Poll

What is the truth about the 911 attack on the World Trade Center?

Hijacked Planes were flown into the two towers.  Resulting fires caused the collapse.
14 (60.9%)
The planes were CGI and it was controlled demolition
2 (8.7%)
Something other than planes were flown into the twin towers,  missiles drones etc.
2 (8.7%)
The planes were holographic projections from a special satellite, and it was a directed energy weapon
1 (4.3%)
Something else.
3 (13%)
Denspressure
1 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Voting closed: March 06, 2017, 10:56:40 PM

911 What is the truth?

  • 6866 Replies
  • 467779 Views
*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #840 on: February 22, 2017, 07:31:36 AM »
The majority of first responders said "plane crash??? Where?"...You even hear it on the news by accident of course. That is just talking about the Pentagon. A couple randomly placed parts isn't going to do it for me... Especially when 99 percent of the plane was magically "vaporized"...Including materials much stronger than parts "found". For all I know they just threw a few things in there before hand...Not rocket science.

Not like we would know where the parts came from, we weren't allowed to check the parts to the maintenance logs of the aircrafts...And no one in the official report found that necessary even though it is standard practice...Criminal to not do it.

Unless those objects were made of the same material the passport was made out of...Then I suppose it makes since.

Not to mention...The plane isn't going to hit 20 feet at that speed, trim, pitch.... IMPOSSIBLE, I don't care how much you want to believe in magic.

This is the real conspiracy here....

What material was the passport made of...

Discuss..
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #841 on: February 22, 2017, 03:01:15 PM »
The majority of first responders said "plane crash??? Where?"...You even hear it on the news by accident of course. That is just talking about the Pentagon. A couple randomly placed parts isn't going to do it for me... Especially when 99 percent of the plane was magically "vaporized"...Including materials much stronger than parts "found". For all I know they just threw a few things in there before hand...Not rocket science.

Not like we would know where the parts came from, we weren't allowed to check the parts to the maintenance logs of the aircrafts...And no one in the official report found that necessary even though it is standard practice...Criminal to not do it.

Unless those objects were made of the same material the passport was made out of...Then I suppose it makes since.

Not to mention...The plane isn't going to hit 20 feet at that speed, trim, pitch.... IMPOSSIBLE, I don't care how much you want to believe in magic.

This is the real conspiracy here....

What material was the passport made of...

Discuss..

So what hit the pentagon,  and what is the evidence?
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #842 on: February 22, 2017, 03:43:54 PM »
This requires a bit more attention than I have right now. I'll take a look at it tomorrow or later this week. Not ignoring it, don't worry.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #843 on: February 22, 2017, 04:05:23 PM »
The majority of first responders said "plane crash??? Where?"...You even hear it on the news by accident of course. That is just talking about the Pentagon. A couple randomly placed parts isn't going to do it for me... Especially when 99 percent of the plane was magically "vaporized"...Including materials much stronger than parts "found". For all I know they just threw a few things in there before hand...Not rocket science.

Not like we would know where the parts came from, we weren't allowed to check the parts to the maintenance logs of the aircrafts...And no one in the official report found that necessary even though it is standard practice...Criminal to not do it.

Unless those objects were made of the same material the passport was made out of...Then I suppose it makes since.

Not to mention...The plane isn't going to hit 20 feet at that speed, trim, pitch.... IMPOSSIBLE, I don't care how much you want to believe in magic.

This is the real conspiracy here....

What material was the passport made of...

Discuss..

So what hit the pentagon,  and what is the evidence?

Where did the wings go?

If the wings could cut through wtc 1 + 2 like butter why did the wings "vaporise" on the pentagon?

How did a pilot who couldn't fly a Cessna pull off maneuvers that most pilots consider impossible?

This is enough for a clever man.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #844 on: February 22, 2017, 04:52:34 PM »
The majority of first responders said "plane crash??? Where?"...You even hear it on the news by accident of course. That is just talking about the Pentagon. A couple randomly placed parts isn't going to do it for me... Especially when 99 percent of the plane was magically "vaporized"...Including materials much stronger than parts "found". For all I know they just threw a few things in there before hand...Not rocket science.

