What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

page: 31
8
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


This is a lie:


The jet flies into the building, all the way down to the tail, without slowing down.


There is always some deceleration, but the time scale is too brief for the naked eye to interpret.



This has been proved by calculating the frame rates it takes for the jet to fly through the air, and the frame rate it takes for the jet to fly into the buildings, which are the same.


Another lie. The only way for these fantasies to have an semblance of anything, is to lie...openly and bluntly lie....and hope that you are not called out on the lies.




posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by septic
 


This is a lie:


The jet flies into the building, all the way down to the tail, without slowing down.


There is always some deceleration, but the time scale is too brief for the naked eye to interpret.



This has been proved by calculating the frame rates it takes for the jet to fly through the air, and the frame rate it takes for the jet to fly into the buildings, which are the same.


Another lie. The only way for these fantasies to have an semblance of anything, is to lie...openly and bluntly lie....and hope that you are not called out on the lies.


Well, this is close to debating my points...at least you are itemizing your false accusations.

The "naked eye" in this case would be the cameras which use a timing sequence to take multiple images at regular intervals, thereby creating "videos". When measuring the distance the image of the jet travels between frames, it has been proved the jet cut into the building all the way to the tippy tip of the tail at the same speed it traveled through the air.

But come, have you read the OP?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


This is wrong:


When measuring the distance the image of the jet travels between frames, it has been proved the jet cut into the building all the way to the tippy tip of the tail at the same speed it traveled through the air.


There is a video examining this very topic, I have seen it on YouTube. Why not go hunting for it?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia
 


Since you can't scrutinize the evidence and come up with a better explanation, can you find someone who can? Gather pteridine and go expert hunting.

That you disagree with the conclusions is evident, but if you can't debate my points, you lose.



Your evidence is merely that, in your opinion, the damage was hit from left to right. I and others have questioned this point and debated it, and instead of thinking about it, you reject anything that might remind you a plane because you have inoculated yourself into believing that it is absolutely, positively impossible for a plane to have done it. If I built a time machine and showed you, I bet you'd say it was clever holograms and that the missiles were cloaked! How they would hide the smoke trail from a missile, I have no idea.

Your theory rides on the plane being impossible. In order for the plane to be impossible, all the videos, photos, and witnesses must be wrong or fake. To prove that your theory is correct, you must then logically prove that the videos, photos, and witnesses are wrong or fake. You cannot back your theory up by saying your theory automatically disproves everything else. That is just junk science.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by septic
 


This is wrong:


When measuring the distance the image of the jet travels between frames, it has been proved the jet cut into the building all the way to the tippy tip of the tail at the same speed it traveled through the air.


There is a video examining this very topic, I have seen it on YouTube. Why not go hunting for it?


Thanks for the tip.

Have you read the OP?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Your theory rides on the plane being impossible.


If you must know, my "theory" is simply an attempt to explain the damage to columns 145-152, and it does not "ride" on the plane being impossible, it is derived from the acknowledgement that the plane was impossible.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia
 





Your theory rides on the plane being impossible.


If you must know, my "theory" is simply an attempt to explain the damage to columns 145-152, and it does not "ride" on the plane being impossible, it is derived from the acknowledgement that the plane was impossible.



That's exactly the same thing. You looked at the damage, said "A plane is impossible," and now deny that any evidence that supports a plane is fake. That's bad science, front and center.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 






That's exactly the same thing. You looked at the damage, said "A plane is impossible," and now deny that any evidence that supports a plane is fake. That's bad science, front and center.


They're not "exactly the same thing"...can you tell how they differ?
You wouldn't know bad science if it stuck to your pointed head.

Did you see how your MIT paper you used to prove aluminum wings can slice steel was shredded? They didn't prove anything, therefor the door is open for your attempt. Go ahead, prove a lie.

Say, have you read the OP yet?



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia
 





Your theory rides on the plane being impossible.


If you must know, my "theory" is simply an attempt to explain the damage to columns 145-152, and it does not "ride" on the plane being impossible, it is derived from the acknowledgement that the plane was impossible.



Who acknowledged that the plane was impossible? You and a few other deluded egomaniacs? It is far more possible than invsible missiles.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


www.flickr.com...

See that close-up? That's the very end of the wing. Now, think about how much mass will be behind that. Also consider that regardless of where it is on the plane, it has all the momentum from the entire mass as a unit. It is still going 500 mph, and that is a really high speed. High speed means high force, exponentially. 250^2 is 62,500. 500^2 is 250,000. Do you comprehend how much more energy that is? That's almost four times as much. Apply that to the mass of the wing part that is impacting. I don't see how it could NOT go through.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Say hello to my little friend.




posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic
 


www.flickr.com...

See that close-up? That's the very end of the wing. Now, think about how much mass will be behind that. Also consider that regardless of where it is on the plane, it has all the momentum from the entire mass as a unit. It is still going 500 mph, and that is a really high speed. High speed means high force, exponentially. 250^2 is 62,500. 500^2 is 250,000. Do you comprehend how much more energy that is? That's almost four times as much. Apply that to the mass of the wing part that is impacting. I don't see how it could NOT go through.


What the heck are you talking about! No, the wing tip does NOT have the momentum from the entire mass, it is PART of the entire mass moving at the same momentum. Jebus! For the same reason the spear won't pierce the tree when thrown sideways! The mass of the wing tip is NOT the mass of the freaking jet!

It's clear you don't see how it could NOT go through because you have some sort of video game concept of physics.



edit on 10-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


A little thing about the spear analogy. It is completely unrelated. You see, a tree has way more mass than the spear, and usually a spear is wider than the tree. So, when you try to throw it longways at high speed, the momentum of the object as a whole will try to continue forward, the middle will be stopped by the energy absorption of the tree, but the sides will keep going and cause the spear to snap in half.

