentalist extremists did it. I love the hypocrisy.

Internet commando for twoof who is too busy to prove the KSM didn't do it, or too busy to provide proof of the greatest story EVER...

I can give you a quick resume of what I do know after examining the evidence, but I'm not prepared to fill the gaps in by speculating on things I don't know.

That hasn't stopped you so far. In fact, the one thing you have is a big mouth with an inverse relationship with brain capacity.

1. There were explosions in both towers.

PROVE IT THEN. it should be easy. Even 4lbs of explosive would have left a seismic readout... where is it? 30 lbs of explosive is enough to make people jump at 500 feet because it is soooooooo loud. Yet there is no video of explosions.

2. A plane was faked live on TV and later more fake plane footage was shown on TV.

PROVE IT THEN. it should be easy. Not arguments from ignorance. Show us that you have ANY CLUE about how to do it. So far you have been completely schooled.

3. Several eyewitnesses lied about seeing planes and many of these were employed by the TV companies or had close ties with the media.

GREAT. Please prove they were LYING. And it wasn't the heat of the moment and the confusion of the immediate aftermath. again, it should be easy.

4. Three buildings were demolished.

See #1,2 and 3 above.

5. TV coverage of the day's events was guided by counter-terrorism analysts in the studios, such as John Miller, Jerome Hauer, Steven Simon and James Rubin, who laid down the foundations for the official conspiracy theory involving Islamic suicide pilots.

What official conspiracy theory? Where did this come from? Which government agency? Who released this information?

Do you think threats count as hard evidence? Why do the FBI say they have nothing on Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks?

Ah yes... this old cannard. You really should look up what he is wanted for and why. That is a nice bit of twoofer datamining. Why is it that twoofs can never do research?

 

[TruthersLie]

Any ideas how a piece of fuselage from the back of the plane could have been blown forward by an explosion in the middle of the plane?

[qimg]http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/6.jpg[/qimg]

Are you really that ignorant? I would have figured that a manchester education would be better than that.

1. it wasn't an "explosion" in the middle of the plane...

The aircraft moving 500 mph hits a solid object, the aircraft is shredded, but the debris are now moving through the object they hit and the momentum is carrying that debris forward. It should go through the object (the building) nd parts of it will exit along the trajectory using the momentum.

next you will ask about "untouchted" passports, and other crapola.

Really, you had so much promise and now you are reduced to this????

 

[TruthersLie]

I invite readers to run the video and note that the shape of the buidings are clear enough, as is the shape of the emerging object. This is clearly no engine or plume of dust as debunkers often maintain.

emember hat a delicate plane went through the 33 well braced 14'' x 14'' x 3/8'' steel box columns on the entry side. So what does the emerging oblect remind you of ?

Billy.

Why is it you continue to avoid this video like the plague?


It shows you what went in, and what came out.

come on billy... it isn't that hard.

 

[TruthersLie]

I just thought of something Twinstead. The distance between the floors of the Towers was I believe 12 feet and three inches. But the diameter of the fuselage of a 767 is fifteen feet six inches...are you with me ?

So would the concrete floors, not have carved off some of the only millimeters thick lightweight aluminium as the plane went in ? And would the emerging plane have looked as it did ?

Note that no debris fell down the entry side of the building.
I hope you guys have a good answer....

http://nomoregames.net/presentations/Madison_No_Planes_Final_August_07.ppt_files/slide0045_image034 Nose Cone
http://nomoregames.net/presentation...al_August_07.ppt_files/slide0046_image035.png Nose cone 2

PS

In several videos of the penetration and emergence the nose going in and the nose coming out they are the same size. (the micro-precision match) But that must mean that the plane is to small going iin.... 12 feet 3 inces or less when we know that he diameter of a 767 is fifteen feet six inches.

<facepalm>
Oh billy.

how often do I have to show you this?


Huh?

Your arguments from incredulity and idiocy are noted. There is NO microprecision match of the nose in/nose out wackiness. Do I have to show you alan lawsons demolition of Ace Baker yet again?

 

[DGM]

I wonder what was in the east penthouse of WTC7 that they had to drop it into the building first so that the rest of the rubble would fall on top and hide it ? Maybe something explosive that would have enhanced the fireball when flight 93 nosedived to it. Well.....gotta speculate to accumulate.