Not like we would know where the parts came from, we weren't allowed to check the parts to the maintenance logs of the aircrafts...And no one in the official report found that necessary even though it is standard practice...Criminal to not do it.

Unless those objects were made of the same material the passport was made out of...Then I suppose it makes since.

Not to mention...The plane isn't going to hit 20 feet at that speed, trim, pitch.... IMPOSSIBLE, I don't care how much you want to believe in magic.

This is the real conspiracy here....

What material was the passport made of...

Discuss..

Same thing all passports are made of. You make it sound like things don't survive explosions ever.

Also, which if the 9/11 planes do you not believe were planes?  Follow up question, if some or none of them were planes, what happened to the people on those planes?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #845 on: February 22, 2017, 04:56:39 PM »
The majority of first responders said "plane crash??? Where?"...You even hear it on the news by accident of course. That is just talking about the Pentagon. A couple randomly placed parts isn't going to do it for me... Especially when 99 percent of the plane was magically "vaporized"...Including materials much stronger than parts "found". For all I know they just threw a few things in there before hand...Not rocket science.

Not like we would know where the parts came from, we weren't allowed to check the parts to the maintenance logs of the aircrafts...And no one in the official report found that necessary even though it is standard practice...Criminal to not do it.

Unless those objects were made of the same material the passport was made out of...Then I suppose it makes since.

Not to mention...The plane isn't going to hit 20 feet at that speed, trim, pitch.... IMPOSSIBLE, I don't care how much you want to believe in magic.

This is the real conspiracy here....

What material was the passport made of...

Discuss..

Same thing all passports are made of. You make it sound like things don't survive explosions ever.

Also, which if the 9/11 planes do you not believe were planes?  Follow up question, if some or none of them were planes, what happened to the people on those planes?

Catch up on the thread before making a comment..

Thanks
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #846 on: February 22, 2017, 05:19:25 PM »


Reality at it's finest



Right on...
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 05:55:24 PM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #847 on: February 22, 2017, 05:42:44 PM »
Quote from: David handschuh
"I was underneath it. I was looking at the tower. I had my camera in my hand. I heard the noise. I never saw the airplane. . . . I was less than a hundred yards away from the building. I was standing on West St. Note that Mr. Handschuh says: I was looking at the tower.



Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #848 on: February 22, 2017, 06:09:56 PM »


Reality at it's finest



Right on...

Both aeroplane wings cut right through structural steel on the towers like jelly.

Pentagon planes wings vaporise without leaving a mark.

Fourth plane vaporises without a trace.

Seems kinda contradictory...
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 06:12:05 PM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Heiwa

  • 9358
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #849 on: February 22, 2017, 06:54:32 PM »
The majority of first responders said "plane crash??? Where?"...You even hear it on the news by accident of course. That is just talking about the Pentagon. A couple randomly placed parts isn't going to do it for me... Especially when 99 percent of the plane was magically "vaporized"...Including materials much stronger than parts "found". For all I know they just threw a few things in there before hand...Not rocket science.

Not like we would know where the parts came from, we weren't allowed to check the parts to the maintenance logs of the aircrafts...And no one in the official report found that necessary even though it is standard practice...Criminal to not do it.

Unless those objects were made of the same material the passport was made out of...Then I suppose it makes since.

Not to mention...The plane isn't going to hit 20 feet at that speed, trim, pitch.... IMPOSSIBLE, I don't care how much you want to believe in magic.

This is the real conspiracy here....

What material was the passport made of...

Discuss..

So what hit the pentagon,  and what is the evidence?

One suggestion is one or several bombs. It is called an inside job by clever terrorists.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #850 on: February 22, 2017, 07:31:55 PM »
The majority of first responders said "plane crash??? Where?"...You even hear it on the news by accident of course. That is just talking about the Pentagon. A couple randomly placed parts isn't going to do it for me... Especially when 99 percent of the plane was magically "vaporized"...Including materials much stronger than parts "found". For all I know they just threw a few things in there before hand...Not rocket science.