With the tower, the wings are thicker than the steel. They have more mass, especially in the parts where jet fuel is held. Going 500 mph as I've repeatedly explained, gives the wings and the rest of the plane ridiculous amounts of force and momentum. The structure inside the wings is angled such that while it shreds and pushes on the steel and such, it will not maintain a straight trajectory. It will hit with angled results from the inside of the plane. See, the parts of a plane may be lightweight, but they are meant to stick together, so when it impacts and shreds, the parts are still pulling on each-other, especially in the wings, where there is carbon fiber and other materials meant to be able to flex and resist the damaging forces of wind and water in the air at high speeds.

I'm not sure how you imagine the tower wall can be so strong.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic
 


A little thing about the spear analogy. It is completely unrelated. You see, a tree has way more mass than the spear, and usually a spear is wider than the tree. So, when you try to throw it longways at high speed, the momentum of the object as a whole will try to continue forward, the middle will be stopped by the energy absorption of the tree, but the sides will keep going and cause the spear to snap in half.



Incredible. It was a simple analogy designed to illustrate a simple point. Fine, make the tree into the broadside of a barn. Get the picture now?




With the tower, the wings are thicker than the steel.



Oh. My. God.



They have more mass, especially in the parts where jet fuel is held.





Not even remotely true.



Going 500 mph as I've repeatedly explained, gives the wings and the rest of the plane ridiculous amounts of force and momentum.


Anything the wings strike at 500 MPH, strikes the wing at 500 MPH, as I've repeatedly explained.



The structure inside the wings is angled such that while it shreds and pushes on the steel and such, it will not maintain a straight trajectory. It will hit with angled results from the inside of the plane. See, the parts of a plane may be lightweight, but they are meant to stick together, so when it impacts and shreds, the parts are still pulling on each-other, especially in the wings, where there is carbon fiber and other materials meant to be able to flex and resist the damaging forces of wind and water in the air at high speeds.


Remarkable.



I'm not sure how you imagine the tower wall can be so strong.



I'm speechless.




edit on 10-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


Prove it. I'm tired of you sidestepping every request that's made of you. Prove that the freaking steel was thicker than the plane wing. Prove that it had the energy absorption capabilities necessary to dissipate the force of the mass of the wings' impact. Prove anything!



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 






Prove it. I'm tired of you sidestepping every request that's made of you. Prove that the freaking steel was thicker than the plane wing. Prove that it had the energy absorption capabilities necessary to dissipate the force of the mass of the wings' impact. Prove anything!


Hoooboy...simmer down there varemia, you're starting to foam at the mouth.

I have been proving stuff all day long son, really...it's just that you've been in a trance most of your life. I understand how hard this is to believe but yep, the government lied to you. And they're still lying...no need to lie to yourself too.

On another thread I just put the lie to the claim that the concrete in WTC6 turned to lava, yet the NY Police Museum proudly displays it as evidence that it did. It's impossible. People lie...not ALL people (I know how you guys think in extremes), but some people, and the people who lie are the people who usually make it to the world's most powerful positions. The very positions needed for 911.

BECAUSE the police lied about the Lava, we should look with new eyes on their other proof, shouldn't we? At least if we're being truly honest, shouldn't we take with a grain of salt anyone who claims concrete turned to lava but didn't melt the aggregate in the concrete, much less the firearms encased therein?
edit on 10-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


You're lying and sidestepping the question again. I will persist. Answer the question. Prove that the steel had enough energy absorption capabilities to resist the plane impact. I will not let up, and every post after this will be requesting it without fail. You can try to distract by making nonsense claims or attacking my character, but I'm tired of your crap. Prove your theory or get the hell off this site.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic
 


You're lying and sidestepping the question again. I will persist. Answer the question. Prove that the steel had enough energy absorption capabilities to resist the plane impact. I will not let up, and every post after this will be requesting it without fail. You can try to distract by making nonsense claims or attacking my character, but I'm tired of your crap. Prove your theory or get the hell off this site.


No, you just asked me to "prove anything", and I gave you an example, and if you weren't being deceitful, that should give you pause.

I'm not side stepping anything, I think anyone suffering through this thread can see that.

This is just one telephone pole. Make it a square steel box with sharp edges, multiply it by a couple dozen, and laterally support them with four-foot wide plates of steel, and brace them with trusses and a four-inch thick concrete floor, a center core, and another couple dozen beyond that, all tied together with structural steel, welds and bolts.and then speed up the plane to 500 MPH. What would happen?

If you need more proof than that, I give up. You're beyond reach.




posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Prove your theory or get the hell off this site.





posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
No, you just asked me to "prove anything", and I gave you an example, and if you weren't being deceitful, that should give you pause.

I'm not side stepping anything, I think anyone suffering through this thread can see that.

This is just one telephone pole. Make it a square steel box with sharp edges, multiply it by a couple dozen, and laterally support them with four-foot wide plates of steel, and brace them with trusses and a four-inch thick concrete floor, a center core, and another couple dozen beyond that, all tied together with structural steel, welds and bolts.and then speed up the plane to 500 MPH. What would happen?

If you need more proof than that, I give up. You're beyond reach.


More energy. More damage. You have proved nothing and only shown your contempt. You refuse to prove your points and all you have is opinion on the direction of damage. This should be a lesson to everyone on this site that you are merely a rabble-rouser, here to incite insanity and make demands of others, while not doing any work yourself. I already showed you how much more energy there is when you factor in speed. The plane will not stay intact. I think I've stressed that over a dozen times now, but it will cause much more damage.





top topics
 
8
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join