Remove this Banner Ad

Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 2

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm sorry but that video is a load of bullshit.

I made it as far as the whimsical animation where a fully landen jumbo jet traveling between 700-800Km's an hour crashes into a building, and suggesting it should crumple up like a light aircraft traveling at half that speed.

I offer this: in 1992 in the Netherlands a 747 hit an apartment building after suffering mechanical failure.

It actual nose dived into the building.
The result of this massive of re-enforced steal and concrete building "that's so much stronger then an aluminium plane"?

The plane punched straight through it, in fact so little resistance was mounted by the building that **** pit made it out the other side almost fully intact.

The area of the building where the plane hit completely crumpled and collapsed due to the force of impact of the crash and fire that it started.

Here's a photo of the aftermath.

b346f757b716a228a4a698b58dbfaa72.jpg


What it says about Newton's laws is correct,

Netwons third law does place an equal amount of force on both objects, but they aren't taking into account another of Newton's laws.

An object in motion STAYS in motion until it is acted upon by an opposing force.

And as an object accelerates it gains mass.

This means is that the plane will keep going in a forward direction until it is met with a force strong enough to force it to come to a complete stop.

Now keep in mind this SAME FORCE would also be acting on the building.

For the plane to keep going all that needs to happen is that the force acting in both directions is strong enough to move the sections of the building it comes into contact with, but not strong enough to cause the plane to come to a complete stop.

In this case the plane would be slowed but continue to move forward.

As the plane slows down this force acting in both directions is reduced.

But the plane would KEEP moving until such time as the mass in front of it capable of with standing the force acting upon it.

What people fail to understand is not the mass of the plane but the strength of the building, wer'e not talking about the strength of the entire building.

Only the strength of the PARTS of the building that the plane comes into contact with, if it over whelmed the entire building then the building would fall over, if not then only the parts that cannot withstand the impact shift.

Look at the plane as a bullet and the building as a brick wall.

For a bullet to go through a brick wall it only relies on it own speed.

Throw a bullet at the wall and what happens? The bullet bounces off.

It simply doesn't have enough mass to exert force on the wall to move it.
Fire a bullet at a wall and it goes straight through, by increasing the speed at which bullet is moving, you also increase the (relativistic) mass of the bullet.

Because the bullet is now moving at a speed fast enough that the force acting on the wall is greater then the parts of the wall it comes into contact with can withstand.

That's ALL that matters, so long as the object that's moving creates enough force, to shift the object it comes into contact with from its resting state to a non resting state the resting object moves.

To stop the object that is already moving the contact needs to create enough force to bring it to a resting state.

I'm sure someone out there can run the numbers and tell you exactly how much force is needed to stop a a 747 traveling in excess of 700km's. Per hour dead.

But I would hazard a guess that there isnt a man made structure in the world that also wouldn't be moved from a resting state by that same force acting upon it.

Because as the video stated that same structure would have the exact same force exerted upon it, inline with Newton's third law.

you can't just pick and choose which laws to take into consideration they all act together.
 
Sydney Bloods said:
I'm sorry but that video is a load of bullshit.

I made it as far as the whimsical animation where a fully landen jumbo jet traveling between 700-800Km's an hour crashes into a building, and suggesting it should crumple up like a light aircraft traveling at half that speed.

I offer this: in 1992 in the Netherlands a 747 hit an apartment building after suffering mechanical failure.

It actual nose dived into the building.
The result of this massive of re-enforced steal and concrete building "that's so much stronger then an aluminium plane"?

The plane punched straight through it, in fact so little resistance was mounted by the building that **** pit made it out the other side almost fully intact.

The area of the building where the plane hit completely crumpled and collapsed due to the force of impact of the crash and fire that it started.

Here's a photo of the aftermath.

b346f757b716a228a4a698b58dbfaa72.jpg


What it says about Newton's laws is correct,

Netwons third law does place an equal amount of force on both objects, but they aren't taking into account another of Newton's laws.

An object in motion STAYS in motion until it is acted upon by an opposing force.

And as an object accelerates it gains mass.

This means is that the plane will keep going in a forward direction until it is met with a force strong enough to force it to come to a complete stop.

Now keep in mind this SAME FORCE would also be acting on the building.

For the plane to keep going all that needs to happen is that the force acting in both directions is strong enough to move the sections of the building it comes into contact with, but not strong enough to cause the plane to come to a complete stop.

In this case the plane would be slowed but continue to move forward.

As the plane slows down this force acting in both directions is reduced.

But the plane would KEEP moving until such time as the mass in front of it capable of with standing the force acting upon it.

What people fail to understand is not the mass of the plane but the strength of the building, wer'e not talking about the strength of the entire building.