Not like we would know where the parts came from, we weren't allowed to check the parts to the maintenance logs of the aircrafts...And no one in the official report found that necessary even though it is standard practice...Criminal to not do it.

Unless those objects were made of the same material the passport was made out of...Then I suppose it makes since.

Not to mention...The plane isn't going to hit 20 feet at that speed, trim, pitch.... IMPOSSIBLE, I don't care how much you want to believe in magic.

This is the real conspiracy here....

What material was the passport made of...

Discuss..

Same thing all passports are made of. You make it sound like things don't survive explosions ever.

Also, which if the 9/11 planes do you not believe were planes?  Follow up question, if some or none of them were planes, what happened to the people on those planes?

Catch up on the thread before making a comment..

Thanks

K thanks. Done. Will you answer now?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #851 on: February 22, 2017, 07:54:13 PM »
We have shown the plane that hit the pentagon was not what we were told, with physics, we have explained the planes passing through the towers like jelly couldn't have happened, with physics, we have explained how a plane cannot "vaporise" when it hits the ground, with physics.

Here, have some more.

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s275%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.


To answer your question I believe a plane of some sort most likely hit the second tower, not a commercial jet, no plane hit the Pentagon cause physics, and no plane crashed and vaporized cause physics.

Asking where the planes went and what happened to the passengers is pure speculation.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 07:56:34 PM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #852 on: February 22, 2017, 09:34:02 PM »
We have shown the plane that hit the pentagon was not what we were told, with physics,

No, you haven't. Read up on your physics.

Quote
we have explained the planes passing through the towers like jelly couldn't have happened, with physics,

No, you haven't. Read up on your physics and what actually happened.  No plane passed through the towers. The towers did a pretty good job of slicing up those planes and stopping them in their tracks.

Quote
we have explained how a plane cannot "vaporise" when it hits the ground, with physics.

No, you haven't. Read up on your physics and what actually happened.

Quote
To answer your question I believe a plane of some sort most likely hit the second tower, not a commercial jet,

Erm..then how did this plane cause the damage, because you have already explained that this isn't possible?

Quote
no plane hit the Pentagon cause physics,

Then explain the physics of what did.

Quote
and no plane crashed and vaporized cause physics.

It didn't vapourise.

Quote
Asking where the planes went and what happened to the passengers is pure speculation.

No, asking for supporting evidence for this nonsense is not speculation. Saying that there may not have been a plane with passengers is pure speculation.

You can speculate about the motives of the attackers all you want, you can speculate about who motivated them, and who they actually were, but claiming there were no planes involved in the attacks on 9/11 is just plain dumb. It is not a question of "as we are told", it is in the evidence that thousands of people witnessed with their own eyes and live on TV. This event did not take place on youtube, it happened in front of actual people.
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #853 on: February 22, 2017, 09:38:03 PM »
I think you should read the thread.

I am not a heiwa and this is not a fairy tale.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #854 on: February 23, 2017, 12:20:42 AM »
Clap trap nonsense

It's like groundhog day all over again...

Everything you said has already been addressed in this thread and proven incorrect. There was not one factual statement in your post...

If you would like to revise your post with factual information, read the actual thread then comment, or ask a specific question then we can communicate. I would be happy to explain to you why everything you are attempting to support is incorrect.

However, if you want to appear out of no where and make nonsensical claims, then you can exit state left.

Your choice buttercup
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #855 on: February 23, 2017, 12:25:03 AM »
Just another data point.   This time refuting the theory that you can't fly a 757 at 20' at 300k+ because of ground effect.

This what an experienced qantas pilot had to say about that theory.

Quote
Utter crap. I have had many airplanes in ground effect at that speed if not faster. I had a 737-200 (on a sanctioned, approved beat-up of Dublin's RWY 28) going 340 at what I thought was 50ft but in the photos you cannot see much if any daylight below the engine pods. it was easy. Perhaps too easy. I have seen fast Vulcans (big mofo) so low that the engines were sucking up water from the wet runway.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #856 on: February 23, 2017, 12:28:04 AM »
Source??

