Boeing 767 vs. tower wall (simple analysis)

[ultima1]

Unfortunately your credibility has been destroyed as you base information on heresay as opposed to proper investigation...

Your credibility is a joke, you believe what you have been told from a FICTIONAL book.

Does not get much worse then that for credibility.

GOOD BYE.

[eyeballkid88]

How do you know its fictional?

you havnt read even one page...

Is this how you do all your research?

[ultima1]

how do you know its fictional?

You havnt read even one page...

Is this how you do all your research?

Prove me wrong, prove it is not fictional or move on.

[eyeballkid88]

Firstly calm down mate...

its ok for everyone to have different views...

Ok... now the book is factual...

You will have to read it, to find its factual... I cant post an entire book onto a forum Mate....

[ultima1]

Firstly calm down mate...

its ok for everyone to have different views...

Ok... now the book is factual...

You will have to read it, to find its factual... I cant post an entire book onto a forum Mate....

Good Bye, not going to foll around with a joke and a troll.

[luciferhorus]

I cannot but help to notice that whenever anyone posts a rather serious and thought out essay which has obviously involved a great many hours of research and attention that it is often followed by numerous pages which are little more than exchanges of abuse and contradition which distract from the real "meat" of the argument, and from intelligent debate and discussion.

For example

1:"there were no planes at the Twin Towers"
2:"Yes there were"
3: "No there were not"
4: "Yes there were"
5: "No there were not"
6: "Prove it?"
7: "Disprove it?"
8: "Prove it?"
9: "Disprove it?"
10: "You are an idiot"
11: "You are a double idiot"
10: "You are a treble idiot"
11: "You are a quadrouple idiot"
etc., etc.
12: "Shrill for the CIA."
13: "Tin foil hat conspiracy theorist"
Etc., etc., etc.
14: Your mother is a whore.............
Etc., etc., etc.

Camera switches to children "debating (ahem)" in a playground, hurling abuse at each other.


Etc., etc., etc.

Lux

_________________________________________



On the Dialectic (Gr. Argument)

On what is argument and what is not.



Comandante Lucifer
Aeon of Light, 2009.

Dialectic is the science of arguing well. ...St Augustine.

I'd Like to make a general response to this which I hope will improve the 'form' of debating.

I have a prewritten essay on this which I often post into Internet forums where I am debating.

I think that we have to imagine ourselves as philosophers debating at the 'Oxford debating society;' we have to imagine Socrates and his pupils; we have to imagine Jesus debating with his enemies and Bhuddah with his critics; none of these souls spoke to an exclusively passive audience who simply agreed with everything they said, and were entirely unafraid to adress their critics and would challenge the established beliefs and ideas of Archons of their age.

http://i414.photobucket.com/albums/pp230/uncknowledge/tributepainting.jpg

It is important not to suspend criticism of anyone, for this is not how the free thinker thinks, but it is also important to concede our own positions when shown to be errant.

If a Nazi states 99 truths which we agree with and one flasehood which we do not agree with; the advanced soul should concede the 99 points and only take up the point of disagreement.

We often learn as much from listening to and debating with our ideological enemies as we do with our allies.


How to test one's belief system.

Lucifer
The 1000 Year Revolution of Light.

I also have a metaphysical belief system which makes the most sense of reality to me; it cannot be proven empirically however, this being a statement of the obvious, since there will never be empirical (objective, scientific) proof for the non empirical (metaphsycial, subjective, non-scientific), just as we cannot empirically prove the existence of love or beauty, yet they form part of our reality just as our ideas and beliefs do.

Witgenstein's Tree does not explain 'all of philosophy (the study of knowledge);' it is merely all of empistemology (which asks the question, 'how do we know what we know?' and 'what is objective knowledge?). If I say 'I know objectively' that the universe has a Creator and that she is a black, militant, Communist, Jewish lesbian' then the term 'know objectively' is an 'epistemic fallacy,' but it does not make the latter half of the statement false; in metaphysics we speak of what we cannot and do not know by the evidence of the 5 senses, but rather of our interpretations of reality and beliefs, which we can then test out in the arena of debate.

There are numerous Greek words for knowledge and 'epistem' is only one of them.

When we speak of grand metaphysical systems, we are speaking of subjective understandings of the universe. My own understanding is a modern 'syncretism (a mixture)' based upon understandings and inner experiences gleaned from the Kabbalah, necromancy, ritual magick, Neo-Paganism, Crowleyanity, psychoactive usage, the study of all religions and shamanism / spiritualism in general etc., however unfortunately there is no scientific method of proving this or any other system.

So what are we left with? Since a scientific system of proving what is not scientific is not possible, we can only refer to the Socratic dialectic (see essay below); this is much better system of continuous non-scientific 'testing' than merely one person designing a ‘new’ Grand Metaphysical System and imposing that on every one else for the rest of history; or just sticking with the worn out systems; the dross of history.

Unfortunately the Socratic dialectic method requires a very open mind (a rarity among adults) and the willingness to test one's ideas, witness them being torn apart and to concede points in debate when shown to be errant.

However.. this method separates the intellectual and religious fascists (the Sophists) from the truly great souls of human history.

In the absence of a scientific method, there is simply no other way which does not lead to the abyss of dogmatism and religious extremism.

Narrow is the path...

Bear in mind of course that Socrates was sentenced to death for challenging and attacking the beliefs of the Archons (authorities) of his age. Using this system will not make you popular; for example any Christian priest who uses this simple method on his Bishops and their hierarchy is almost guaranteed excommunication. Try this in a Muslim country or as a CIA employee and await the lynch mob or the assassin.

The ‘only’ method for testing metaphysical ideas which in anyway parallels the continuous testing and experimentation methods of scientists is the Socratic method; this would be the only acceptable Anarchist model for considering non-scientific ‘truths’ in a future world.

The ’Cogers’

For some years when I lived in London I would attend the ’Coger’s Society’ which meets several times a month in a pub in different parts of London. All persons have 5 minutes to speak /debate on any subject they wish; mostly politics and religion.

There is always a moderator, however. Two of my Anarchist comrades were presidents (moderators) of the Cogers for a while, and no matter how extreme the views presented by Christians, Far-rightists, Muslims, Capitalists, whatever, no interruption or heckling was tolerated. A person could brutally atttack another speaker only during their ’5 minutes,’ or if the speaker took responses and questions from the floor.

That is why if you want to have an intelligent discussion with Christians, Nazis, Communists whatever, you need to either have a moderated discussion or the debaters need to follw certain ground-rules, since there are always those who confuse an argument between philosophers with an argument between drunks in a pub. As with the 'Cogers' the ideal 'moderator' however does not impose 'any' form of censorship of ideas, but rather is there to keep the 'rabble' at bay, to encourage debate and to cry 'order' if debate is confused with the hurling of ad hominems (lit 'against the man' as opposed to against the person's political and religious 'ideas' and 'beliefs;' i.e., personal abuse)'

I have been on the Internet almost since its beginnings; we know that it is a fact that there exists among us an army of professional spammers, bloggers and debaters, employed by the state terrorists, yet you will never find anyone who will admit to that; in addition we have to deal with children and others, lacking in education and whose intelligence is undeveloped, and who just like to make a lot of noise. Frankly most Americans are barely literate anyway and can just about read a cornflakes packet.

Anarchism.

Since Anarchism, unlike Marxism is a purely political solution, there is no rigid metaphysics; all beliefs may be considered as long as all forms of organised religion and the professional priesthood (authorites on ‘God’) are eradicated; the debates may thus continue until the end of the universe and the death of the soul, if such as thing be possible.

http://www.ricksiegel.com/images/hitler_cardinal4.jpg

If the day comes when a new ‘Great Leader’ convinces half the world that his form of political and religious truth is infallible, the revolution shall have to be begun all over again and rivers of blood shall flow. Few things are more offensive to the proponets of the Socratic method that a politician or religionist making a speech to an uncritical audience of psychopahants clapping incessantly at every sentence or crying out 'Amen;' for such is the sign of the psychophant, the gullible, the sheep, the lemming, the hypnotised and the soul who has suspended all criticism.

War

The point where all debates cease is the beginning of war and in the age we live in we can expect war like no other in human history, and this shall be the consequence of the few masters who refuse to listen to the will of the masses and who care not for their concerns or criticisms.


Love and Light.

Lux
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif


______________________________________

The Socratic Dialectic (Gr. Argument) 101

or:


‘Abuse, sophisty and contradiction (ASC) : the last cries of the desparate.’


What is ‘argument?
By Lucifer
For Anarchist Communism.

______________________________________

There are numerous groups on the Internet where debate is confused with 'exchanges' of abuse.

I was did not always think as I do, and in the future I expect my positions to modify as a consequence of study, debate, life experience etc.

Debate and discussion is always a good thing.

Our political and metaphysical beliefs must go through a dialectical testing process.

When tested, if they fail or are destroyed by superior arguments; the person who is intellectually honest should concede and modify his position.

That is how adults 'develop' intellectually, morally (the discernment of good and evil), spiritually, whatever.

Children just slag each other off.

______________

http://sorinplaton.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/skinheads.jpg

Thesis (idea), anti-thesis (opposing idea) and synthesis (a combination of two ideas).

An argument in the English language can mean a fight between two football hooligans but this has nothing to do with the Greek meaning of ‘dialectic, ’ with regards to the teaching and debating method Socrates. In Internet debates over the years I have often made many ‘arguments’ against the ‘ideas’ of other people who misunderstand the meaning of the term ‘dialectic, ’ and to simplify I have written the following explanation which I often post in response to my essays.


_____________________________________________

Abuse and contradiction are common and can be had from imbecile, football hooligan or a drunk at a bus stop and do not constitute argument.

Responses should follow certain standards or I will probably ignore you.
_________________________________

Argument (Gr. dialectic) according to Socrates, Hegel and John Cleese.


3 universally accepted ground rules of debating

1: Abuse.
Abuse does not constitute an argument.

2: Contradiction.
Contradiction is not an argument. ’I don’t agree with you’ is not an
argument. An Argument would state ‘why’ you disagree.

3: Sophistry (sophist: ’sophisticated / educated).

A Sophist generally avoids the question and rambles on about something else, often avoiding the argument made by the opponent and often utilising straw man arguments (attacking arguments and positions which the opponent does not hold) and creates confusion with language.

The use of the combination of 1, 2 and 3 is generally defined as ’arrogance’ and ‘avoidance of debate, ’ and by default ‘conceding the point to the opponent’

For those who do not understand the meaning of the term ‘argument, ’ for further information watch the 6 minute video on the ground rules of debate on:

http://www.scottberkun.com/wp-content/themes/scottberkun/images/40-1.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/v/kQFKtI6gn9Y&hl=en&fs=1

(Monty Python Argument Sketch)

Note that this only covers abuse and contradiction.

If you cannot understand this, I suggest the removal of your brain.

See

http://www.physd.amu.edu.pl/~magik/pics/gumby1.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIlKiRPSNGA

(Monty Python: ’My Brian Hurts)

’An argument is not contradiction (or abuse); it is a series of connected statements which establish a proposition; a debate is a dialectical intellectual process’

__________


The Socratic and Sophist method of education

Socrates: intellectual and spiritual development through a dialectical process.

Socrates would encourage his students to ‘argue’ with him, but to restate, since the term ‘argue’ has a number of meanings in the English, we are speaking of a Socratic ‘dialectical’ process, not a punch up, nor the showering of abuse; we are speaking of challenging an idea (thesis) with another idea (anti-thesis) and in this way the ideas and debating skills of both parties evolve and develop.

