Originally posted by jaden101
so your point is that the piece the news showed is the same as the piece that the freelance cameraman recorded???
Nah, my point is that the videos are fake. Doesn't matter who showed it, the media endorsed and showed fake vids. Airplanes don't melt thru buldings, mane.
Though, it's agood thing you brought that up. Because there are many amateur vids that are actually the same vids taken by the media.
Originally posted by Classic NES
Nah, my point is that the videos are fake. Doesn't matter who showed it, the media endorsed and showed fake vids. Airplanes don't melt thru buldings, mane.Though, it's agood thing you brought that up. Because there are many amateur vids that are actually the same vids taken by the media.
you can clearly see the damage on the building that the plane makes on the very slow gif...particularly when it cuts from the last frame to the 1st again
and no...the amatuer vids that the news show are because people sell their footage to news stations...like the one you posted
Originally posted by jaden101
you can clearly see the damage on the building that the plane makes on the very slow gif...particularly when it cuts from the last frame to the 1st again
Yeah, I can see the damage on the building. Never said there was no damage nor was I talking about the damage on the building. There was obviously damage seeing that there was a huge explosion upon impact. The problem is not the damage in the building, it's the impossible way the plane enters the building. It literally goes right through, with no resistance or show's any sign of damage during impact. The whole plane just simply goes right through the building, even the delicate wings with no damage to the plane.
Unless this was David Blaines airplane they recorded:
Originally posted by jaden101
and no...the amatuer vids that the news show are because people sell their footage to news stations...like the one you posted
Still fake, though. 🙂
Originally posted by Classic NES
Yeah, I can see the damage on the building. Never said there was no damage nor was I talking about the damage on the building. There was obviously damage seeing that there was a huge explosion upon impact. The problem is not the damage in the building, it's the impossible way the plane enters the building. It literally goes right through, with no resistance or show's any sign of damage during impact. The whole plane just simply goes right through the building, even the delicate wings with no damage to the plane
you are aware that the WTC was 90% air and that the exterior of the building is all but non supportive
given that there is no footage from inside the towers on the floors where the plane hit then it's impossible to tell the way in which the plane was damaged as it enters but there have been simulations by independant experts into it
Originally posted by jaden101
you are aware that the WTC was 90% air and that the exterior of the building is all but non supportivegiven that there is no footage from inside the towers on the floors where the plane hit then it's impossible to tell the way in which the plane was damaged as it enters but there have been simulations by independant experts into it
Originally posted by Classic NES
That isn't the point, I'm not saying that it was impossible to penetrate the outer wall. But, what that video show's is impossible. Planes do not enter through buildings as if they were ghost. The plane goes into the building, including the wings. It doesn't: Crumple, Contort, Decelerate, or show any signs that it's been in a crash?
not from the outside doesn't because all you see is the parts that haven't touched the building yet...what do you expect to see...the back end of the plane buckling as the front end goes in????
given that in the actual footage the plane went in nose to tail in a fraction of a second...any shockwave generated from the impact at the front wouldn't be noticable on the footage
the fact is that piece of footage and every other one of the planes entering the building show exactly the same thing...the building being damaged as the plane goes in
besides....remind me again...what would be the point of faking a plane entering a building when a plane actually entered a building?...
Originally posted by jaden101
not from the outside doesn't because all you see is the parts that haven't touched the building yet...what do you expect to see...the back end of the plane buckling as the front end goes in????
That's the problem, it cannot go in like that. The idea that an aluminum fuselage and a plastic nosecone can pierce right through steel girders is laughable. Once again, where is the Contortion, Deceleration, any form of buckling on the plane?
Then there's the Aluminum wing slicing right through Steel whill remaining attached to the plane?
Hell, the explosion happened only after the plane enters the building. Seriously, how can the fireball wave come from with in the building after the plane impacts? How is that possible?
Once again, this is real crash physics:
Originally posted by jaden101
given that in the actual footage the plane went in nose to tail in a fraction of a second...any shockwave generated from the impact at the front wouldn't be noticable on the footage
Yep, the building offered no resistance, how is that possible?
Originally posted by jaden101
the fact is that piece of footage and every other one of the planes entering the building show exactly the same thing...the building being damaged as the plane goes in
Like this?:
Originally posted by jaden101
besides....remind me again...what would be the point of faking a plane entering a building when a plane actually entered a building?...
Beat's me, why don't you ask the perps. All I know is that the vids are fake.
Seriously, How can the engines explode after the plane enters the building and not on impact with the building?
Nevermind, the wings cutting right through with no buckling still attached to the plane? Do you unerstand how delicatea planes wings are, I mean flying birds are hazardous to the wings of a plane for god sakes.
