Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

reply to post by randyvs


So now buildings are built out of magic steel? A piece of straw can punch into a tree in a tornado. A 2x4 can punch through brick. Why can't a plane punch through steel?

Maybe you can explain this to me then.

This damage was caused by a B-25 hitting the Empire State Building. It was traveling at low speed, as it was trying to land. One engine went completely through the building and out the other side.

The B-25J had a maximum take off weight of 35,000 lbs. The one that hit the Empire State Building would have been much lighter than that, as it was at the end of the flight.

So how is it, that a much slower, much lighter plane can go completely through a concrete building, when a much heavier, much faster plane is supposed to just bounce right off a steel building? Please. I'm dying to know how that works.

reply to post by Zaphod58

So now buildings are built out of magic steel? A piece of straw can punch into a tree in a tornado. A 2x4 can punch through brick. Why can't a plane punch through steel?

Because I say it can't. See for yourself or take my word for it.

Magic steel phff ! You're somethin else.

randyvs
reply to post by OneFreeMan

 

I agree with you.
Can airplanes dissolve into steel buildings as seen in all footage, in your opinion?

How can I say this ? The structure of any aircraft as opposed to the structure
of any high rise. Is akin to the structure of a bug as opposed to your windshield.
The results leave no one puzzled. We may as well be watching a paper airplane fly
into a paper shreadder. The structure of any plane is not even comparable to
the structure of a commercial buiding. Not even close.

edit on 3-12-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Agreed again. So therefore when we watch the plane crashing into
and dissolving into the building as we do, we are watching unreality
or faked and animated video.

reply to post by OneFreeMan


So they faked the Empire State Builidng too in the 1940s? Because a much smaller plane had debris go all the way through the building. So how is it that a B-25 can do that to a concrete building at low speed, but a high speed plane, that's over 5 times heavier when empty, can't go into a steel building?

reply to post by OneFreeMan

Agreed again. So therefore when we watch the plane crashing into
and dissolving into the building as we do, we are watching unreality
or faked and animated video.

I have no idea and I don't mind say'in so.

reply to post by randyvs


Point being though Randy that a real plane did slam into the building while detonating largely within it's confines and while blowing out that absolutely gargantuan fireball and smokecloud.

I think the other poster is saying is that what the videos show is a mirage of "video fakery" and that no plane um, was even there, as their strange way of intuiting correctly really that the plane was "a missile" and what the explanatory hypothesis I'm offering here is basically stating is the final resolution to the "no planer paradox" in as much as the plane WAS in effect a missile, a remotely piloted Boeing fuel air bomb, missile, flown directly to the target, at the right time and at the right level of the building.

They (NRPT's) just say because a plane can't seem, in spite of poor video compression and artifacts, a plane that was filmed travelling along at 586mph, to "melt" into the building, the "logical" premise being "of course" that all the videos of a plane hitting the building are fake, all of them, the whole lot, it's like the inverse of what SO is saying about the providence of the videos, that if you cannot get the original you cannot trust what your eyes can see and that therefore all video evidence of the south tower plane on approach through impact must be thrown away as of no evidenciary value, especially if they are not well focused (how are they expected to be?).

Both are saying in effect the same thing "look no evil", and both to discredit the real plane as a swapped in remotely piloted drone, it's just the other side of the same defense or objection in the case of the no planers (NRPT - no real plane theory) that there is no plane there, like Shultz on Hogan's Heroes..


Just wanted to bring you up to speed on the NRPT. Thanks for playing!

NAM

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Point being though Randy that a real plane did slam into the building while detonating largely within it's confines and while blowing out that absolutely gargantuan fireball and smokecloud.

Yes, an overdramatized melotraumatic fiasco of sacrificial fire if ever.

They (NRPT's) just say because a plane can't seem, in spite of poor video compression and artifacts, a plane that was filmed travelling along at 586mph, to "melt" into the building, the "logical" premise being "of course" that all the videos of a plane hitting the building are fake, all of them, the whole lot, it's like the inverse of what SO is saying about the providence of the videos, that if you cannot get the original you cannot trust what your eyes can see and that therefore all video evidence of the south tower plane on approach through impact must be thrown away as of no evidenciary value, especially if they are not well focused (how are they expected to be?).

Ok I do agree with that premise and have even posted a few threads that point out
how todays technology has ruined our justice system. As if it weren't already over run
with corruption. Ad cgi to the mix and if I'm on a jury no one is guilty unless I seen them
do the crime with my own two. Everyone is innocent because all evidence is suspect.

OneFreeMan

Ok. Here are these 2 shots enlarged;


One is clearly taken from ground level, the other from a considerable height.
Both capture the exact same moment at the exact same angle.
It is impossible to reconcile both views. This is proof of video/photographic fakery.

randyvs
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

So now buildings are built out of magic steel? A piece of straw can punch into a tree in a tornado. A 2x4 can punch through brick. Why can't a plane punch through steel?