This process is intended to produce an intellectually evolved and intellectually honest person who can admit points to the opponent when the opponent’s position seems to be better and who can also stand up for their own ideas when challenged by an authority whom they disagree with. This is how we evolve intellectually and spiritually; whereas an ‘arrogant; person engages in an argument (debate) in the same way that a boxer fights (to win). The purpose of dialectical argument is not to win even if one is shown to be errant, but to test and evolve (develop) ones’ ideas. This sometimes can involve using the ‘Devil’s advocate’ form of argument where one attacks the arguments of those one essentially agrees with in order to test them.

The Sophists: Intellectual fascism (Gr. Sophist: a sophisticated, educated, arrogant pseudo-intellectual).

The Sophist method of educating students, which has been taken up by the Catholic Church throughout it’s history, was to lecture them for hours, and if challenged by a student, the student might be told that they are arrogant, told off or burned at the state, tortured by the Inquisition’ or simply ‘murdered ’ and branded a heretic who dared to challenge authority. The Sophist method defines the term ‘arrogance. An arrogant person thinks that they are always correct, and even when shown to be incorrect, they will still hold fast to their position, since their purpose is to ‘win’ an argument by all means necessary. The Sophists of course despised Socrates as much as he despised them (he considered them to be educated fools) and like so many others who challenge existing authority, Socrates was martyred.

Lucifer
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif
Light of the World.
Aeon of Lucifer 2008

___________________________


http://www.wgvu.org/wgvunews/images/2775_040609.jpg

Christopher Hitchens on 'debate' and freedom of expression, in defence of holocaust denialist David Irving.

Hitchens is referring to ’debate and discussion’ as an intellectual / philosopher.

The example he gives of his defence of the historian David Irving regards defending another intellectual’s right to make a dissenting argument.

What is occurring on many Interent forums however, is not a group of philosopher’s debating; on the contrary, there is an attempt to stop that and to interfere with this process.

I’m sure that while Hitchen would welcome debate with a person who denies the Holocaust (as he states in the video below), I am also sure that he would attempt to silence those who would attempt to silence the Holocaust denier and to drown him out with the noise of the rabble; that is not a debate.


http://www.youtube.com/v/X3Hg-Y7MugU&hl=en&fs=1




"My predecessors have invariably said, 'My belief is right and yours is wrong; my customs are worthy, yours are ignoble; my dress is decent, yours is not; think as I think, talk as I talk, do as I do, or you will be wretched, poor, sick, disgraced and dammed; besides which, I shall cut your head off, burn you alive, starve you, imprison you, ostracize you and otherwise make you sorry you did not agree to be a good boy.' The essence of every missionary message has been to assimilate the taught to the teacher; and it has always been accompanied by bribes and threats. My message is exactly opposed to any of this. I say to each man and woman, 'You are unique and sovereign, the centre of an universe........... My mission is, in short, to bring everyone to the realization and enjoyment of his own kingship.

Aleister Crowley.' Confessions.'

__________________

Arguement sketch
Monty Python


Man: Good morning, I'd like to have an argument, please.

Receptionist: Certainly, sir. Have you been here before?

Man: No, this is my first time.

Receptionist: I see, well we'll see who's free at the moment.

Mr. Bakely's free, but he's a little bit concilliatory. No. Try Mr. Barnhart, room 12.

Man: Thank you.

He enters room 12.

Angry man: WHADDAYOU WANT?

Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that...

Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!

Man: What?

A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE!

YOU VACUOUS STUFFY-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!

M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!

A: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!

M: Oh! Oh I see!

A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.

M: Oh...Sorry...

A: Not at all!

A: (under his breath) stupid git.

The man goes into room 12A. Another man is sitting behind a desk.

Man: Is this the right room for an argument?

Other Man:(pause) I've told you once.

Man: No you haven't!

Other Man: Yes I have.

M: When?

O: Just now.

M: No you didn't!

O: Yes I did!

M: You didn't!

O: I did!

M: You didn't!

O: I'm telling you, I did!

M: You didn't!

O: (breaking into the developing argument) Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?

M: Ah! (taking out his wallet and paying) Just the five minutes.

O: Just the five minutes. Thank you.

Anyway, I did.

M: You most certainly did not!

O: Now let's get one thing perfectly clear: I most definitely told you!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did! (very fast)

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: No you DIDN'T!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: No you DIDN'T!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: No you DIDN'T!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh look, this isn't an argument!

(pause)

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

(pause)

M: It's just contradiction!

O: No it isn't!

M: It IS!

O: It is NOT!

M: You just contradicted me!

O: No I didn't!

M: You DID!

O: No no no!

M: You did just then!

O: Nonsense!

M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!

(pause)

O: No it isn't!

M: Yes it is!

(pause)

I came here for a good argument!

O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an *argument*!

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

O: Well! it CAN be!

M: No it can't!

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

O: No it isn't!

M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.

O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!

M: Yes but it isn't just saying "no it isn't".

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

O: Yes it is!

M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process.

Contradiction is just the automatic naysaying of anything the other person says.
O: It is NOT!

M: It is!

O: Not at all!

M: It is!

>DING!< The Arguer hits a bell on his desk and stops.

O: Thank you, that's it.

M: (stunned) What?

O: That's it. Good morning.

M: But I was just getting interested!

O: I'm sorry, the five minutes is up.

M: That was never five minutes!!

O: I'm afraid it was.

M: (leading on) No it wasn't.....

(pause)

O: (dirty look) I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.

M: WHAT??

O: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

M: But that was never five minutes just now!

(pause... the Other Man raises his eyebrows)

Oh Come on!

Oh this is...

This is ridiculous!

O: I told you...

I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you PAY!

M: Oh all right. (takes out his wallet and pays again.)

There you are.

O: Thank you.

M: (clears throat) Well...

O: Well WHAT?

M: That was never five minutes just now.

O: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!

M: Well I just paid!

O: No you didn't!

M: I DID!!!

O: YOU didn't!

M: I DID!!!

O: YOU didn't!

M: I DID!!!

O: YOU didn't!

M: I DID!!!

O: YOU didn't!

M: (unable to talk straight he's so mad) I don't want to argue about it!

O: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay!

M: Ah HAH!! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing???

Ah HAAAAAAHHH! Gotcha!

O: (pause) No you haven't!

M: Yes I have!

If you're arguing, I must have paid.

O: Not necessarily.

I *could* be arguing in my spare time.

[eyeballkid88]

Good Bye, not going to foll around with a joke and a troll.

No worries mate....

Well thanks again for your views....

[ultima1]

I cannot but help to notice that whenever anyone posts a rather serious and thought out essay which has obviously involved a great may hours of research and attention that it is often followed by numerous pages which are little more than exchanges of abuse and contradition which dstract from the real "meat" of the argument, and from intelligent debate and discussion.

Well thats the way people operate that cannot post facts and evidence to debate with. You are going to have to get used to it.

[luciferhorus]

Well thats the way people operate that cannot post facts and evidence to debate with. You are going to have to get used to it.

I am 51 years old and I have been debating on Internet discussion forums since 1994. I am "used" to it, but at the same time I am intolerant of the constant exchanges of abuse. This applies equally to persons such as yourself (despite the fact that I generally agree with you on many issues) as it does to your opponents and the state terrorist shrills and collaborators here.

In addition to my "architectural" background I am also qualified as a school teacher; however despite the financial rewards of that profession, I have turned my back on that vocation, since I found that when I had to engage a classroom of 20 to 30 idiots that I spent most of my time as a security guard dealing with exchanges of abuse.

So since I am not being paid to be here, I am going to be vastly more intolerant.

Lux

[ultima1]

So since I am not being paid to be here, I am going to be vastly more intolerant.

I understand, i was a federal police officer for 12 years and put up with a lot of abuse. So you have to forgive me that i am very intolerant with people on here.

I have a aviation and law enforcement background and can see a lot of things that were wrong on 9/11.

[bryan]

If someone post something like "NIST stated the wing tanks are empty" and i post proof that NIST did not state that, what is so hard to understand, what is the word trap in that ????

Did anybody actually post "NIST stated that the wing tanks were empty"?

[apollo_gnomon]

Your credibility is a joke, you believe what you have been told from a FICTIONAL book.

Does not get much worse then that for credibility.

GOOD BYE.

Good Bye, not going to foll around with a joke and a troll.

Prove me wrong, prove it is not fictional or move on.

See, ulitima, this is more of what I was trying to talk to you about earlier. You start by misunderstanding what someone has said, then you hammer that same bent nail in increasingly strident tones. You defeat any point you might have by getting all worked up over stupid non-points.

You got all pissy at ApolloHoax because someone used the word "troll" to dismiss you. You called out "oh noes, he insulted me" and claimed to have reported him to the mods, which was a lie. Don't be so freakin' delicate, and don't be a hypocrite. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Now, about the book. A poster referenced a book by David Icke called (as I recall Alice in Wonderland (subtitle, something about 9/11). You expressed confusion about this, assuming that the person was talking about the children's fantasy by Lewis Carrol. They corrected you, and then you started hammering the "fiction or nonfiction" nail.

This forum is focused around the works of David Icke. His work isn't fiction, exactly, or non-fiction, exactly. He writes speculative alternate views of reality. If you buy into his worldview, it's nonfiction. If you think he's full of crap, it's fiction.

So please back off from that particular point and move on. It's irrelevant. If you want to find out more [URL="http://www.amazon.com/Alice-Wonderland-World-Center-Disaster/dp/0953881024"]Here\'s the link to copies on Amazon. Used copies start at 4 bucks.

[luciferhorus]

So please back off from that particular point and move on. It's irrelevant. If you want to find out more Here's the link to copies on Amazon. Used copies start at 4 bucks. (http://www.amazon.com/Alice-Wonderland-World-Center-Disaster/dp/0953881024)

Yes I have owned a copy of that book for the last 8 years,

There is not a sentence or paragraph which considers the "No Plane" theory at the WTC (irrespective of the truth or untruth of that theory), but it it comprehensively discusses 911 as a black US military operation, a controlled demolition, and the "No Plane" at the Pentagon perspective.

So let us move on.

I understand, i was a federal police officer for 12 years and put up with a lot of abuse. So you have to forgive me that i am very intolerant with people on here.

I have a aviation and law enforcement background and can see a lot of things that were wrong on 9/11.

I lived in the US from 1983-1988; I absolutely don't hate Americans and my closest friends in that era included a radical US Vietnam veteran, and numerous "African Americans;" I don't consider all members of the US or UK police and ex-police to be neo-fascists; some of them are as honest as you have tried to be here and have "outed" themselves as being critics of the tyranny they once served, or which they currently serve.

So my respect and admiration for you is overtly expressed despite any ideological disagreements which you you may have with me; I express similar feelings for the anti-Communist Christian American Alex Jones, despite the fact that he would probably put me up against a wall and shoot me; perhaps I am too soft, but I do not feel the same inclination to do that to him; I consider him to be a heroic and admirable figure, despite my contant slagging off of him on his own Internet forums which I am subscribed to; I just consider him to be a victim of his Capitalist enviroment and of his Christian social conditioning and hypnosis; but this is the David Icke forum, and despite Alex and David actually being good friends these days, this is an an avangelical anti-Christian forum; in this respect I have to side with David.

Lux

[tabea_blumenschein]

Did anybody actually post "NIST stated that the wing tanks were empty"?

Uh, I think you did, here in post #420 of this very thread...

We? Who does that include and why should anybody take you seriously? NIST and the airline companies concluded that the outboard tanks of Flight 175 were completely empty, even though NIST's own studies show columns being broken by that part of the wings.

Or might I be misinterpreting that statement?

[ultima1]

Did anybody actually post "NIST stated that the wing tanks were empty"?

Yes you did. You stated NIST and the airlines concluded the wing tanks were empty.

But as proven from the Boeing site the fuel is consumed from the center tank first and then the wings, so the wing tanks would have been almost full since the flights were not that long.

[heartysoup]

the fact that you people are STILL arguing about the teenie-little details of plane impacts is unbelievable to me.

it took me under a week to accept that no planes hit the towers.

i cant possibly imagine what more needs to be argued about.

its like some people on this board do absolutely NOTHING else, but argue about insignificant little details.

mind-boggling.

[ultima1]

the fact that you people are STILL arguing about the teenie-little details of plane impacts is unbelievable to me..

But those details happen to be facts and evidence.

Like the fact of the woman standing in the hole where there is supposed to be burning jet fuel.

Like the fact of the wing tanks.

Like the fact of no reports matching parts to planes.

And so on.

[bryan]

Uh, I think you did, here in post #420 of this very thread...

Or might I be misinterpreting that statement?

Yes you did. You stated NIST and the airlines concluded the wing tanks were empty.

But as proven from the Boeing site the fuel is consumed from the center tank first and then the wings, so the wing tanks would have been almost full since the flights were not that long.

NIST say "it's reasonable that" all the fuel that was on board flight 175 at the time of impact was in the inboard wing tanks. If all the fuel was in the inboard wing tanks, what was in the outboard wing tanks?

[ultima1]

If all the fuel was in the inboard wing tanks, what was in the outboard wing tanks?

As proven from the Boeing site the fuel is consumed from the center tank first and then the wings, so the wing tanks would have been almost full since the flights were not in the air that long.

[eyeballkid88]

How old are you Ultima?

[ultima1]

How old are you Ultima?

Old enough to answer questions and post evidence when asked.

Unlike some people on here.

Oh and a combined over 25 years military and government work experience and lots of life experience, something that seems to be lacking a lot on here.

[eyeballkid88]

Personally Id be ashamed or 25 yrs of military and police work, that Id been duped into fighting against false threats and pushing an agenda onto the public, that I ahd been used ...

as surely you must see if you can see through 9/11....

The reason I was asking your ageis Im just trying to get a read on how long this thread is going to go on for... :D

any terminal illness' , alchohol problem, drugs??

[ultima1]

Personally Id be ashamed or 25 yrs of military and police work, that Id been duped into fighting against false threats and pushing an agenda onto the public, that I ahd been used ...

You mean like you have been duped by the media into what you beleive about the military and police?

Still waiting for you to be adult enough to post what is asked.

[eyeballkid88]

yawn....

[ultima1]

yawn....

dodge noted again.

[eyeballkid88]

your hardrive must be full with all this noting ...

heres two more yawns,

yawn, yawn...

and a % for you...

enjoy, I for one have found this the best conversation I have ever had...

[ultima1]

enjoy, I for one have found this the best conversation I have ever had...

Well you are just another troll and i cannot be bothered.

[eyeballkid88]

I just have different views to you....

and from your end of course you will get criticised if when presented with information you refuse to watch it and then give an assessment based on no knowledge....

its simple, if you want to judge something you have to have views the information....

simples :D

[ultima1]

its simple, if you want to judge something you have to have views the information....

When you admit the book is fictional then we can have an adult discussion.

Also when you can post what is asked for.

[eyeballkid88]

the book is factual!!

lol.....

not that you will ever know... its too "advanced' for you obviously..

Lol.. mate you really are making my morning... again!

[ultima1]

the book is factual!!

lol.....

not that you will ever know... its too "advanced' for you obviously..

Lol.. mate you really are making my morning... again!

Maybe you can explain why so many sources call it sci-fi? Which means fictional.

[eyeballkid88]

I thought you dealt in facts?

I can give you a million reasons why they would seek to discredit him...

1 million, but that would be speculation... you a facts man....

You see, this example shows the value, in thinking for oneself, looking at the info on face value...

[ultima1]

You see, this example shows the value, in thinking for oneself, looking at the info on face value...

So funny comming from someone who gets information from a fictional books instead of thinking for themselves.

BarnesandNoble

Amazon

Target

All state the books are fiction.

GOOD BYE.

[eyeballkid88]

exactly....

If your idea of research is to look at what other people say, unfortunately you wont ever reach the truth...

For example the 9/11 commision, do you believe that??

I dont believe your GOODBYES anymore.. hehe

[ultima1]

For example the 9/11 commision, do you believe that??


NO i do not believe the 9/11 commission because of my background, education and doing research.

[eyeballkid88]

So... therefore is it possible, that if the 9/11 commission got it wrong... with there billions of dollars of funding that some of the illustrious name, like Barnes(lol, sorry) and noble, could also be incorrect?

[ultima1]

So... therefore is it possible, that if the 9/11 commission got it wrong... with there billions of dollars of funding that some of the illustrious name, like Barnes(lol, sorry) and noble, could also be incorrect?

Well the poeple on the 9/11 commsison also have stated they did not have enough time or money to do a proper investiagtion. Has Barnes and Noble admitted the same about the books?

Also there was more money spent on the investigation into Clintons love life then on the 9/11 investiagtions. But you would know this if you did any research.

[eyeballkid88]

thats good ultima... really good..

Ive been having a think... maybe thios will help...

Its a bit lighter... and might help you in..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6860946590182985661#

[apollo_gnomon]

So funny comming from someone who gets information from a fictional books instead of thinking for themselves.

BarnesandNoble

Amazon

Target

All state the books are fiction.

GOOD BYE.

A polite and useful link verifying your allegations would please the public.

[tabea_blumenschein]

NIST say "it's reasonable that" all the fuel that was on board flight 175 at the time of impact was in the inboard wing tanks. If all the fuel was in the inboard wing tanks, what was in the outboard wing tanks?


Would you be so kind as to quote that paragraph? Thanks.

[ultima1]

A polite and useful link verifying your allegations would please the public.

All you need to do is a look up David Icks books.

[eyeballkid88]

prove it...

lol...

[ultima1]

prove it...

lol...

Sorry i asked you first.

You need to post proof that the books are not fiction.

[bryan]

As proven from the Boeing site the fuel is consumed from the center tank first and then the wings, so the wing tanks would have been almost full since the flights were not in the air that long.

There are two parts to the main wing tanks. Using estimates from the airline companies, NIST concluded there was no fuel in the outboard part of the wing tanks of flight 175 at the time of impact.


Would you be so kind as to quote that paragraph? Thanks.

NCSTAR 1-2B, page 86:


Notice that the main tank capacity inboard of baffle rib 18 is approximately the same volume as the fuel onboard each aircraft at the time of impact.

NCSTAR 1-2B, page 88:


The terrorist pilots likely performed extreme flight maneuvers prior to impact, causing most of the fuel to flow inboard.



Since the baffle ribs restrict fuel from flowing outboard, it is reasonable that all fuel that could flow inboard was actually inboard at the time of impact.



Since the fuel tank capacity at the outboard baffle rib and the fuel onboard are approximately the same, a good first estimate was that the main tanks were full inboard of baffle rib 18 at the time of impact. A small amount of fuel was outboard of this rib for AA flight 11.


See also Figure 4-34 "Approximate fuel location for smooth and level flight." on page 88

[ultima1]

There are two parts to the main wing tanks. Using estimates from the airline companies, NIST concluded there was no fuel in the outboard part of the wing tanks of flight 175 at the time of impact.


Unless you can show some actual evidence that the center tank was empty we have to beleive that the wing tanks were full at impact.

[eyeballkid88]

Sorry i asked you first.

You need to post proof that the books are not fiction.

lol.......

[ultima1]

lol.......

Noted dodge.

[eyeballkid88]

no mate, no dodge.. you just make me laugh again and again and again..

[ultima1]

no mate, no dodge.. you just make me laugh again and again and again..

Why do you keep dodging posting evidence asked for ???

[eyeballkid88]

All the evidence is in here...

get stuck in mate...

David Ickes, guide to the global and how to end it...

packed with facts..

you will love it..

[apollo_gnomon]

So funny comming from someone who gets information from a fictional books instead of thinking for themselves.

BarnesandNoble

Amazon

Target

All state the books are fiction.

GOOD BYE.

{image of "USDA Grade A Bullshit" seal removed}

Target (http://www.target.com/s/175-7857334-9798268?_encoding=UTF8&search-alias=tgt-index&keywords=david%20icke&ref=sr_bx_1_1&searchNodeID=1038576|1287991011&searchPage=1) does not list genre.

Barnes and Nobel (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Alice-in-Wonderland-and-the-World-Trade-Center-Disaster/David-Icke/e/9780953881024/?pwb=1&) does not list genre.

Amazon.com: Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster (9780953881024): David Icke: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51F6GAwcRmL.@@AMEPARAM@@51F6GAwcRmL lists the books under several subcategories - Alice is listed Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #169,960 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
#61 in Books > Nonfiction > Current Events > September 11The Biggest Secret is listed in several subcats -
Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #21,875 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
#29 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Occult > Unexplained Mysteries
#28 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Controversial Knowledge
#28 in Books > Nonfiction > Politics > Freedom & Security > International Security

Can you provide references to your claim that the booksellers list David Icke under "fiction?"

[bryan]

Unless you can show some actual evidence that the center tank was empty we have to beleive that the wing tanks were full at impact.

Which of the following statements do you disagree with?

1. United Airlines estimated that flight 175 was carrying approximately 9,118 gallons of fuel at the time of impact.

2. The capacity of the main wing tanks inboard of rib 18 was approximately the same volume as the fuel that was onboard at the time of impact.

3. It's reasonable to suppose that all the fuel in the main wing tanks at the time of impact was inboard of rib 18.

4. Logically, if all the fuel was inboard of rib 18, there was no fuel outboard of rib 18.

Please give a reason for your answer.

[tabea_blumenschein]

There are two parts to the main wing tanks. Using estimates from the airline companies, NIST concluded there was no fuel in the outboard part of the wing tanks of flight 175 at the time of impact.

...

See also Figure 4-34 "Approximate fuel location for smooth and level flight." on page 88

That's all I wanted. Thanks.

[ultima1]

Which of the following statements do you disagree with?
4. Logically, if all the fuel was inboard of rib 18, there was no fuel outboard of rib 18.

Please give a reason for your answer.

Please post actual verifiable information that the center fuel tank was empty and fuel was used from wing tanks.

As Boeing has stated the center fule tanks are used first then the wing tanks. Please show actual evidence center fuel tank was empty.

[apollo_gnomon]

Flight AA11 flew at 51% capacity, and flight AA175 flew at 33% of capacity that day.

Drawing on your experience as a crew chief, can you help us understand what kind of change would this have one the fuel load requirements?

Thanks.

[stannrodd]

Which of the following statements do you disagree with?

1. United Airlines estimated that flight 175 was carrying approximately 9,118 gallons of fuel at the time of impact.

2. The capacity of the main wing tanks inboard of rib 18 was approximately the same volume as the fuel that was onboard at the time of impact.

3. It's reasonable to suppose that all the fuel in the main wing tanks at the time of impact was inboard of rib 18.

4. Logically, if all the fuel was inboard of rib 18, there was no fuel outboard of rib 18.

Please give a reason for your answer.

Bullshit bryan .. this is all speculation including the estimate from UA.

There is no way you would fly a 767 with fuel on board ... only just sufficient for the passengers and luggage who were actually boarded.

The plane will have sufficient fuel for a transcontinental flight. Period.

The other details mentioned above are irrelevant.

You simply want to push your bullshit theory irrespective of good data.

Stann

[ultima1]

Flight AA11 flew at 51% capacity, and flight AA175 flew at 33% of capacity that day. .

So does this mean you disagree with the official 9/11 commission story that the hijackers would have only targeted planes that were full of fuel?

[bryan]

Bullshit bryan .. this is all speculation including the estimate from UA.

Do you think United Airlines deliberately provided NIST with bad data or is it just that their employees are not as smart as you?



There is no way you would fly a 767 with fuel on board ... only just sufficient for the passengers and luggage who were actually boarded.

The plane will have sufficient fuel for a transcontinental flight. Period.

The other details mentioned above are irrelevant.

You simply want to push your bullshit theory irrespective of good data.


Well, you haven't provided any data at all.

Is it reasonable to suppose that UA knew how much fuel was on board at take-off? Were the hijacked planes tracked on radar? Why would it be difficult to estimate the volume of fuel on board at impact? Do you have any figures of your own?

[stannrodd]

Do you think United Airlines deliberately provided NIST with bad data or is it just that their employees are not as smart as you?




Well, you haven't provided any data at all.

Is it reasonable to suppose that UA knew how much fuel was on board at take-off? Were the hijacked planes tracked on radar? Why would it be difficult to estimate the volume of fuel on board at impact? Do you have any figures of your own?

You are a No Planer bryan .. remember !!

Stann

[ultima1]

Still wating on something that states the center tanks were empty and wing tanks were being used.

[kooskoets]

Still wating on something that states the center tanks were empty and wing tanks were being used.

Not important.

Even if there was fuel in the wingtanks, in the real world they would burst
open en spill the fuel at the outside of the building at impact.

Also, in the real world, the front fusilage would be crushed against the wall
and fall apart.

We don't see that on video...so they are fake.
Also there was no debris at the impactside...so no planes hit those buildings.

It's not that hard...

[ultima1]

Also, in the real world, the front fusilage would be crushed against the wall
and fall apart.

We don't see that on video...so they are fake....

Well we see on video the planes impacts but we cannot see inside the plane shredded as it enters.

Check out 4:44 on this video.

102 Minutes - The Attack on WTC, Part 1 - HD Version - YouTube

[apollo_gnomon]

Even if there was fuel in the wingtanks, in the real world they would burst
open en spill the fuel at the outside of the building at impact.

No. In the real world the fuel is traveling 400+mph and will continue to do so until it has expended all it's momentum. Throw a water balloon at a chain-link fence. Does all the water just "spill out" on the thrower's side of the fence or does it continue through the fence?

[ultima1]

No. In the real world the fuel is traveling 400+mph and will continue to do so until it has expended all it's momentum. Throw a water balloon at a chain-link fence. Does all the water just "spill out" on the thrower's side of the fence or does it continue through the fence?

But the balloon is shredded like the wing tanks would be.

[apollo_gnomon]

But the balloon is shredded like the wing tanks would be.

Yes.

[free_thinker]

Yes.

Will this help:-http://www.forumsextreme.com/images/sFun_bangdesk.gif

or maybe this:-http://www.forumsextreme.com/images/sFun_banghead.gif

ever feel you are:-http://www.forumsextreme.com/images/sFun_DeadHorse.gif does it make you want to:-http://www.forumsextreme.com/images/sAng_explosive.gif

sometimes you just gotta sit back have a :-http://www.proemoticons.com/emoticons/Drinking/Drinking_trink42.gif

and realise people do live in a world where you can fly a 120 ton jet at 500mph into a building and have it bounce off the outside.

http://www.forumsextreme.com/images/sFun_duh2.gif

[kooskoets]

Well we see on video the planes impacts but we cannot see inside the plane shredded as it enters.


As i have told you many many times, but you just won't learn...

If that plane makes a hole, it cannot be shredded at the same time.

And

if that plane was shredded on impact, it cannot make a hole.

ok ? vouz snappeh ?

[kooskoets]

No. In the real world the fuel is traveling 400+mph and will continue to do so until it has expended all it's momentum. Throw a water balloon at a chain-link fence. Does all the water just "spill out" on the thrower's side of the fence or does it continue through the fence?

If you understood anything about physics you would know that the
pressure in a fluid is exerting the same force in all directions.

If the foreward pressure in that fueltank is high enough to break that
steel beam, that same pressure would be exerted downward and upward
where there's only the thin alu sheet, the wall of the tank.

That alu sheet would break at a far lower pressure so, long before the pressure is high enough to break that steel beam, the tank would burst
open...spreading the fuel over a large surface.

See here...

http://www.youtube.com/v/fzibDxdHY1U

[bryan]

But the balloon is shredded like the wing tanks would be.

And a balloon-shaped hole is left in the chain-link fence?

[bryan]

You are a No Planer bryan .. remember !!


As a Planer, could you post some maths to show how you're more clued up than United Airlines on fueling a Boeing 767?


Still wating on something that states the center tanks were empty and wing tanks were being used.

United Airlines estimated that flight 175 was carrying approximately 9,118 gallons of fuel at the time of impact. Do you have an alternative estimate?

[apollo_gnomon]

kooskoets said
See here...

http://www.youtube.com/v/fzibDxdHY1U

I like it when you provide information that defeats your own point.
The video you submit shows conservation of momentum very well. During the full-contact impacts the fluid in the can sprays outward from the contact point at almost the original impact speed.

Watch that vid from 0:40 on, when the can is contacting the edge of the target plate. You can clearly see that the fluid continues moving forward. None of it just falls down.

Thanks. You're very helpful.

[kooskoets]

kooskoets said


I like it when you provide information that defeats your own point.

You're having a good time because you don't understand my point. ( pretended or not )


The video you submit shows conservation of momentum very well. During the full-contact impacts the fluid in the can sprays outward from the contact point at almost the original impact speed.

Watch that vid from 0:40 on, when the can is contacting the edge of the target plate. You can clearly see that the fluid continues moving forward. None of it just falls down.

Point is that most of the fluid does NOT push against the contactpoint so the force will be much lower.

Some of it would go in through the windows but THE BEAM WON"T BREAK.
Hope you get it now.


Thanks. You're very helpful.

You're ruining yourself.

[ultima1]

United Airlines estimated that flight 175 was carrying approximately 9,118 gallons of fuel at the time of impact. Do you have an alternative estimate?

Well then i guess the official 9/11 commission report was wrong then when they stated the hijackers targeted planes that were full of fuel.

But i still do not see any real information on the center tank being empty.

[ultima1]

And a balloon-shaped hole is left in the chain-link fence?

Is the balloon going 500 MPH ??????

[bryan]

Is the balloon going 500 MPH ??????

Is the balloon full of water or only half full?

[ultima1]

Is the balloon full of water or only half full?

It can only be full.

[kooskoets]

It can only be full.

*avoiding wordgames*
But there could be air AND water in it...

[ultima1]

*avoiding wordgames*
But there could be air AND water in it...

Talking about word games, when are you going to post anything with real evidence like i can?

Still waiting for anything to debate what i have posted.

[kooskoets]

Talking about word games, when are you going to post anything with real evidence like i can?

Still waiting for anything to debate what i have posted.


You were wrong once again and i was right once again.
OK ?

Furthermore....you're not able to discuss anything with that childish mind of you.

[ultima1]

Furthermore....you're not able to discuss anything with that childish mind of you.

Thanks for showing that you have to resort to name calling because you cannot debate me.

Still waiting for you to post anything so we can have an adult discussion.

[apollo_gnomon]

Meanwhile, now I'm thinkin I finally have an excuse to make a beercan cannon. I can just imagine the conversation with my wife :

"But honey, I have to make it to prove this thing to some guy on the internet."

"By shooting beercans though the neighbor's chain link fence? No."

"aw, darn."

[ultima1]

"By shooting beercans though the neighbor's chain link fence? No.""

What does shoootnig a beer can through a chain link fence got to do with what hapepned at the towers and the Pentagon ????

You are trying to compare apples and oranges.

[apollo_gnomon]

Kooskoets has this weird idea that a projectile cannot make a hole and be destroyed at the same time. I've already given the example of hollowpoint bullets, but he moved the goalpost on the argument and I moved on with another topic. I think a beercan moving fast enough would punch a hole in a chainlink fence while being destroyed by the impact.

I'm also thinking about shooting a cinderblock with beercans to see how hard one has to hit to make a hole.

I notice that you find ways to disagree with absolutely everyone here. Does that amuse you? Or are you really just that disagreeable?

[ultima1]

Kooskoets has this weird idea that a projectile cannot make a hole and be destroyed at the same time. I've already given the example of hollowpoint bullets, but he moved the goalpost on the argument and I moved on with another topic. I think a beercan moving fast enough would punch a hole in a chainlink fence while being destroyed by the impact.

Well the thing is a chain link fence is not like the walls of the towers,, now if you find a thin wall close to what the towers were built like and fire a beercan at it then you might have a close comparision

I notice that you find ways to disagree with absolutely everyone here. Does that amuse you? Or are you really just that disagreeable?

I do not disagree just post what i see is wrong and try to correct it.

Having the background and education i do is hard to keep from trying to correct with what i see wrong with what happened that day and people jsut going along with what they have been told and not trying to find the truth.

[bryan]

I think a beercan moving fast enough would punch a hole in a chainlink fence while being destroyed by the impact.

The beercan has to punch a beercan-shaped hole in the fence and be shredded into pieces that would have gone through the gaps in the fence even if the beercan-shaped hole hadn't been made.

[stannrodd]

The beercan has to punch a beercan-shaped hole in the fence and be shredded into pieces that would have gone through the gaps in the fence even if the beercan-shaped hole hadn't been made.

How many beers does it take to come up with this sort of logic bryan .. :D

Try punching your frustrated fist through something weaker than your logic .. and see if you get a cartoon fist-shaped hole or a sore fist .. ??

Let us know .. :)

Stann

[bryan]

How many beers does it take to come up with this sort of logic bryan .. :D

It's an analogy with your own logic. You and a few others believe the planes were shredded by the steel perimeter columns. That might make sense if it wasn't for the pictures of the plane-shaped holes showing that many of the steel columns were broken, even though they couldn't have been hit by the engines, landing gear or even fuel.

[ultima1]

It's an analogy with your own logic. You and a few others believe the planes were shredded by the steel perimeter columns. That might make sense if it wasn't for the pictures of the plane-shaped holes showing that many of the steel columns were broken, even though they couldn't have been hit by the engines, landing gear or even fuel.

As several sources show the plane was shredded as it entered the building.

So you do have a hole in the buidling but the airframe was shredded by the steel.

[bryan]

As several sources show the plane was shredded as it entered the building.

So you do have a hole in the buidling but the airframe was shredded by the steel.

So the chain-link fence should have a hole in it and the beer can should be shredded, just like I said.

[ultima1]

So the chain-link fence should have a hole in it and the beer can should be shredded, just like I said.

Well as stated the chain link fence is not like the steel lattice of the tower.

[kooskoets]

Kooskoets has this weird idea that a projectile cannot make a hole and be destroyed at the same time.

Not my idea.

Just mother nature.
Common sense should tell you that...


I've already given the example of hollowpoint bullets, but he moved the goalpost on the argument...

You mean : i showed that "hollowpoint bullet" to be a fallacy and you ran away.


I think a beercan moving fast enough would punch a hole in a chainlink fence while being destroyed by the impact.

You were already warned about "thinking".
It's just not 'your thing' i guess...



I'm also thinking about shooting a cinderblock with beercans to see how hard one has to hit to make a hole.

uche uche uche...

[ultima1]

Just mother nature.
Common sense should tell you that...

Sorry but common sense and the fact that i have posted several verifiable sources that show a plane could make a hole and be destroyed.

[bryan]

Sorry but common sense and the fact that i have posted several verifiable sources that show a plane could make a hole and be destroyed.