Originally posted by Classic NES
Seriously, How can the engines explode after the plane enters the building and not on impact with the building?Nevermind, the wings cutting right through with no buckling still attached to the plane? Do you unerstand how delicatea planes wings are, I mean flying birds are hazardous to the wings of a plane for god sakes.
when did the engines explode?...i already posted photographic evidence that the engines were found lying in the streets
you argument doesn't cut it at all with your "how does a thin wing smash through a steel column" because i already had this debate with you before...hence the fence posts smashing through buildings during tornados...and a fence post doesn't travel upward of 400mph nor does it have several hundred tonnes of weight
now you keep quoting laws of physics...i suggest you look up the laws that Mr Parker tried to say were my silly theories...velocity...mass...energy
Originally posted by jaden101
when did the engines explode?...i already posted photographic evidence that the engines were found lying in the streets
That was only one engine and it was the wrong engine.
That's a 737 engine, not a 767.
Nevermind the retarded notion of an engine sitting neatly under some scaffolding.
Originally posted by jaden101
you argument doesn't cut it at all with your "how does a thin wing smash through a steel column" because i already had this debate with you before...hence the fence posts smashing through buildings during tornados...and a fence post doesn't travel upward of 400mph nor does it have several hundred tonnes of weight
Nah, show me a fence post cutting steel.
Originally posted by jaden101
now you keep quoting laws of physics...i suggest you look up the laws that Mr Parker tried to say were my silly theories...velocity...mass...energy
Or Newtons Third law of motion, you know what that is? It's aliitle law that states that when particle A exerts force on particle B, Particle B in turn exerts force on Particle. This means that when an object such as a plane impacts another object such as a building. The Building will exert force on the plane just as the plane exerts force on the building. So, if you imagine a plane slamming into a 500,000 building at 500 mph. You also have to imagine a 500,000 ton building slamming an aluminum plane at 500 Mph. Who do you think will win?
Originally posted by Classic NES
And to help you with your decision, here's what happens when aplanes wings impact some birds.There is a large amount of force exerted upon both objects leading to the mangling of a bird and a rip in the wing. So, what do you think will happen when we replace the bird with Steel girders?
Mwuahhaha, Classic NES - 1 Jaden - 0
Those buildings went down in VIRTUAL FREE FALL SPEED. Everyone saw it.
Please peope, study the Law of Physics by Sir Isaac Newton.
Originally posted by Katsu
Mwuahhaha, Classic NES - 1 Jaden - 0Those buildings went down in VIRTUAL FREE FALL SPEED. Everyone saw it.
Please peope, study the Law of Physics by Sir Isaac Newton.
you keep repeating that...but its not true and i've already linked to a scientific paper that proved it...but once again you refuse to read it cause it disagrees with your wacky theories
Originally posted by Classic NES
And to help you with your decision, here's what happens when aplanes wings impact some birds.There is a large amount of force exerted upon both objects leading to the mangling of a bird and a rip in the wing. So, what do you think will happen when we replace the bird with Steel girders?
what happened to the plane...did it exit the other side of the building???...or did it get smashed to bits?
exactly..
Originally posted by Classic NES
That was only one engine and it was the wrong engine.That's a 737 engine, not a 767.
Nevermind the retarded notion of an engine sitting neatly under some scaffolding.
Nah, show me a fence post cutting steel.
Or Newtons Third law of motion, you know what that is? It's aliitle law that states that when particle A exerts force on particle B, Particle B in turn exerts force on Particle. This means that when an object such as a plane impacts another object such as a building. The Building will exert force on the plane just as the plane exerts force on the building. So, if you imagine a plane slamming into a 500,000 building at 500 mph. You also have to imagine a 500,000 ton building slamming an aluminum plane at 500 Mph. Who do you think will win?
aaahhh...so no someone managed to come along with a freshly smashed up engine and plant in a street in the middle of the most densely populated piece of land on the planet and noone noticed?...mmmm...rightyo then
you dont actually have to take that force into effect...unless the entire half million tonnes is being levied against the plane at the surface area...which isn't the case...
i've given you the video of the accurate science simulation of what happened to the plane as it entered the building...i guess you chose not to watch it
i'm sure if the plane had hit the building with the maximum surface area i.e the bottom of the top of the plane hit...then it may well have not penetrated....alas i'm not a physicist so i couldn't comment...but that seems to be what you're implying..that the plane should just crumple up and bounce off
oh...and you're point about the engine...identified by the Karl Schwartz group...that would be a political activist group who also said an A3 skywarrior hit the pentagon and who claims his source to be an unnamed engineer who phoned him out of the blue to say "that's not an 767 engine"...yeah...nice source their sherlock