Because I say it can't. See for yourself or take my word for it.

Magic steel phff ! You're somethin else.

Randy isn't saying by this that the plane cannot shred apart on impact and enter the confines of the building structure, just that it's not likely to take out a lot of steel at the core and throughout the building.

He's not saying that the plane didn't shred apart like butter relative to the steel, or that it would not have been able to penetrate the exterior cladding and whatnot, only that it's not going to do much when impacting steel in terms of breaking up the steel structure.

NewAgeMan
reply to post by randyvs

 

Point being though Randy that a real plane did slam into the building while detonating largely within it's confines and while blowing out that absolutely gargantuan fireball and smokecloud.

I think the other poster is saying is that what the videos show is a mirage of "video fakery" and that no plane um, was even there, as their strange way of intuiting correctly really that the plane was "a missile" and what the explanatory hypothesis I'm offering here is basically stating is the final resolution to the "no planer paradox" in as much as the plane WAS in effect a missile, a remotely piloted Boeing fuel air bomb, missile, flown directly to the target, at the right time and at the right level of the building.

They (NRPT's) just say because a plane can't seem, in spite of poor video compression and artifacts, a plane that was filmed travelling along at 586mph, to "melt" into the building, the "logical" premise being "of course" that all the videos of a plane hitting the building are fake, all of them, the whole lot, it's like the inverse of what SO is saying about the providence of the videos, that if you cannot get the original you cannot trust what your eyes can see and that therefore all video evidence of the south tower plane on approach through impact must be thrown away as of no evidenciary value, especially if they are not well focused (how are they expected to be?).

Both are saying in effect the same thing "look no evil", and both to discredit the real plane as a swapped in remotely piloted drone, it's just the other side of the same defense or objection in the case of the no planers (NRPT - no real plane theory) that there is no plane there, like Shultz on Hogan's Heroes..


Just wanted to bring you up to speed on the NRPT. Thanks for playing!

NAM

edit on 3-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

All the footage was prefabricated. I see your game here.
Please comment on the two photos above, which you yourself posted.

reply to post by OneFreeMan

OneFreeMan

One is clearly taken from ground level, the other from a considerable height.
Both capture the exact same moment at the exact same angle.
It is impossible to reconcile both views. This is proof of video/photographic fakery.

You didn't just say that!

I just got lucky when selecting the photos to get two photos taken from two different locations which just so happened to record the same moment in time, from amoung that 13-16 second interval. That's all, it's cool, and synchronistic, or coincidental but what it is NOT is "proof of video/photographic fakery".

I told you earlier that this isn't an NRPT thread, but, that we're still talking about a missile really, in so many ways, as a plane-as-missile. Open you eyes and look at all the videos.

Do you really have to be all over this thread, and are you open ..well, never mind, once a no planer always a no planer. There, is, no, plane, there.

Why? No no never mind.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Except that once you get under the skin of the aircraft, you have structures like the keel beem, which is the heaviest part of the frame. That's going to do a lot of damage to anything in its path. Along with the engines, the wing spars, etc.

randyvs
reply to post by OneFreeMan

 

I agree with you.
Can airplanes dissolve into steel buildings as seen in all footage, in your opinion?

How can I say this ? The structure of any aircraft as opposed to the structure
of any high rise. Is akin to the structure of a bug as opposed to your windshield.
The results leave no one puzzled. We may as well be watching a paper airplane fly
into a paper shreadder. The structure of any plane is not even comparable to
the structure of a commercial buiding. Not even close.

edit on 3-12-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

It has been a long time since I have replied to one of these threads.

As I have stated so many times before.

Shear strength

In engineering, shear strength is the strength of a material or component against the type of yield or structural failure where the material or component fails in shear. A shear load is a force that tends to produce a sliding failure on a material along a plane that is parallel to the direction of the force. When a paper is cut with scissors, the paper fails in shear

Every single bolt that held those beams together has a shear strength. Not only bolts but the clips that were used to support the trusses.

I have pics and diagrams of the trusses, bolts, and the outer exoskeleton.

400,000 lbs travelling at 500 plus miles an hour exceeded the shear strength.

It's not magic it's engineering.

Im on my phone and since ATS changed their wonderful setup, I am going to leave it up to everyone to actually do some real research on building construction.

I work in the construction industry. I work right along side ironworkers.

I have successfully completed two years of college in Welding Technology.

I have talked to my instructor many a times and discussed the towers.

I have taken the time to do my research.

After all this I have learned that 95% of people who post about this subject is completely ignorant on building construction and facts.

Not necessarilly talking about you randy, I just picked your post to hit reply.

If people would stop watching ignorant Youtube vids and truly educate themselves, there would be no need for this discussion.