Only the strength of the PARTS of the building that the plane comes into contact with, if it over whelmed the entire building then the building would fall over, if not then only the parts that cannot withstand the impact shift.

Look at the plane as a bullet and the building as a brick wall.

For a bullet to go through a brick wall it only relies on it own speed.

Throw a bullet at the wall and what happens? The bullet bounces off.

It simply doesn't have enough mass to exert force on the wall to move it.
Fire a bullet at a wall and it goes straight through, by increasing the speed at which bullet is moving, you also increase the (relativistic) mass of the bullet.

Because the bullet is now moving at a speed fast enough that the force acting on the wall is greater then the parts of the wall it comes into contact with can withstand.

That's ALL that matters, so long as the object that's moving creates enough force, to shift the object it comes into contact with from its resting state to a non resting state the resting object moves.

To stop the object that is already moving the contact needs to create enough force to bring it to a resting state.

I'm sure someone out there can run the numbers and tell you exactly how much force is needed to stop a a 747 traveling in excess of 700km's. Per hour dead.

But I would hazard a guess that there isnt a man made structure in the world that also wouldn't be moved from a resting state by that same force acting upon it.

Because as the video stated that same structure would have the exact same force exerted upon it, inline with Newton's third law.

you can't just pick and choose which laws to take into consideration they all act together.
Click to expand...

Yeah your post makes sense. Thanks for posting. Yeah the crumbling of the aircraft animation is stupid but I posted the video just to see people's opinion the way the 747 enters the WTC.

Another thing I find odd is that guy that doesn't notice the plane until it crashes into the WTC. Could be nothing but I find that quite odd. I know what you'll say how the plane was at a really fast speed but surely he could hear the plane flying low way before the 747 is anywhere near the WTC??
 
I was only arguing the physics of the crash, the video is deceptive on that.

The rest, well as I said I flicked it off once I saw the rubbish "if the plane was suspended in mid air and the building was moving it should be the same as this"

I would counter once again the bullet scenario, tie a piece of string to a bullet hold it in mid air and then fire a brick at the speed of a bullet.

The bullet will not punch a hole in said brick, instead the bullet will simply be pushed aside.

But suspend the brick and fire the bullet and watch what happens, the bullet will punch a hole straight through it. (and with nothing to lend support to the brick it would likely shatter)
 
I found this vid!
Slow motion reverse angle shot of 2nd plane hitting WTC!!


Notice anything strange??
No...?? Have a look at around 20 seconds. The Wing of the plane passes behind the building in the background. :eek:
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Crows_United_FC said:
I found this vid!
Slow motion reverse angle shot of 2nd plane hitting WTC!!


Notice anything strange??
No...?? Have a look at around 20 seconds. The Wing of the plane passes behind the building in the background. :eek:
Click to expand...


I might just add that this could just be an optical illusion and the smaller buildings are in the foreground than the background.
 
After nine eleven it became apparent that the cheapest and safest way of demolishing buildings was to set fire to them 3/4's of the way up.

But no ones cottoned on, still waste all that time and money on the old fashioned way. With private enterprise always seeking to cut costs to make a profit and attract investors to the new projects, why do they still do it the old way?
 
topjars said:
Off course it wasnt:rolleyes:...THIS is what happened


Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah.

Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes…and hangover or not, they manage to give the world’s most sophisticated air defence system the slip.

Un-phased by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely.

Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically – through their own mass – at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI.

Meanwhile down in Washington…Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing.

Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little.

Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world’s most heavily defended building all without a single shot being fired or ruining the nicely mowed lawn and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video.

Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania…So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later.

And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandana.

Further south in Florida, President Bush, the brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class full of primary school children, shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger.

In New York…Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously.

While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the ‘New Pearl Harbour’ catalysing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination.

And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least 11 of our 19 suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in lame stream media reports.
Click to expand...

Not what happened but thanks for playing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
Seriously, this thread is getting worse and worse. The lack of critical thinking is so absurd it's both hysterical and depressing

FFS use your brains. Look at the evidence, look at the most likely scenario that can account for the evidence, apply Occam's razor

NB - YouTube videos = not evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 
Kellythatsit said:
Seriously, this thread is getting worse and worse. The lack of critical thinking is so absurd both hysterical and depressing

FFS use your brains. Look at the evidence, look at the most likely scenario that can account for the evidence, apply Occam's razor

NB - YouTube videos = not evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
Click to expand...

I agree that there's a lot of bullshit on Youtube, but there's definitely not a shortage of evidence on Youtube.
 
little graham said:
Every mainstream television media upload nearly everything they broadcast to youtube. you're saying they can't be believed, right?
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

I'm no proponent of the infallibility of the media that's for damned sure. I'll doubt you'd find too many true sceptics who are.