You can't just post that.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #857 on: February 23, 2017, 12:28:38 AM »
I've been studying the page http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html regarding the pentagon crash, specifically I have studied their analysis of the commission report so far:

One error on their part: They correctly calculate that the groundspeed for the plane 77 was 396 knots, but then claim that the 9/11 commission report is inaccurate because it contradicts the reported airspeed of 325 knots, which is false as airspeed and groundspeed can and almost always are different for aircraft, especially at high altitudes. So they fail to differentiate between ground- and airspeed.

The next error they make is basing a whole maneuver off of this error, and thus wrongly analyses how much skill would be required to make the turn.

The next error they make is also because of this wrong assumption - they assume the plane would only have accelerated about 30 knots from the end of the dive, to the impact at pentagon, implying that it should have accelerated to a higher velocity. I calculated that the average velocity of the plane, in groundspeed, would be about 417 knots. Near the ground, airspeed and groundspeed would start to match up. So at impact, ground- and airspeed should be comparable with each other at 460 knots. Before the descent, we know that groundspeed was higher than airspeed. Which means that the average airspeed should have been lower than 417 knots, so I'd guess that the plane might have accelerated by a total of 50-80 knots during the 30 seconds before impact, not only 30, at full engine power. Which would mean that the acceleration from the dive would range from 55-85 knots, not the 30 knots that the website assumes. This seems far more plausible, and I think they would agree. It also means that flaps was probably not used during the maneuver, at last not for the final straight.

Then they make some claims about the skill of the alleged pilot and back it up with... "This also can be verified via google searches." <- That's a big no, they should be citing proper reliable sources.

They do say that the maneuver is possible, but they don't think the alleged pilot could have done it. If they realised the mistake they did, they'd probably realise it's a bit more likely than they think.

I don't know about the aerodynaimcs of the boeing 757, but the impact velocity was pretty high. That close to the ground, I think that some of the stability to the plane can be attributed to compression. Ailerons tend have a decreased effect as a plane passes half of the speed of sound, but planes should be designed to self-stabilise. The thing that the pilot had to worry more about was the elevator, which might also be slightly less effective and thus harder to effect the plane majorly, keeping it going more straight. So even if the pilot was nervous and shaky as the plane got close to the ground, it would be hard (well, harder than usual) to pull of any sharp maneuvers.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #858 on: February 23, 2017, 12:29:17 AM »
Source??

You can't just post that.
Well, your own source does state that the maneuver is possible.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #859 on: February 23, 2017, 12:32:27 AM »


What happened to the wings? Not even a scratch? I am no pilot, I'm not an idiot however.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #860 on: February 23, 2017, 12:37:07 AM »

Both aeroplane wings cut right through structural steel on the towers like jelly.

Pentagon planes wings vaporise without leaving a mark.

Fourth plane vaporises without a trace.

Seems kinda contradictory...

Not really,  what do you find contradictory?

The argument that an aluminium aircraft can't slice through steel beams is a nonsense.  I thought we already dealt with that issue,  but perhaps not,  if it keeps coming back.

Try thinking about it in terms of momentum   mv,   you have 175,000 kg travelling at 500 mph,   to stop that and absorb the kinetic energy requires a lot more than steel beams.

The force required is directly proportional to the change in momentum    force = mass * Δv    and of course that force is applied across the impact area, unevenly, the shearing forces can easily exceed the capacity of structural steel.

The kinetic energy goes into shredding the aircraft, the steel structure and the building and of course heat.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #861 on: February 23, 2017, 12:38:14 AM »


http://howthingsfly.si.edu/aerodynamics

This is just a silly argument guys.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #862 on: February 23, 2017, 12:38:21 AM »


What happened to the wings? Not even a scratch? I am no pilot, I'm not an idiot however.

That's not the impact point,  that's the famous punch out hole in one of the inner rings.  And you can see aircraft debris.