You know just when I say I'm done reading your posts you come up with this. You know if you stopped accusing the FDNY of murder the comic value of your posts would be epic. You should work on that.

 

[jaydeehess]

I invite readers to run the video and note that the shape of the buidings are clear enough, as is the shape of the emerging object. This is clearly no engine or plume of dust as debunkers often maintain.

Irrelevent! How can you admit that fixed objects the size of windows seem to be missing and not wonder how that will affect another object not too much different in size than a window (that is to say , 'number of total pixels') would be affected?

The generational and/or compression/recompression losses that do this. At its worst you seem blocking noise where all objects in a line or across the whole scene look like a Picasso cubist painting.

The engine is basically a cylinder and viewed in profile it will be a rectilinear shape in 2-d (which a TV Screen is of course) Viewed slightly off from a direct profile it will become more conical. In any video shot that day, unless it was uncompressed hi-def digital recording, will not be able to resolve small detail very well. I do not believe that there were any of the somewhat rare (in 2001) ENG hi-def digital cameras on scene. Today you can get a pretty decent 'prosumer' hi-def video camera and tapeless storage plus professional battery pack adaptors for about $10K.

remember hat a delicate plane went through the 33 well braced 14'' x 14'' x 3/8'' steel box columns on the entry side. So what does the emerging oblect remind you of ?

Bill, what are the people in the plane standing on? What is the baggage loaded onto? How does the wing lift the entire aircraft off the ground and what are the landing gear attached to?

The skin in a few mm thick but it is attached to structures that allow the aircraft to experience some pretty high stresses and the lower part must be able to allow the wing to lift the entire aircraft. It must allow the fuselage to flex as little as possible along its length while being lifted by the wing or taking the weight on the landing gear.

All of this mass is moving at 500 MPH. The front may squash as it hits the side of a column but it is being followed by tons of more mass and the columns MUST bend. Bend enough , quickly enough and they snap.

I asked for a video showing a partially filled soda can being sent at a piece of 1/8 inch angle iron at various speeds. So far nothing.

We have pointed out that a soft lead bullet will and does penetrate steel, even concrete block.

 

[carlitos]

bardamu, you missed the important part of my logic quiz. You replaced "know" with "believe" in your answer. Try using the same criteria to evaluate these things. Post evidence that supports your belief.

If the answer is "yes" for any of the above, I'm curious as to how you 'know' it exists.

If the answer is "no" for any of the above, I'm curious as to how you 'know' that it doesn't exist.

 

[jaydeehess]

Do you know that 90% plus of architects and engineers who attend the internationally famous architect Richard Gage's lectures.are instantly, (over the course of a single lecture )converted to the controlled demolition hypothesis ? for WTC7 ? I have videos I can show you. Would that not indicate that my theory rather than yours is the correct one ?

.

Does the fact that the achitects and engineers of the CTBUH, the ACSE etc. who do not attend gage's seromns and who's organizations have publically denounced the findings of gage et al not indicate to you that your teoru lacks much support in the relevent feilds?

I mean Gage already has 1,000 architects nd engineers signed up and demanding a new 9/11 investigation

Really? Actual, achitects and engineers with credentials and all?

let alone the tens of thousands who do not dare sign but are fully aware and monitoring the situation?

Pure speculation borne of your desire that it be so.

Unless you are saying that the terrorists somwhow wired WTC7 for demolition it has to be an inside job.

There is no evidence whatsoever for explosives or thermite in WTC 7 so there is no wiring job, by surreptitious spooks or terrorists.

I am not derailing here, I am showing that your theory is hopelessly undermined and weak.

The only thing you can make look weak is a cup of tea. The 911TM contentions are weak all on their own.

 

[bill smith]

Irrelevent! How can you admit that fixed objects the size of windows seem to be missing and not wonder how that will affect another object not too much different in size than a window (that is to say , 'number of total pixels') would be affected?

The generational and/or compression/recompression losses that do this. At its worst you seem blocking noise where all objects in a line or across the whole scene look like a Picasso cubist painting.