The goalposts are moving. First it was "shredded", now it's "destroyed".

[kooskoets]

Sorry but common sense and the fact that i have posted several verifiable sources that show a plane could make a hole and be destroyed.

Don't tell lies.
You never posted an example of one object making a hole in another
while being destroyed at the same time.

You can't because it's an impossibility.

[kooskoets]

The goalposts are moving. First it was "shredded", now it's "destroyed".

Soon it will be "vaporized", 'solving' all the titanium shaft problems.

[ultima1]

Don't tell lies.
You never posted an example of one object making a hole in another
while being destroyed at the same time.

Speaking of lies, you are being dishonset or forget the fact of the sources posted that show that the airframe was shredded as it entered the towers. [/QUOTE]

[ultima1]

Soon it will be "vaporized", 'solving' all the titanium shaft problems.

The airframe was destroyed as several sources have verified. The complete airframe was shredded as it entered the building.

Why can't you be adult enough to admit to the facts and evidence shown?

[kooskoets]

Speaking of lies, you are being dishonset or forget the fact of the sources posted that show that the airframe was shredded as it entered the towers. [/QUOTE]

Why not show them then eh ?

[kooskoets]

The airframe was destroyed as several sources have verified. The complete airframe was shredded as it entered the building.

It cannot be shredded and making a hole in the shape of a plane at the same time.

It's just your simple mind that keeps this thread from evolving.


Why can't you be adult enough to admit to the facts and evidence shown?

When you grow up you'll understand the diff. between fairy tales and reality.
Or maybe not...

[ultima1]

It cannot be shredded and making a hole in the shape of a plane at the same time.

It can according to sources like the Purdue study.

When you grow up you'll understand the diff. between fairy tales and reality.Or maybe not...

I could say ther same about you when it comes to accepting facts and evidence shown.

[apollo_gnomon]

It cannot be shredded and making a hole in the shape of a plane at the same time.
Why not? What mechanical or physical principle would prevent this from happening?

You dismissed the comparison to hollow point bullets, but I bring it up again. A hollow point bullet makes a clean entry hole and disintegrates as it progresses through the impacted material. Both projectile and target are damaged in the impact.

That's newtonian physics. Action/reaction? Remember that one? Just because one or the other of a projectile/target pair begins deformation first does not mean that all kinetic energy magically goes into that item exclusively.

[dave52]

You dismissed the comparison to hollow point bullets, but I bring it up again. A hollow point bullet makes a clean entry hole and disintegrates as it progresses through the impacted material. Both projectile and target are damaged in the impact.

That's newtonian physics.


A hollow point is an expanding bullet that has a pit or hollowed out shape in its tip

When a hollow-point hunting bullet strikes a soft target, the pressure created in the pit forces the material (usually lead) around the inside edge to expand outwards, increasing the axial diameter of the projectile as it passes through.


Are planes made like this?

[ultima1]

Are planes made like this?

An airliners airframe is basically a hollow aluminum tube.

At high speed it would make it into the walls of the towers but be shredded by the steel lattice.

[3stepsahead]

An airliners airframe is basically a hollow aluminum tube.

At high speed it would make it into the walls of the towers but be shredded by the steel lattice.

how would you know it will make it thru the walls? what about the floors? they are a part of the walls as well. there isnt really a dossier out, about what would really happen when the plane hits. but it is like they say, unbelivable ( someone just say omg). also the feat of manouvering those ships are quite, unbelivable. so thats two questionable things right in the timeline, not to mention all the others, wich make this quite suspect.

all you naysayers are doing is trying to disprove any suspicion, wich would basically mean that the official account is as true.

have at ya trolls:D

[ultima1]

how would you know it will make it thru the walls?

Because of the facts of the Purde study, I suggest you look at it before posting. It concludes that the airframe was shredded as the plane entered the walls.

all you naysayers are doing is trying to disprove any suspicion, wich would basically mean that the official account is as true.

You have no real evidence to support the official story.

[3stepsahead]

Because of the facts of the Purde study, I suggest you look at it before posting. It concludes that the airframe was shredded as the plane entered the walls.



You have no real evidence to support the official story.

okay i was misunderstanding the thingy

the nift sponsored 3d animation of the penetration is a gigantic falsity. that says volumes about the rest.

[dave52]

An airliners airframe is basically a hollow aluminum tube.

Oh, just like a hollow point bullet then. :rolleyes:

Because of the facts of the Purde study

The problem with this is that it is a reverse-engineered study. Here is what we've been shown, now let's go backwards and find a best fit.

The study, and the famous graphic are a fantasy solution based on a lie.

There is a similar study that attempts to show what happened at the Pentagon. It concluded that the punch-out hole was created by a preasure wave. This, of course, fantasy. But it was the best they could come up with given a lie to reverse-engineer.

[ultima1]

okay i was misunderstanding the thingy

the nift sponsored 3d animation of the penetration is a gigantic falsity. that says volumes about the rest.

To bad you are just trolling and cannot post facts to support your fantasy.

If you cannot post evidence to debate the Purdue study then the facts stand that the airframe was shredded as it entered the buildings.

[ultima1]

Oh, just like a hollow point bullet then

NO not the same as a hollow point bullet. I never stated it was, please do not be immature enough to put words in my mouth.


The study, and the famous graphic are a fantasy solution based on a lie.

To bad you cnaot deabte the Purdue study of prove its a lie. You just trolling.

There is a similar study that attempts to show what happened at the Pentagon.

Too bad you cannot post evidence to support your fantasy.

Your just trolling because you know you cannot debate the facts form the sources i have posted.

[apollo_gnomon]

Stop helping me, ultima. It doesn't help.

Seriously.

I'd rather debate dave and koos without having to correct you while I'm at it.

[ultima1]

I'd rather debate dave and koos without having to correct you while I'm at it.

Seems more like i have to correct you.

I seem to be the only one on here that can post actual evidence to support what they post.

[truegroup]

Seems more like i have to correct you.

I seem to be the only one on here that can post actual evidence to support what they post.

You can't spell, you repeat post the same phrases over and over, and have the audacity to accuse others of trolling?

Let the record show, you are too immature and not adult enough to debate the facts and evidence I have posted, that would stand up in court. :rolleyes:

[dave52]

Seems more like i have to correct you.

I seem to be the only one on here that can post actual evidence to support what they post.

Are.... are you Christophera...?

[ultima1]

You can't spell,

Only people who cannot deabte me have to go after speeling.

you repeat post the same phrases over and over, and have the audacity to accuse others of trolling?

I have to repeat to get the facts through so many closed minds.

Let the record show, you are too immature and not adult enough to debate the facts and evidence I have posted, that would stand up in court. :

I have posted evidence that would stand up in court. SPeaking of immature, you have posted zero evidence to support what you post or debate what i post.

If the people that believe the official story went to court they would be laughed out of court.

[apollo_gnomon]

The problem with this is that it is a reverse-engineered study. Here is what we've been shown, now let's go backwards and find a best fit.

Really. And you can justify this statement how? Or are you just questioning it because they start with the assumption that there were planes?

Do any of you guys know what Finite Element Analysis really is?

The Purdue video was not the Purdue study. The video is a graphic representation of the output of the FEA. The FEA study was the mathematical analysis of a deformable projectile with known mass and velocity impacting a target system of known strength, size and shape.

The "cartoon" as you guys call it was just a way to show people like us results of the math. If they posted 100 pages of mathematical tables nobody would understand it, so they put that information into graphic form.

There is a similar study that attempts to show what happened at the Pentagon. It concluded that the punch-out hole was created by a preasure wave.
I haven't seen this one. Do you have any links handy?

A hollow point is an expanding bullet that has a pit or hollowed out shape in its tip

When a hollow-point hunting bullet strikes a soft target, the pressure created in the pit forces the material (usually lead) around the inside edge to expand outwards, increasing the axial diameter of the projectile as it passes through.


Are planes made like this?
Moving the goalposts will not help you here.

The point still stands - the projectile and the target are both destroyed by the impact. Koos denies this point, I refute it. The entry hole is projectile-shaped, as it should be. As the projectile's kinetic energy encounters resistance by the target both projectile and target are deformed (action/reaction? remember that one?). How much deformation each experiences is balanced by the relative strengths of each. If I shoot a paper target the bullet doesn't even slow down and is not damaged. When the bullet hits the backstop at the range the backstop is not damaged but the bullet is demolished.

The strength ratio between the steel beams and the aluminum airframe would be about 70:30, based on information and numbers that have been posted previously in this forum. Dispute the numbers individually, with references, if you like. But don't just say "steel is stronger than aluminum" without numbers anymore.

[apollo_gnomon]

Seems more like i have to correct you.

I seem to be the only one on here that can post actual evidence to support what they post.
You went to apollohoax.net, agreed with everyone that landings really happened, and STILL got the boot for being an ass. You are the ONLY person that has ever happened to.

Something is seriously wrong with you.

[kooskoets]

The point still stands - the projectile and the target are both destroyed by the impact. Koos denies this point, I refute it.

Nope.

The mechanism for the destruction of the objects is NOT the same.

The hole is created by the bullit but the bullit is NOT destroyed by creating that hole.
The bullit is destroyed by the decelaration that it experiences and its incapability to decelerate the fluid inside.

If there was a heavy cargo on the plane and the plane would hit a weak target that causes heavy deceleration,
the plane could be destroyed by its cargo in case it's unable to decelerate that cargo.

What i requested was an example of one object making a hole in another object, while being destroyed at the same time, obviously by the same force.

Your bullit doesn't fit in there.

Besides....that bullit won't make a nice round hole with the same diameter but a tapered one,
which also doesn't fit the demand.

Try again.

[kooskoets]

Are.... are you Christophera...?

An interesting thought.
Are we witnessing "Christophera's revenge" ?

The digit in the name is promising a "nice" future.
In fact, it might be time for 'ultima2' to show up.

[bryan]

Project director for the Purdue study was Christoph Hoffmann.


It took about 80 hours using a high-performance computer containing 16 processors to produce the first simulation, which depicts how the plane tore through several stories of the structure within a half-second, said Christoph M. Hoffmann, a professor of computer science and co-director of the Computing Research Institute at Purdue.


High-performance computing is essential for the research, Hoffmann said. The computer scientists and engineers have been using the "nano-regatta" computer, an IBM system approximately equivalent to the combined power of 128 personal computers.

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2006/060911.Sozen.WTC.html


So what were Karim & Hoo Fatt playing at?


With this FEA model, the program takes about 4 h to run on a Pentium IV, 2.78 GHz personal computer.


http://home.comcast.net/~fszwtnj/impactwtc.pdf

[bryan]

The "cartoon" as you guys call it was just a way to show people like us results of the math. If they posted 100 pages of mathematical tables nobody would understand it, so they put that information into graphic form.

That's extremely thoughtful of them. Can we take it they published the maths as well? All I can find is this:

"An Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-I"

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/distribution/PapersChron/WTC_I_Engineering_Perspective.pdf

which is little more than a summary.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Nope.

The mechanism for the destruction of the objects is NOT the same.

The hole is created by the bullit but the bullit is NOT destroyed by creating that hole.
The bullit is destroyed by the decelaration that it experiences and its incapability to decelerate the fluid inside.

If there was a heavy cargo on the plane and the plane would hit a weak target that causes heavy deceleration,
the plane could be destroyed by its cargo in case it's unable to decelerate that cargo.

What i requested was an example of one object making a hole in another object, while being destroyed at the same time, obviously by the same force.

Your bullit doesn't fit in there.

Besides....that bullit won't make a nice round hole with the same diameter but a tapered one,
which also doesn't fit the demand.

Try again.


HUH???

Would you like to run that by us again?