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #863 on: February 23, 2017, 12:39:26 AM »
Source??

You can't just post that.

The source is a friend of mine who has been flying for qantas for more than 20 years.   

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #864 on: February 23, 2017, 12:40:23 AM »
Quote
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s275%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.


Rayzor enough with your dishonesty.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #865 on: February 23, 2017, 12:42:25 AM »
Source??

You can't just post that.

The source is a friend of mine who has been flying for qantas for more than 20 years.

Sure mate ok.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #866 on: February 23, 2017, 12:47:17 AM »


What happened to the wings? Not even a scratch? I am no pilot, I'm not an idiot however.
Apparently, one of the wings did hit the ground before impact. The plane had swept wings, so the wing-root would hit first and the rest of the wing would be slowed down by that, possibly bent back even further and sucked into the hole. The hole was apparently 75 feet wide, which would mean that it's about as wide as the distance between the outer edges of the engines, judging by this document of the 757:
http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/startup/pdf/freighters/757f.pdf
Which makes sense, the engines are solid enough to also make a hole. The hole is a bit wider, which does leave space for the wings to fold back (especially the tips of the wings which normally wouldn't fit) and go through, gettng sucked in by the rest of the plane or shredded off.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #867 on: February 23, 2017, 12:48:58 AM »
Quote
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s275%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.


Rayzor enough with your dishonesty.

So pointing out where you are wrong is dishonest? 

Just to stop you re-posting that argument over and over again,  you do realise it's completely false?

You claim that whenever a building collapses in free fall it must mean demolition?   That's not true.   Think about it for a while.

Second if a building doesn't collapse at free fall rates,  does that mean its' not demolition? 

So the upshot is that free fall doesn't really tell you anything conclusive about why it fell.  It's something to take into account for the analysis,  along with many other factors,  but that's it.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #868 on: February 23, 2017, 12:53:03 AM »

Both aeroplane wings cut right through structural steel on the towers like jelly.

Pentagon planes wings vaporise without leaving a mark.

Fourth plane vaporises without a trace.

Seems kinda contradictory...

Not really,  what do you find contradictory?

The argument that an aluminium aircraft can't slice through steel beams is a nonsense.  I thought we already dealt with that issue,  but perhaps not,  if it keeps coming back.

Try thinking about it in terms of momentum   mv,   you have 175,000 kg travelling at 500 mph,   to stop that and absorb the kinetic energy requires a lot more than steel beams.

The force required is directly proportional to the change in momentum    force = mass * Δv    and of course that force is applied across the impact area, unevenly, the shearing forces can easily exceed the capacity of structural steel.

The kinetic energy goes into shredding the aircraft, the steel structure and the building and of course heat.

Bhs has repeatedly shut you down on this, however you keep posting it?

I've had enough of your dishonesty.

Yes for a building to collapse at 9.8m/s2 it must be a controlled demolition.

It is very difficult, even with a demo to attain gravitational acceleration, it is the ultimate goal of the people pulling it but it is very difficult and rarely achieved.

My equation works well enough, deal with it.

Back to clues forum Rayzor honestly.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #869 on: February 23, 2017, 12:55:56 AM »
This is 20 feet....



At 400+ mph....Lol...No. Not with a light wing craft, this completely excludes how they craft got to this position in the first place.

Not leaving a trace, except for a couple random parts from a plane that is not even a 767, no marks on the lawn, not a single part number from 4 planes (average is about 350,000 recognizable recovered pieces from an accident) no FAA investigation (reg 121 is just one of many), not a single shred of evidence that this was a plane, no BTS records (even though they are kept on every single plane in America, and even on these EXCEPT for that one day),a pilot that can't even handle a Cessna can figure out how to fly blind/navigate a 767 100+ mph past vme and vne (something trained pilots couldn't even do on a sim) to perform an impossible maneuver, all first responders including city leaders, reporters, emergency crew etc etc say "There was no plane"....I could keep going on..

Simple fact, y'all wanna believe in fairy tales...Fine.

But that is y'all's choice and belief...It is not rooted in reality
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir