Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

9/11 conspiracy theory again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    Or destroyed one week later than it was.
    Apparently they bought their tickets around 2 weeks prior to 9/11, was the weather that good +/- a week on either side of the date? I don't remember. In any event they were lucky everything lined up so well for them.

    Comment


    • #17
      maybe he is the world's best pilot, maybe not, but he clearly does not understand kinetic energy or physics.

      KE=1/2MV2 (where the V is velocity and is squared). so take 1/2 the mass of a 767 * 540 mph SQUARED.

      assuming the lightest 767, 176,650 lbs you get

      2334784894.3242598 joules of kinetic energy or 1,722,048,964.811 lbs/ft of force.

      still think the aircraft couldn't have done what it did?

      gabriel, feel free to comment on my internet physics

      Comment


      • #18
        teevee i dont understand kinetic energy or physics...that might as well be written in chinese to me.

        on the subject of the pentagon,,,,i've seen a program that showed the angle of attack he would have had to take....this was very low for quite a distance and it suggested the plane would have hit other objects (lamp posts etc)...this was pretty compelling and we dont have the footage of a plane hitting it...and hardly any big plane debris like engines or bits of wings......

        same thing?? no real plane??......or another daft theory.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by andyb99 View Post
          teevee i dont understand kinetic energy or physics...that might as well be written in chinese to me.

          on the subject of the pentagon,,,,i've seen a program that showed the angle of attack he would have had to take....this was very low for quite a distance and it suggested the plane would have hit other objects (lamp posts etc)...this was pretty compelling and we dont have the footage of a plane hitting it...and hardly any big plane debris like engines or bits of wings......

          same thing?? no real plane??......or another daft theory.
          This "no planes hit anything" mania is the biggest pile of bollocks I've ever read. Hundreds, if not thousands of witnesses watched the planes hit the twin towers. I saw the second impact live on TV.
          Hundreds of witnesses saw the aircraft hit the Pentagon.

          That's what happened.
          Endex.

          For Christ's sake.....get a life ! (not referring to you AndyB99) There is no conspiracy other than the fact that Al Quaida got lucky 3 times.
          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
            maybe he is the world's best pilot, maybe not, but he clearly does not understand kinetic energy or physics.

            KE=1/2MV2 (where the V is velocity and is squared). so take 1/2 the mass of a 767 * 540 mph SQUARED.

            assuming the lightest 767, 176,650 lbs you get

            2334784894.3242598 joules of kinetic energy or 1,722,048,964.811 lbs/ft of force.

            still think the aircraft couldn't have done what it did?

            gabriel, feel free to comment on my internet physics
            Here's the problem though- the math says the planes could not take down the towers....

            ...and that's actually a 100% fact...the towers survived the plane crashes.

            While you used too many decimal points- the towers are big heavy iron and concrete versus "light and airy" aluminum.

            So we can quote crash physics all day- the issue is if you want to believe that the fire (and design) of the towers was what brought the buildings down. I personally have no problem with that- but there's something that looks like a flash when the buildings start falling so therefore George Bush planted a bomb.

            By the way- let's all chill out on the fact that this has been discussed at length before...It doesn't bother me that every five years, someone (someone new) thinks back to that terrible day and ponders a few things and decides to float a question on a discussion board...like can a dummy fly an airliner?
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
              Here's the problem though- the math says the planes could not take down the towers....

              ...and that's actually a 100% fact...the towers survived the plane crashes.

              While you used too many decimal points- the towers are big heavy iron and concrete versus "light and airy" aluminum.

              So we can quote crash physics all day- the issue is if you want to believe that the fire (and design) of the towers was what brought the buildings down. I personally have no problem with that- but there's something that looks like a flash when the buildings start falling so therefore George Bush planted a bomb.

              By the way- let's all chill out on the fact that this has been discussed at length before...It doesn't bother me that every five years, someone (someone new) thinks back to that terrible day and ponders a few things and decides to float a question on a discussion board...like can a dummy fly an airliner?
              i don't think the match says anything. the towers were specifically designed to withstand an airplane impact, albeit from a much smaller plane. they were not designed to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire, which is ultimately what caused the to fall.

              the flash? do you or anyone know for certain what was in those two buildings that got crushed as each floor pancaked on top of the lower one?

              i lost several good friends that day and it pisses me of to no end when morons make up shit like this guy

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                can a dummy fly an airliner?
                Yes.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                  ...the flash? do you or anyone know for certain what was in those two buildings...
                  No- do you?

                  I can think of several reasons why the collapse itself would cause a flash.

                  Then again- who knows- as elaborate as the whole plot was- who says the terrorists didn't plant something explosive?

                  Asking if the flash might have been a bomb versus asking if it was a massive US conspiracy are very different questions.
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    just so we know guys...i am quite new here...and sorry to drag it up...but my question was more on the 'can a dummy fly a plane'...and thats simply because i'm pretty fascinated right now with planes....and often wonder how hard or easy it is to do.....which is why this article got me thinking.

                    besides...if i think about his statement...of them not finding much plane debris..well i think the steel sheered things in half...like a wing for instance...and the bits carried on into the inside....THATs not rocket science is it.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                      This "no planes hit anything" mania is the biggest pile of bollocks I've ever read. Hundreds, if not thousands of witnesses watched the planes hit the twin towers. I saw the second impact live on TV.
                      Agreed.
                      That is exactly the first thought that comes to my mind whenever I hear this sort of "No plane theories". No matter how convincing those theories sound, thousands of people-civilians, SAW the planes crash. It is not possible to make them all lie. I was only 3 years old when 9/11 happened, but my parents saw it live on TV, as did millions of other people, when UA175 crashed into the 2nd tower.

                      As Highkeas and Evan stated, people are trying to profit from this terrible tragedy, and that is very sad.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by hongmng View Post

                        As Highkeas and Evan stated, people are trying to profit from this terrible tragedy, and that is very sad.
                        Well...people profit from all sort of things, but I'm not real clear on what John Lear's "profit" angle on this is. Unless he was paid for his testimony, which opens a whole other can of worms.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          ..like can a dummy fly an airliner?
                          "but Iv'e been pulling up the whole time"

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by TheKiecker View Post
                            "but Iv'e been pulling up the whole time"
                            Can a dummy fly an airliner?
                            Yes.

                            Can an ATP stall an airliner?
                            Yes.

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                              i don't think the match says anything. the towers were specifically designed to withstand an airplane impact, albeit from a much smaller plane. they were not designed to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire, which is ultimately what caused the to fall.
                              Untrue, but close.

                              The buildings were designed to withstand a low-speed 707 (plausibly on approach) impact. Both structures sustained the much greater impact forces of a 767 at high speed without failing. Fuel loads were not calculated into this however. But jet fuel burns off quickly in any case. The problem lies in containing the resultant fire that they would ignite.

                              The buildings were not designed to withstand a sustained fire hot enough to compromise the rigidity of the steel trusses and perimeter columns. Most of the jet fuel burned off in the fireballs and the rest burned off quickly thereafter. The sustained intense heat of the fire was caused by the other burning materials in the building. The sprinkler systems lacked fault-tolerant redundancy and failed. Remaining systems suffered from low water pressure. The low water pressure also inhibited the fire-fighters hooking into the system. Also the fireproofing seems to have been shattered from the truss beams on certain floors by the impact. All this plus the difficulty of access prevented fire-fighters from containing the blaze.

                              The collapse was a combination of intense heat weakening the floor trusses and weakening the core columns that resulted in core downward compression loads being transfered by the hat truss to the outer perimeter columns, which caused them to buckle as the weakened floor trusses pulled them inward toward the core. Once one floor failed a progressive collapse was inevitable.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by andyb99 View Post
                                on the subject of the pentagon,,,,i've seen a program that showed the angle of attack he would have had to take....this was very low for quite a distance and it suggested the plane would have hit other objects (lamp posts etc)...this was pretty compelling and we dont have the footage of a plane hitting it...and hardly any big plane debris like engines or bits of wings......

                                same thing?? no real plane??......or another daft theory.
                                Another daft theory. I was particularly amused at the video where the narrator points out that an engine core part recovered from the wreckage could not have come from a 757 turbofan... and therefore must have come from a cruise missile. Of course, it was from the APU, but the idiot 'expert investigator' had no idea that every 757 has three turbine engines on board.

                                I went to an "Inside Job" screening party once and afterwards pointed this (among other things) out to the audience. I saw a lot of bubbles burst right there.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X