[kooskoets]

HUH???

Would you like to run that by us again?

You're drunk ?

[tabea_blumenschein]

I'd like you to explain that post. Especially the part I bolded.

[stannrodd]

I'd like you to explain that post. Especially the part I bolded.

Koosers post is simply garbage .. tabea

I think he must have been drunk when he wrote it. ;)

[tabea_blumenschein]

Based on the misspellings and general incoherence, maybe koosers is drunk! :D You might be on to something there!


Ever hear of those "punkin chunkin" contests where they use high pressure to propel pumpkins several thousand feet through the air? I'd bet you that firing one of those pumpkins through a big piece of plywood at close range would be just what kooskoets is asking for --a hole in the plywood with bits of pumpkin pulp spraying out the other side.

[apollo_gnomon]

Based on the misspellings and general incoherence, maybe koosers is drunk! :D You might be on to something there!


Ever hear of those "punkin chunkin" contests where they use high pressure to propel pumpkins several thousand feet through the air? I'd bet you that firing one of those pumpkins through a big piece of plywood at close range would be just what kooskoets is asking for --a hole in the plywood with bits of pumpkin pulp spraying out the other side.


The punkin is not a plane. The plane is not a punkin.


I'm sketching a "beer cannon" to test this theory, but I'll have to wait for funding to build it. I spent too much of my Secret Weapons budget on the kids' dance lessons this summer.

[apollo_gnomon]

Quote:
It took about 80 hours using a high-performance computer containing 16 processors to produce the first simulation, which depicts how the plane tore through several stories of the structure within a half-second, said Christoph M. Hoffmann, a professor of computer science and co-director of the Computing Research Institute at Purdue.
Quote:
High-performance computing is essential for the research, Hoffmann said. The computer scientists and engineers have been using the "nano-regatta" computer, an IBM system approximately equivalent to the combined power of 128 personal computers.
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever...Sozen.WTC.html


So what were Karim & Hoo Fatt playing at?

Quote:
With this FEA model, the program takes about 4 h to run on a Pentium IV, 2.78 GHz personal computer.
http://home.comcast.net/~fszwtnj/impactwtc.pdf

All you guys have proven is that you DON'T know jack shit about a multitude of subjects. I guess we can add FEA to that list.

You guys are like polymaths of ignorance. And apparently you didn't bother to read the pdf by karim and dr. hoo fat.

The Purdue sims took more computing power because they simulated more objects at a higher level of resolution. They were studying the effects of the impact on the interior columns. The modeled the details of the plane's construction, the exterior and interior columns, and the fluid mass of the fuel, the floor structure, the glass, the fireproofing insulation on the columns . . .

The Karim and Hoo Fat study was aimed at the question of what it would take to prevent a 767 at full speed from penetrating the exterior columns. Totally different question, totally different computational needs. They saved computing power by using a simplified model of one half of the plane.

[stannrodd]

Based on the misspellings and general incoherence, maybe koosers is drunk! :D You might be on to something there!


Ever hear of those "punkin chunkin" contests where they use high pressure to propel pumpkins several thousand feet through the air? I'd bet you that firing one of those pumpkins through a big piece of plywood at close range would be just what kooskoets is asking for --a hole in the plywood with bits of pumpkin pulp spraying out the other side.

There's plenty of vids on YouTube too about this. Hi velocity Punkins piercing steel motor cars, vans and other strong objects ....

Soft pumpkin v Steel and other things ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RryMwlrA4G8&NR=1

:)

[apollo_gnomon]

Steel is harder than a pumkin, The pumpkin would smash on the surface of the steel car. Video fake

[apollo_gnomon]

and doesn't leave a pumkin shaped hole. try agin.

[apollo_gnomon]

This video is pumkin vs. house -- note the neat round holes. Think those pumkins were shredded going through the wall?

[ultima1]

You went to apollohoax.net, agreed with everyone that landings really happened, and STILL got the boot for being an ass. You are the ONLY person that has ever happened to.

Something is seriously wrong with you.

I was not being an ass i was proving a point.

I am still waiting for someone to have an adult discusion.

[ultima1]

What i requested was an example of one object making a hole in another object, while being destroyed at the same time, obviously by the same force.
.

I have already posted examples but will do so again and again untill you can admit it.

Bellow is a photo of a plane hitting a brick wall, the plane puts a hole in the brick wall but the wall shreds the nose area and shears off the wings.

This happened at a relatively slow speed so you could imagine at high speed the airframe would have been destroyed as it went through the wall.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/awing.jpg?t=1279105362

[kooskoets]

I'd like you to explain that post. Especially the part I bolded.

Last defence....pretend not to understand.
( from the "protocols of the shills" )

[kooskoets]

I have already posted examples but will do so again and again untill you can admit it.

Bellow is a photo of a plane hitting a brick wall, the plane puts a hole in the brick wall but the wall shreds the nose area and shears off the wings.

This happened at a relatively slow speed so you could imagine at high speed the airframe would have been destroyed as it went through the wall.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/awing.jpg?t=1279105362

Hahaha...and that's it ?

First : what's the story there ? A parking accident or a Hollywood scene ?

Second : how do you know the front fusilage is destroyed ?
Where are the pic's ?

Third : You pretend to show proof but in fact you ask me to imagine it.
Would that hold before a Judge ?

Show proof or admit the fact that you're just believing and preaching fairy tales.

[kooskoets]

Koosers post is simply garbage .. tabea

I think he must have been drunk when he wrote it. ;)

Hehe...if so...then even under infuence i'm "brighter" than a sober Stann.
uche uche...

[kooskoets]

There's plenty of vids on YouTube too about this. Hi velocity Punkins piercing steel motor cars, vans and other strong objects ....

Soft pumpkin v Steel and other things ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RryMwlrA4G8&NR=1

:)

OMG...a pumpkin is a hollow thin walled object ?

The guy that thinks a fusilage is comparable to a nail agrees...but most
clear thinking people won't.

[bryan]

This happened at a relatively slow speed so you could imagine at high speed the airframe would have been destroyed as it went through the wall.

So now it's ok to have a good imagination? I think you owe Stann an apology!

[apollo_gnomon]

OMG...a pumpkin is a hollow thin walled object ?

Uh, yeah. It is. Maybe they don't have pumpkins on your planet?
http://www.quitecurious.com/wp-content/gallery/pumpkin-cake/pumpkin-open1.jpg
http://s1.hubimg.com/u/110752_f520.jpg
http://mikes-table.themulligans.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/pumpkin-020.jpg

[bryan]

The Purdue sims took more computing power because they simulated more objects at a higher level of resolution. They were studying the effects of the impact on the interior columns. The modeled the details of the plane's construction, the exterior and interior columns, and the fluid mass of the fuel, the floor structure, the glass, the fireproofing insulation on the columns . . .

The Karim and Hoo Fat study was aimed at the question of what it would take to prevent a 767 at full speed from penetrating the exterior columns. Totally different question, totally different computational needs. They saved computing power by using a simplified model of one half of the plane.

They used the computer's limitations to justify their simplified model.


The program could not run on this computer if a finer mesh for the column were used. In fact, the limiting number of elements to run the impact analysis on the computer is 34,000.

If these people run FEA models for a living, they must have access to better computers than a Pentium 4 PC.

In fact, the model was simplified so much that they had to "assume" the fuselage penetrated the building.

At least you recognise that neither study was aimed at proving planes could have penetrated the buildings, so let's hope we never hear of them again when discussing that subject.

[truegroup]

They used the computer's limitations to justify their simplified model.

I think we should email them and ask them about pumpkins penetrating cars and houses, maybe they can do a simple model that shows that you no planers haven't the integrity to admit when you are wrong!

Soft hollow pumpkin hits car, splatters.

Soft hollow pumpkin going hundreds of miles per hour hits car, goes through the steel, splatters.

QED

Plane pumpkin, tower car.

[kooskoets]

Plane pumpkin, tower car.

You're a madman.

A pumpkin has a much higher density than a plane's fusilage.
You're just presenting one fallacy after the other.

[bryan]

I think we should email them and ask them about pumpkins penetrating cars and houses, maybe they can do a simple model that shows that you no planers haven't the integrity to admit when you are wrong!

Soft hollow pumpkin hits car, splatters.

Soft hollow pumpkin going hundreds of miles per hour hits car, goes through the steel, splatters.

QED

Plane pumpkin, tower car.

The funniest thing about this is, when truthers compare Building 7 to other steel-framed buildings, which have burned more intensely and for longer without collapsing, the debunkers say it's apples and oranges, because no two steel-framed buildings are exactly the same. Now the debunkers want to compare a steel-framed building to a wooden house and a Boeing 767 to a pumpkin.

[truegroup]

You're a madman.

A pumpkin has a much higher density than a plane's fusilage.
You're just presenting one fallacy after the other.

A fleshy pumpkin has more density than a wing with fuel in it? Right got you.

A compressing fusilage, instrument panel, humans!, luggage, seats, lateral panneling, floor supports, bulkheads, fuel, engines, all lower density than a fucking pumpkin.

Yes, there is madness around these parts.

[apollo_gnomon]

Goalpost moving noted.

You said that hollow objects will not punch holes, they will crush.

You said that softer things cannot smash through harder things.

You said that an object that makes a hole in it's shape cannot do so while being smashed, and if it's smashed on impact it won't make a hole.

And now, when presented with a variety of examples of soft hollow objects making holes and being smashed at the same time, you bob-and-weave, duck-and-dodge.

Your no plane fantasy hinges on the inability of a plane to penetrate the buildings, as outlined above. You're wrong. Admit it.

[bryan]

You said that an object that makes a hole in it's shape cannot do so while being smashed, and if it's smashed on impact it won't make a hole.

The claim is that the planes were shredded. I doubt very much if an object can be shredded while destroying the shredder at the same time.

[truegroup]

The claim is that the planes were shredded. I doubt very much if an object can be shredded while destroying the shredder at the same time.

The pumpkin got quite shredded as it punched a whole through a car, does that count? Guess not, since it blows your fallacy of all fallacies down the crapper.

Just awesome as you cling to the remnants of your nutjob theory!

Van door blown off!
Pumpkin Canon vs Van - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=didpjwBgFqY

Which is stronger, ping pong ball with water or plywood?
http://blog.tinyenormous.com/2009/09/03/lethal-pneumatic-ping-pong-ball-gun/

[tabea_blumenschein]

It's a good thing I packed a lunch -- this has been an all-day ass kicking. Great job with the videos and comments, everyone.

Here's a video showing the ping-pong ball gun in action. I couldn't find one with close-ups of the damage done, but the page truegroup linked to has some photos.

(Edit: just noticed that page has links to videos as well. I decided to cut-and-paste the other three links.)

lethal ping pong ball gun - YouTube

2 shots from the lethal ping pong ball gun - YouTube

lethal ping pong ball gun - loading balls with water - YouTube

lethal ping pong ball gun - YouTube

~

With that, I'd say that "no-planer physics" (weaker vs. stronger, hollow vs. solid. etc) has pretty much been shot to hell. I wish I'd have thought of the pumpkin cannons before now, because it would have ended the argument a lot sooner.

[bryan]

This is some of the finest debunking since people used to post pictures of sticks stuck in telegraph poles after a hurricane.

[ultima1]

Hahaha...and that's it ?

Yes, now when are you going to be mature enough to admit that is shows that a hole can be made by an object and at the sametime be destroyed ???

First : what's the story there ? A parking accident or a Hollywood scene ?

Well if you could do research you would know that the plane ran off the end of the runway and struck the building.

Second : how do you know the front fusilage is destroyed ?
Where are the pic's ?

As soon as you admit to what is shown i will show more, since you cannot or will not do research on you own.