The engine is basically a cylinder and viewed in profile it will be a rectilinear shape in 2-d (which a TV Screen is of course) Viewed slightly off from a direct profile it will become more conical. In any video shot that day, unless it was uncompressed hi-def digital recording, will not be able to resolve small detail very well. I do not believe that there were any of the somewhat rare (in 2001) ENG hi-def digital cameras on scene. Today you can get a pretty decent 'prosumer' hi-def video camera and tapeless storage plus professional battery pack adaptors for about $10K.




Bill, what are the people in the plane standing on? What is the baggage loaded onto? How does the wing lift the entire aircraft off the ground and what are the landing gear attached to?

The skin in a few mm thick but it is attached to structures that allow the aircraft to experience some pretty high stresses and the lower part must be able to allow the wing to lift the entire aircraft. It must allow the fuselage to flex as little as possible along its length while being lifted by the wing or taking the weight on the landing gear.

All of this mass is moving at 500 MPH. The front may squash as it hits the side of a column but it is being followed by tons of more mass and the columns MUST bend. Bend enough , quickly enough and they snap.

I asked for a video showing a partially filled soda can being sent at a piece of 1/8 inch angle iron at various speeds. So far nothing.

We have pointed out that a soft lead bullet will and does penetrate steel, even concrete block.

Well readers you must decide for yourself whether Jaydee here is patronising you or not.

In the meantime here is a high velocity steel jacketed bullet not going hrough iron. Note that the return speed of the bullet is probably in the region of the same speed the plane was doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ABGIJwiGBc

 

[dudalb]

You know just when I say I'm done reading your posts you come up with this. You know if you stopped accusing the FDNY of murder the comic value of your posts would be epic. You should work on that.

I am now convinced that Billy Boy is just a unusually persisnent troll who gets his/her jollies out of messing with us. Don't feed the troll.

 

[jaydeehess]

This video explains what happened and why
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrirlTw8c

It mentions what the much slower kamikaze did to the Hinsdale which was made of much thicker steel than the columns of the towers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hinsdale_APA-120_-_kamikaze.jpg

There bill that takes all of a second or two to look at this picture. That plane ended up inside the Hinsdale bill.

BTW the video is less than 7 minutes long and quite instructive.

 

[DGM]

I am now convinced that Billy Boy is just a unusually persisnent troll who gets his/her jollies out of messing with us. Don't feed the troll.

Oh come on! He/She's lonely and got nothing better to do. Besides, he/she's the best dis-info agent we got.

 

[beachnut]

"Nose-out" claptrap is used to expose the dirt dumb idea movement followers that are detached from reality, falling for lies made up by morons. The "nose-out" fraud is the bait to find the knowledge challenged 911TruthLies followers who prefer delusions over reality.

The debris coming out of the WTC (after an impact of 4,380,000,000 joules) looks like the nose of a Boeing for a moment (not really, but as much as a cloud looks like some other object); the blind followers of a failed movement void of evidence fall for one of the dumbest ideas made up by the mentally ill.

The kool-aid drinking conspiracy junkies have no clue what a joule is which leads to their blind allegiance to Jones and other dolts leading the “We R Lies on 911” super-nano-delusion club.

 

[dafydd]

And his/her plodding,unintentional humour,reminiscent of a rhinoceros trying to pick up a pea with it's lips is very entertaining.What odds will you give me on Bill answering my question about what happened on 9/11?

 

[bill smith]

A little earlier I posted this

" In several videos of the penetration and emergence the nose going in and the nose coming out they are the same size. (the micro-precision match) But that must mean that the plane is to small going iin.... 12 feet 3 inces or less when we know that he diameter of a 767 is fifteen feet six inches..''

Here's just such a video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWSW...DFF7AA01&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=72


Note that whether or not what emerges is the plane nose, whatever it is is exactly the same size and shape as the nose of the plane that went in on the entry side.

But if that was a 767 with the standard 15 feet six inches diameter and it had to squeeze between the floors twelve feet three inches apart how can it be the same shape going in as coming out ?

 

[beachnut]

Which part of 4,380,000,000 joules are the kool-aid drinking cult members unable to comprehend?
Zero comprehension of physics leads to the moronic “nose-out” lie.

 

[bill smith]

Which part of 4,380,000,000 joules are the kool-aid drinking cult members unable to comprehend?
Zero comprehension of physics leads to the moronic “nose-out” lie.

If you listen to Dan Rather commentating in the video I just posted he confirms the nose-out. He says that the plane 'pierced the building'.