In fact I find it is the conspiracy theorists who like to hang their hats on media articles, particularly early reports, to "prove" their little factoids.

The hypocrisy is that at the same time they maintain this same media are part of the conspiracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Kellythatsit said:
Seriously, this thread is getting worse and worse. The lack of critical thinking is so absurd it's both hysterical and depressing

FFS use your brains. Look at the evidence, look at the most likely scenario that can account for the evidence, apply Occam's razor

NB - YouTube videos = not evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
Click to expand...

Nor does the testimony of waterboarded jihadis
 
Also, I find it incredible that a number of you seem to have taken umbrage at my assertion regarding YouTube videos and have rushed to defend them.

Do you also consider movies like JFK to be historically accurate?

Seriously, do I have to explain why things like this should be taken with a grain of salt?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Kellythatsit said:
oh topjars - you make it so easy . . .

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

www.twf.org/News/Y2003/01-PBPR.pdf

/thread
Click to expand...

Ahh Kelly
You are a funny fellow at times
So to debunk the non believers you quote from the very findings many find hard and indeed incredulous to believe ?
Yep, that works
The old " jet fuel down the elevator shafts " theory, what a ripper
As an example, this completely ignores a couple of small important things
1- jet fuel doesn't burn anywhere near the temperature required to bend steel let alone weaken it
2- nor does jet fuel burn for the extended period of time needed to melt/ weaken/ bend steel
3- most of the fuel burned upon impact

Also there was something else in there about eyewitnesses to the impact at the Pentagon that I found intriguing, and that is the FACT that for every eyewitness who said a jetliner hit the Pentagon there is another eyewitness who said it was a military plane or missile
I wonder why the eye witness testimony of these people is conveniently ignored ?
Anyway, as you were
 
Kellythatsit said:
Also, I find it incredible that a number of you seem to have taken umbrage at my assertion regarding YouTube videos and have rushed to defend them[/B].

Do you also consider movies like JFK to be historically accurate?

Seriously, do I have to explain why things like this should be taken with a grain of salt?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
Click to expand...

Nothing of the sort. You clearly believe that waterboarding is a foolproof means of extracting a confession.
 
Glacier said:
Ahh Kelly
You are a funny fellow at times
So to debunk the non believers you quote from the very findings many find hard and indeed incredulous to believe ?
Yep, that works
The old " jet fuel down the elevator shafts " theory, what a ripper

As an example, this completely ignores a couple of small important things
1- jet fuel doesn't burn anywhere near the temperature required to bend steel let alone weaken it
2- nor does jet fuel burn for the extended period of time needed to melt/ weaken/ bend steel
3- most of the fuel burned upon impact

Also there was something else in there about eyewitnesses to the impact at the Pentagon that I found intriguing, and that is the FACT that for every eyewitness who said a jetliner hit the Pentagon there is another eyewitness who said it was a military plane or missile
I wonder why the eye witness testimony of these people is conveniently ignored ?
Anyway, as you were
Click to expand...

Oh dear . . . poor misguided Glacier

You obviously haven't read the reports tendered above because in none of them do they make the claim that Jet Fuel melted, weakened or in any other way contributed to the destruction of the twin towers. As usual, this is a truther argument that sounds good but when investigated falls flat because no one has ever contended this is what happened.

What the NIST do say is that the jet fuel was the catalyst for the fires in the towers, not the destruction. These fires were then fed with the office furniture, carpets, paper and other office consumables which indeed caused the fires to burn hotter and hotter. Samples taken from the site demonstrate that the fires got to as high as 1000 degrees celsius, which is hot enough for steel to lose up to 90% of it's strength. That, along with the severe trauma caused to the structure was all that was needed to initiate collapse.

With regards to the Pentagon missile, first of all I would dispute that it was anything like the ratio you claim regarding eyewitness accounts. Secondly, show me in which accounts the eyewitness actually inferred it was a missile. In all the eyewitness statements I've seen where they they've used the term missile to describe what they saw, the inference was still always that it was indeed a commercial airliner. Show me where I'm wrong.

It's like when witnesses to shark attacks refer to the shark as a torpedo, or a silver rocket. Most people would understand this to mean that it is a description of the shark and it is not to be taken literally . . . or do you actually think that surfers are being murdered by silver rockets and torpedoes and then covered up by blaming it on white pointers?

However, this is typical CT nonsense. Statements taken out of context, re-spun and then presented as flaws in the investigation and by extension the "official story" are par for the course with this supposed search for the truth. This kind of faux reasoning and distortion of the facts is less about the truth seeking and more about disproving what they don't believe - by any means necessary.