Third : You pretend to show proof

I do not pretend, i do show poof.

but in fact you ask me to imagine it.

Imagine it usiing basic common sense and basic intelligence.

Would that hold before a Judge ?

Yes it would.

[ultima1]

So now it's ok to have a good imagination?


No imagine what would happen using basic common sense and intelligence.

[apollo_gnomon]

The claim is that the planes were shredded. I doubt very much if an object can be shredded while destroying the shredder at the same time.

So do you think the pumpkins are shredded going through the target? Or not? do you think the ping pong balls are shredded going through the target? Or not?

[ultima1]

The claim is that the planes were shredded. I doubt very much if an object can be shredded while destroying the shredder at the same time.

I have shown and can show more evidence of this.

Why can't you accept evidence shown ?????

[apollo_gnomon]

I have shown and can show more evidence of this.

Why can't you accept evidence shown ?????

Whaaaat? Are you taking credit for truegroups posts now?


Here's a cool video - 1 million frames per second of bullets hitting (http://thevibe.socialvibe.com/index.php/2009/10/10/video-bullet-impact-in-super-slow-motion/).

Not sure what all the target materials are, but in some of the early clips you can see bullets exiting the target plate fully demolished, while creating a clean entry hole.

Another interesting thing, notice how the bullets appear to "splash" like liquid at that velocity. Not what I expected it to look like.

[ultima1]

Whaaaat? Are you taking credit for truegroups posts now?

Why would i do that when i have better and more evidence ????


Here's a cool video - [/quote] Yes i have seen these videos before.

Another interesting thing, notice how the bullets appear to "splash" like liquid at that velocity. Not what I expected it to look like.

Well bullets (for general use) are mainly made of soft lead so they are going to be destroyed by what they hit.

[truegroup]

Why would i do that when i have better and more evidence ????

So, if you have better and more, let's have it. No point in holding back now, the no planers are squirming and 're-adjusting' their position, so if you have anything even more significant, it needs to be shown.

[kooskoets]

Uh, yeah. It is. Maybe they don't have pumpkins on your planet?
http://www.quitecurious.com/wp-content/gallery/pumpkin-cake/pumpkin-open1.jpg
\


Fallacy after fallacy after fallacy...
Need i say more ?

Now a pumpkin is comparable to a plane and some steel sheet car is
comparable to a steel tube building.

The stupidity has grown beyond imagination.

[kooskoets]

A fleshy pumpkin has more density than a wing with fuel in it? Right got you.

And another lie.
There's not an honest word written by you on this forum.

[kooskoets]

With that, I'd say that "no-planer physics" (weaker vs. stronger, hollow vs. solid. etc) has pretty much been shot to hell. I wish I'd have thought of the pumpkin cannons before now, because it would have ended the argument a lot sooner.

The argument will only end when shills like yourself stop promoting nonsense and fallacies.

Those video's show nothing at all....what's your point ?
Just making noise before running off.

Like so many times before.

[kooskoets]

Yes, now when are you going to be mature enough to admit that is shows that a hole can be made by an object and at the sametime be destroyed ???

Listen up, kiddo, you promised to show me proof.
Then just show it and stop whining. ok ?


I do not pretend, i do show poof.



Imagine it usiing basic common sense and basic intelligence.






You show a silly picture without source, without story, without close up pictures.
That's only proof of your inability to present proof.

[bryan]

No imagine what would happen using basic common sense and intelligence.

You post a picture that doesn't support your argument and you ask us to imagine the picture shows something entirely different.

[apollo_gnomon]

\


Fallacy after fallacy after fallacy...
Need i say more ?

Now a pumpkin is comparable to a plane and some steel sheet car is
comparable to a steel tube building.

The stupidity has grown beyond imagination.

bob and weave, duck and dodge.

We're talking about projectiles and targets. You ask for proof that xyz can happen, and EVERY TIME you dismiss the proof.

Airplane hits something harder and breaks it? You dismiss it.

Hollow projectile makes a hole in a harder solid? You dismiss it.

Soft projectile makes a projectile-shaped hole and is destroyed? You dismiss it.

Your theory is hanging by a thread, ace.

[kooskoets]

Airplane hits something harder and breaks it? You dismiss it.

And right so.


Hollow projectile makes a hole in a harder solid? You dismiss it.

Also correct.
A pumpkin is not thin walled and hollow like a plane's fusilage.
Even a child wouldn't use such an idiot comparison.

But YOU do.



Soft projectile makes a projectile-shaped hole and is destroyed? You dismiss it.

Of course.
How does a round almost solid object compare to an empty alu tube with wings ?

Answer : it does not.

So move on to the nect fallacy.

[truegroup]

And another lie.
There's not an honest word written by you on this forum.

Yeah right, coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

The conclusion was yours you fool! I asked the question back at you, so Einstein, how could that be a lie? Homer Simpson debating tactics are not impressive.

[truegroup]

empty alu tube with wings ?

You quote this fallacy by way of requesting the next piece of evidence to dismantle your masterbaker driven theory.

Empty? Is that a lie, cos it ain't true?

Seats, people, control panels right at the front, bulkheads, lateral support beams for the floor. The floor - edge on! Fuel, luggage, stewardess trollies, 10 of? Doors, some hefty to hold the fusilage pressure, engines. Blankets, life vests, rafts, air con units, ducting, control panels in lower plane, undercarriage.

And all moving at 500mph. And you think it's empty and would just bounce off the wall.

[apollo_gnomon]

Yeah, heaven forbid we should model the airframe of a 767 as anything other than an empty beer can.

[free_thinker]

And right so.



Also correct.
A pumpkin is not thin walled and hollow like a plane's fusilage.
Even a child wouldn't use such an idiot comparison.

But YOU do.




Of course.
How does a round almost solid object compare to an empty alu tube with wings ?

Answer : it does not.

So move on to the nect fallacy.

The two guys who have beaten you senseless over this are probably too nice to say but your constant bleating over every piece of evidence they provided really emphasises what a total dumbass you are.

What in the wide wide world of sports do you think will happen when 120 tons of whatever, in whatever fucking shape crashes into a building at 500mph.

[kooskoets]

And all moving at 500mph. And you think it's empty and would just bounce off the wall.

Again twisting my words.

The front fusilage would be crusched against the steel tube wall and break apart,
resulting in much debris on the ground on the impactside.

As none of this is visible in the video's they must be false.
As there was no pile of debris on the impactside, there were no planes colliding witht those buildings.

Now...try to stick to reality.

[kooskoets]

The two guys who have beaten you senseless over this are probably too nice to say but your constant bleating over every piece of evidence they provided really emphasises what a total dumbass you are.

Evidence ?
Where ?

Fallacies you mean.


What in the wide wide world of sports do you think will happen when 120 tons of whatever, in whatever fucking shape crashes into a building at 500mph.

..against a building that was 500.000 tons in weight, that was much stronger than a plane,
that was much denser that a plane...

But you don't seem to understand very much.

[truegroup]

..against a building that was 500.000 tons in weight, that was much stronger than a plane,
that was much denser that a plane...

But you don't seem to understand very much.

The part of the building it hit was not 500,000 tons. The plane wasn't hitting the weight of the building, it was hitting the resistance in the part of the building local to where it was hit. You just keep flanneling arsewater and back peddaling, calling people shills and liars and labelling stuff as fallacies, when you are quoting fallacies yourself.

btw - Are you denser than a plane?

[apollo_gnomon]

http://www.milwaukeezoo.org/images/map/Carousel07-017-35.jpg

Again twisting my words.No, just pointing out where your words are utter nonsense. You continue to wave your ignorance around like a flag.

The front fusilage would be crusched against the steel tube wall and break apart,
Granted . . . no argument there . . .
resulting in much debris on the ground on the impactside.
No!!! This is where you are in error. How does the debris get to the ground? By BOUNCING OFF THE WALL. The debris must slow from 500mph to zero, then reverse direction and travel in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

As none of this is visible in the video's they must be false.
As there was no pile of debris on the impactside, there were no planes colliding witht those buildings.
False conclusion, drawn from faulty reasoning (Non sequitur (logic) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Every fleck of paint from the airplane started the impact sequence at 500mph and would have to reverse direction to meet this criteria.

Now...try to stick to reality.
Back at ya, ace.

[bryan]

What in the wide wide world of sports do you think will happen when 120 tons of whatever, in whatever fucking shape crashes into a building at 500mph.

So we're back to the "humongous mass". Planes have to be a certain shape so they can take off and fly through the air relatively safely.

[free_thinker]

Evidence ?
Where ?

Fallacies you mean.



..against a building that was 500.000 tons in weight, that was much stronger than a plane,
that was much denser that a plane...

But you don't seem to understand very much.

Look either you're meds are too high or too low but obviously just not the right amount because you appear to be living in a different world where the laws of physics are completely different and people fly around in empty beer cans.

[kooskoets]

resulting in much debris on the ground on the impactside.


No!!! This is where you are in error. How does the debris get to the ground? By BOUNCING OFF THE WALL. The debris must slow from 500mph to zero, then reverse direction and travel in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION.


By BOUNCING OFF THE WALL..
The alternative is that the wall would be accelerated to 500mph.

Now, what has more inertia : alu sheet or steel tubes ?

BTW : how many legs you've got under that chair ?

[apollo_gnomon]

By BOUNCING OFF THE WALL..
The alternative is that the wall would be accelerated to 500mph.
Not the whole wall - just the portions touched by airplane and contents.

Now, what has more inertia : alu sheet or steel tubes ?
Irrelevant

BTW : how many legs you've got under that chair ?
Huh?

[tabea_blumenschein]

Whaaaat? Are you taking credit for truegroups posts now?


Here's a cool video - 1 million frames per second of bullets hitting (http://thevibe.socialvibe.com/index.php/2009/10/10/video-bullet-impact-in-super-slow-motion/).

Not sure what all the target materials are, but in some of the early clips you can see bullets exiting the target plate fully demolished, while creating a clean entry hole.

Another interesting thing, notice how the bullets appear to "splash" like liquid at that velocity. Not what I expected it to look like.


Yeah, at very high speeds the impacting and impacting objects behave more like fluids than solids. Check out this paragraph on linear shaped charges from Wiki:

Most of the jet formed moves at hypersonic speed. The tip moves at 7 to 14 km/s, the jet tail at a lower velocity (1 to 3 km/s), and the slug at a still lower velocity (less than 1 km/s). The exact velocities are dependent on the charge's configuration and confinement, explosive type, materials used, and the explosive-initiation mode. At typical velocities, the penetration process generates such enormous pressures that it may be considered hydrodynamic; to a good approximation, the jet and armor may be treated as incompressible fluids, with their material strengths ignored.

Shaped charge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A bullet is probably at 600 m/s or less on impact, but it's not a surprise that it would still behave more like a fluid than a solid.

Treating a wing section as an incompressible fluid is pushing things a bit, but it's certainly acceptable as a simplification. No-planers are just showing how ignorant they are when they argue otherwise.

Love your new avatar, truegroup!

[ultima1]

You show a silly picture without source, without story, without close up pictures. ]

Funniest thing ever on the forum.. You are so funny since you canoot post one thing with source, story or anything else to support what you post or to debate what i post..

BUT JUST TO PROVE YOU WRONG YET AGIAN, HERE ARE SOURCES FOR THE PHOTO AND THE STOERY OF THE CRASH.

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/02/national/main671071.shtml

2. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/jet_company_executive_involved.html

NEWARK -- A jet charter company executive who booked and staffed a flight from Teterboro Airport that crashed on takeoff in 2005 pleaded guilty today to conspiracy charges in connection with the incident.