I have sworn against this subject because people don't care about facts or real reasearch.

But it still bites my asz sometimes.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

He's not saying that the plane didn't shred apart li

On the contrary I thought I was very plane about that.

How can I say this ? The structure of any aircraft as opposed to the structure
of any high rise. Is akin to the structure of a bug as opposed to your windshield.
The results leave no one puzzled. We may as well be watching a paper airplane fly
into a paper shreadder. The structure of any plane is not even comparable to
the structure of a commercial buiding. Not even close.

Even if it has a keel beam ! Made out of aluminum tin foil. LMAO
I can't believe anyone would argue this.

SkepticOverlord

It's absolute misinformed short-sighted absurd inane madness to rely on these YouTube videos, with no indication of provenance, for anything that resembles proof of anything other than, "yup, that's a YouTube video."

Seriously. Anyone with genuine earnestness on these matters would seek out the original footage.

wasn't the original Bin Laden confession video equal if not worse quality? I guess there was not enough genuine earnestness to seek out the original footage of that before sending thousands to their death and ordering the execution of over a million people...

NewAgeMan

randyvs
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

So now buildings are built out of magic steel? A piece of straw can punch into a tree in a tornado. A 2x4 can punch through brick. Why can't a plane punch through steel?

Because I say it can't. See for yourself or take my word for it.

Magic steel phff ! You're somethin else.

Randy isn't saying by this that the plane cannot shred apart on impact and enter the confines of the building structure, just that it's not likely to take out a lot of steel at the core and throughout the building.

He's not saying that the plane didn't shred apart like butter relative to the steel, or that it would not have been able to penetrate the exterior cladding and whatnot, only that it's not going to do much when impacting steel in terms of breaking up the steel structure.

edit on 3-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: edit

A building is made of thousands/millions of parts that have a job to do.

Take out enough of those parts and catastrophic failure is bound to happen.

Every single piece of that building was involved with a thing called gravity.

The buildings were standing a 1/4 mile in the air. The structure was fighting the force of gravity every single second of every single day.

Take out the right components and gravity will win.


But I know i'm wadting my time.

This will be my last reply to your thread.

Have a nice night/day.

reply to post by liejunkie01


Let me get this straight, you're describing "shear strength" as a force of resistance am I right, in other words that every bolt and weld has a breaking point, but that prior to "shearing" it resists up unto a certain threshold that which might sheer though it, or break it apart and thus, since in this case we're looking at many many many 1000's and 1000's of such points, that there is no possible way that the building could have come down at a rate of speed almost equivalent to the rate of absolute free fall in nothing but air.

It should also be pointed out here, that the nature of the destruction was very explosive, where as the outwardly exploding wave of debris descended, much of the mass of the building POURED itself out in the form of pulverized concrete and flying steel beams such that about half way down the structure, there was in effect almost half less building left above the remaining half, yet down the debris wave continued without any appreciable loss of momentum whatsoever. In other words, short of the "foot of God", nothing but explosives, as seen, can explain the phenomenon of destruction because of the sheer strength of each and every bolt, weld and joint of which there are too many to count.

As I pointed out earlier, the time between absolute free fall through nothing but AIR (10.5 seconds), and the time through the entirety of the rest of the structure, in the case of the North Tower from the 93rd floor or thereabouts, all the way to the ground (14 -16 seconds) - is about 4-6 seconds, and therefore when we look at the sheer strength of all those connections all the way to the ground, then it becomes self evident that, absent the foot of God, explosives must have been employed or we're seriously violating the third law of motion, which would ignore "sheer strength".

Thanks for contributing even though I understand that you didn't want to get into it.

Best Regards,

NAM

reply to post by randyvs


So um, what are you saying them Randy as to what the plane DID when it hit the building, I'm at a loss now too. You're not saying... video fakery now are you oh no, not YOU too! Nope. Tell me you think a real plane actually went into the building..

reply to post by Zaphod58


How about the questions I had for you Zaph ? No comprende"?

Do they make airplanes to with stand the impact of a building ?
Do they make buildings to with stand the impact of a plane ?
How much do blimps weigh Zaph ?
I can't believe you would even try to argue the point.

How much damage can a seventy eight billion ton snow ball do ?
And let me remind you, you're the one has the least idea of the
strength of the steel used in a commercial building.

Aloysius the Gaul


A grossly overloaded structural component will exceed it's yield strength almost instantaneously - it makes no difference whether you demolish a couple of floors to start the process (which is often what demolition often consists of) or something else starts it - once that mass is in motion the remaining structure cannot support it and down it comes.

How do you look at This....

NewAgeMan

And see a "process'??

That looks more like an event. An extremely explosive event.

There appears to be five story high sections of the building being ejected what looks like more that 50% of the buildings width.

quite a process!