Whether you believe it or not, the documents I've tendered above are supportive of the null hypothesis (referred to here as the the "official story"). This remains thus until it is disproven - which as yet, it has not been.
 
(disclaimer: I'm against torture and don't condone it at all) waterboarding is pretty much foolproof for extracting a confession when used correctly.

Torture is one of the most effective ways of getting the truthful of someone when used right.

The problem most people miss understand about torture is that people believe you basically hurt someone then ask them to tell you what you want to know, and whilst used this way by many oppressive regimes it's simply ineffective.

Torture is meant to instill a conditioned response, it breaks a person down to basically being an animal.

You torture the person conditioning the response of telling the truth.

The "problem" with most torture techniques (apart from being sadistic) is that they cause physical damage to the person limiting the time you have to condition the response of truth telling because the body can only take so much thus you have to allow longer and longer extended gaps in between the torture for the subject to recuperate or risk them dying.

There's also the added problem of the subject building up a resistance to the physical pain.

Torture techniques like sleep deprivation and water boarding bypass most of these problems and provides the time needed to condition the response without the risk of killing your victim.

The idea that torture is ineffective is spread to try and discourage its use, but it's a rubbish. we should abhorr torture such as waterboarding because of what it does to a person especially in the long-term, but shouldn't discount it's effectiveness.
 
Kellythatsit said:
Oh dear . . . poor misguided Glacier

You obviously haven't read the reports tendered above because in none of them do they make the claim that Jet Fuel melted, weakened or in any other way contributed to the destruction of the twin towers. As usual, this is a truther argument that sounds good but when investigated falls flat because no one has ever contended this is what happened.

What the NIST do say is that the jet fuel was the catalyst for the fires in the towers, not the destruction. These fires were then fed with the office furniture, carpets, paper and other office consumables which indeed caused the fires to burn hotter and hotter. Samples taken from the site demonstrate that the fires got to as high as 1000 degrees celsius, which is hot enough for steel to lose up to 90% of it's strength. That, along with the severe trauma caused to the structure was all that was needed to initiate collapse.

With regards to the Pentagon missile, first of all I would dispute that it was anything like the ratio you claim regarding eyewitness accounts. Secondly, show me in which accounts the eyewitness actually inferred it was a missile. In all the eyewitness statements I've seen where they they've used the term missile to describe what they saw, the inference was still always that it was indeed a commercial airliner. Show me where I'm wrong.

It's like when witnesses to shark attacks refer to the shark as a torpedo, or a silver rocket. Most people would understand this to mean that it is a description of the shark and it is not to be taken literally . . . or do you actually think that surfers are being murdered by silver rockets and torpedoes and then covered up by blaming it on white pointers?

However, this is typical CT nonsense. Statements taken out of context, re-spun and then presented as flaws in the investigation and by extension the "official story" are par for the course with this supposed search for the truth. This kind of faux reasoning and distortion of the facts is less about the truth seeking and more about disproving what they don't believe - by any means necessary.

Whether you believe it or not, the documents I've tendered above are supportive of the null hypothesis (referred to here as the the "official story"). This remains thus until it is disproven - which as yet, it has not been.
Click to expand...

I do like a good debate with you mate, at least you show you have a brain
However, just to pick you up on a few points, so lets do some maths
A hydrocarbon fire, such as those in the WTC ( jet fuel, other flamible material in the offices etc) can at most rise to 1700 degrees Fahrenheit - fact which is not quite 1000 degrees Celsius
So lets for argument sake say that, as you said, the fires could and did somehow get to 1000 d Celsius ( or 1832 F) and lets take into account that steel STARTS to melt at about 1521 d Celsius ( or 2770 F), this means that these fires would have to burn for an awful long time at 500 d Celsius less than required for the steel beams to weaken
However we had one building collapse in 56 min and the other in 102 min
Common sense would question how this was so
So lets look at the 9/11 commission and the basic answer to why the buildings collapsed at all

" the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14 inch wide steel columns which bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft in elevators and stairwells were grouped"

Ok so a big arse plane smacks into this building which is sufficiently weakened by the impact and resulting fire and collapses, simple eh ?
But hang on a minute, this is a complete fabrication by the commission
How so?
Well the core of each tower was not hollow at all but was supported by 47 massive steel columns
At its base, each column was 14 x 36 inches with 4 inch thick walls !!!
As its design stated " these bore most of the weight of the buildings "

The commission however avoids this embarrassment by simply denying the existence of these steel columns
So I ask you, ignorance or lie ?
And lets not even start on the topic of molten steel which burned for months afterwards

Intriguing?
Am I still " misguided " ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top