MORE PHOTOS

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-02/03/xin_190202030852226177653.jpg

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-02/03/xin_020202030924664211306.jpg

http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates_impact/2009/06/large_teterboro%20airport%20runway%20crash%20febru ary%202005.JPG

http://wzus1.search-results.com/r?t=a&d=apn&s=zdo&c=p&ti=1&ai=30752&l=dis&o=14899&sv=0a5c4251&ip=62eb1a19&u=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2F commons%2F6%2F6e%2FAAR0604_Page_043_Image_0001.jpg




only proof of your inability to present proof.

Just too bad you cannot debate the proof i post.

[ultima1]

You post a picture that doesn't support your argument and you ask us to imagine the picture shows something entirely different.

No the picture does support my point that a plane can damage a building but the building will also damage the plane.

Just to bad you are not able to understand it and admit it.

[stannrodd]

By BOUNCING OFF THE WALL..
The alternative is that the wall would be accelerated to 500mph.

Now, what has more inertia : alu sheet or steel tubes ?

BTW : how many legs you've got under that chair ?

The mindless assumptions and an irrelevant question combined with a "wasted question" .. chairs usually have four legs Kooser ..

Really shows that you are simply a troll .. you have no desire to discuss .. just preach and bleat like a lost lamb ..

Go back to your wacky backy cafe in Amsterdam .. Han .. lol

Think soft pumpkins and hard houses .. lol

Stann :)

[bryan]

I suspect the pumpkins were squashed, not shredded. Then again, I haven't seen any slow-motion videos of the impacts.

[bryan]

No the picture does support my point that a plane can damage a building but the building will also damage the plane.


First the plane is shredded, then it's destroyed, now it's damaged.

[ultima1]

First the plane is shredded, than it's destroyed, now it's damaged.

Stop trying to play word games.

Everyone can see thast i have proven my point and you cannot debate the fact that i have proven my point.

[apollo_gnomon]

Stop trying to play word games.

Everyone can see thast i have proven my point and you cannot debate the fact that i have proven my point.

We've ALL proven this point Brian, over and over and over.

Airplanes.
Pumpkins.
Ping pong balls.
Bullets.
Aluminum cans.

A softer projectile at sufficient velocity is capable of making a hole in a harder target, and will sustain damage while doing so.

[kooskoets]

By BOUNCING OFF THE WALL..
The alternative is that the wall would be accelerated to 500mph.


Not the whole wall - just the portions touched by airplane and contents.


Well...same goes for the plane.
Just parts of it need to decelerate.

So you need to compare density and inertia.



Now, what has more inertia : alu sheet or steel tubes ?

Irrelevant


Ok troll.
Just move on.

Calling the logic and physics "irrelevant" just gave you away once more as a shill.
I'm done answering Q's of a high school dropout on his hollyday job.

[bryan]

We've ALL proven this point Brian, over and over and over.

Airplanes.
Pumpkins.
Ping pong balls.
Bullets.
Aluminum cans.

A softer projectile at sufficient velocity is capable of making a hole in a harder target, and will sustain damage while doing so.

The Purdue study doesn't say the planes sustained damage. It says they were shredded. That's contradicted by the pictures of the holes showing that the columns were broken. A softer projectiles makes a hole in a harder target because it gets squashed against it.

[truegroup]

Ok troll.
Just move on.
Calling the logic and physics "irrelevant" just gave you away once more as a shill.
I'm done answering Q's of a high school dropout on his hollyday job.

You are just the most ignorant of people. Now your little theory has had a good kicking you resort to namecalling.

You asked for something softer that breaks when it hits something harder and breaks that. You were given examples, then wormed your way out of admitting it, by suggesting a fucking pumpkin is denser than an 'alu tube' (aka a plane)!

I predict you will either ignore this or come back with another lie jibe (something you also do not understand the meaning of).

[bryan]

You asked for something softer that breaks when it hits something harder and breaks that.

To be of any use as an analogy with the planes in the 9/11 videos, the softer object shouldn't visibly deform as it hits the target, as seen from the impact side. In other words, it must be shredded by the target. That's why the "shredding of the planes" theory was dreamed up in the first place, to explain why the plane in the videos doesn't fold up when it hits the wall.

[stannrodd]

To be of any use as an analogy with the planes in the 9/11 videos, the softer object shouldn't visibly deform as it hits the target, as seen from the impact side. In other words, it must be shredded by the target. That's why the "shredding of the planes" theory was dreamed up in the first place, to explain why the plane in the videos doesn't fold up when it hits the wall.

Shredding was not "dreamed up" bryan .. it is a logical assumption based in real physics .. to presume that a shreddable object impacting a steel grid .. rather than a solid wall .. will most likely "shred" rather than squash .. like a pumpkin might against a concrete wall for example.

The shredding aspect is not designed to negate your theory .. it would happen irrespective of your theory.

As for Koosers insistence that it should bounce .. well that's just ferking crazy... he is (as is demonstrated by his own posts) someone who obviously has the least interest and knowledge in physics, let alone a real interest in the discussion.

I do note that you don't support his bullshit.

[apollo_gnomon]

Well...same goes for the plane.
Just parts of it need to decelerate.

So you need to compare density and inertia.
Okay, then do so. You think you're smart. I don't. I think you're stupid, lazy and stoned. Prove me wrong.

You also need to compare shear strength between projectile and target. You need to multiply mass of the projectile times velocity. The resulting number for kinetic energy (nearly 2 gigajoules, roughly equal to the explosive force of half a ton of TNT) needs to be divided equally between both the opposing forces of momentum and resistance, based on the relative shear strengths of the target and the projectile.

I did this for you once before on a bulk level. You pissed all over it without references, calculations or justification, insulting me at every opportunity but not addressing the calculations.

Karim and Dr. Michelle Hoo Fatt performed the calculations at a more detailed level using Finite Element Analysis to find out what architectural changes would be required for future buildings to withstand the impact of a 767 at full speed by preventing entry of the airframe into the building. This was done by a college professor and her graduate student. I've presented her email address (it's public information if you bother to put down the bong and look for it) for you to write her and ask questions.

But no. Again, you simply pissed all over the information presented, without any calculations, proof or references. And you insulted me at every opportunity.

Purdue University performed a highly detailed FEA, based on engineering and architectural diagrams and widely available materials properties values. Then the ran the results into a 3d graphics engine. There are over 10 PHD's names on the total project, and an unknown number of undergrads. I've presented the email of the head of the department (again, public information I found in 2 minutes) for you to ask questions.

You dismiss the entire study as a "cartoon." And again you insulted me instead of addressing the facts and figures behind the study.

Your version of Finite Element Analysis involves half a detail, misunderstood materials properties, and thinking in your THC addled "brain" for about 0.4 seconds.

I present facts and figures, you present opinions and one logical fallacy after another.

Well, fuck you.

You might think your "theory" is dangerous and worth defending, but it's just a cartoon to everyone else in the world. Even the other "truth movement" people think the NPT is stupid.

I'm done. I've finally realized that by attempting to debunk your shit-filled tubesock of a conspiracy all I'm doing is validating your existence.

Have a nice life, dipshit. I hope pretending terrorism is fake helps you sleep at night.

[ultima1]

The point has been proven about softer material making a hole and being shredded.

People need to grow up and move on.

[bryan]

Shredding was not "dreamed up" bryan .. it is a logical assumption based in real physics .. to presume that a shreddable object impacting a steel grid .. rather than a solid wall .. will most likely "shred" rather than squash .. like a pumpkin might against a concrete wall for example.

The problem is, it's the squashing that enables the softer object to damage the wall, because the force acting on the wall accumulates over a very short period of time as a function of the square of the velocity. When the object is shredded, the parts that pass through the shredder are not contributing to that accumulation of energy. You can't have it both ways.


The point has been proven about softer material making a hole and being shredded.

People need to grow up and move on.

Not so fast! You're not getting away so easily.

[ultima1]

Not so fast! You're not getting away so easily.

So post facts and evidence to debate the facts and evidence i have posted.

[stannrodd]

The problem is, it's the squashing that enables the softer object to damage the wall, because the force acting on the wall accumulates over a very short period of time as a function of the square of the velocity. When the object is shredded, the parts that pass through the shredder are not contributing to that accumulation of energy. You can't have it both ways.

Shredders get clogged !! And so the mass accumulates (in this brief period of time) to the point where penetration is achieved and the impacted mass moves through the hole as a singular compressed mass. Bear in mind that the impact sequence is much less than half a second .. :)

The impacted compressed mass is now a very different destructive force than an aluminium beer can which Kooser seems so familiar with.

[bryan]

Shredders get clogged !! And so the mass accumulates (in this brief period of time) to the point where penetration is achieved and the impacted mass moves through the hole as a singular compressed mass. Bear in mind that the impact sequence is much less than half a second .. :)

When the mass accumulates, the plane gets squashed. There are 10 frames in the Hezarkhani video between nose and tail passing through the wall and not the slightest hint of deformation of the aircraft.

[stannrodd]

The impacted mass is already in the building ... stretching the columns to breaking point .. and nano seconds later .. the demolished aircraft in total has landed inside the building just like cartoon aircraft can't.

This unfortunately is outside of the resolution of the camera you refer to.

Don't invent fantasies bryan ..

[ultima1]

There are 10 frames in the Hezarkhani video between nose and tail passing through the wall and not the slightest hint of deformation of the aircraft.

Too bad so many other sources with facts show the plane being shredded as it enters the building.

[kooskoets]

Too bad so many other sources with facts show the plane being shredded as it enters the building.

Do you mind posting a few of them...
( no CARTOONS )

[bryan]

The impacted mass is already in the building ... stretching the columns to breaking point .. and nano seconds later .. the demolished aircraft in total has landed inside the building

Been watching some old episodes of Roadrunner again, Stann?



just like cartoon aircraft can't.

A cartoon aircraft can do anything the cartoonist wants it to. It can be shredded by steel columns and break the steel columns at the same time.

[ultima1]

Do you mind posting a few of them...
( no CARTOONS )

I never posted a cartoon, I posted an animation as part of a scientific study. What do you not understand about that ???

Sorry if the facts get in the way of your theories and opinions.

[kooskoets]

I never posted a cartoon, I posted an animation as part of a scientific study. What do you not understand about that ???



So...there's only the cartoon, scientific or not.

None of the video's "show the plane being shredded as it enters the building."
Why would that be then ?

Is "scientific fact" so very different than "real world fact" ?

Clearly your "scientific cartoon" shows something else than the "real world video's".
But you failed to address that one...you seem perfectly comfortable with such contradictions.


Sorry if the facts get in the way of your theories and opinions.

Well...they don't.

[ultima1]

So...there's only the cartoon, scientific or not.

No there is an animation supported by a scientific study, at least be mature enough to admit to that.

None of the video's "show the plane being shredded as it enters the building." Why would that be then ?

Yes the video does show the planes airframe being shredded as it enters the building.

Clearly your "scientific cartoon" shows something else than the "real world video's".

NO thats where you are so wrong, the real world videos do not show what happened to the airframe from inside the building. Thats where you are getting the facts confused.

But you failed to address that one...you seem perfectly comfortable with such contradictions.

No have i have adressed it, you are perfectly comfortable being closed mined and ignoring the facts.

[bryan]

I never posted a cartoon, I posted an animation as part of a scientific study. What do you not understand about that ???

How did the team of scientists know how much fuel was on board at the time of impact? Did they do the maths or did they just assume the tanks were full?

[kooskoets]

No there is an animation supported by a scientific study, at least be mature enough to admit to that.



Yes the video does show the planes airframe being shredded as it enters the building.



NO thats where you are so wrong, the real world videos do not show what happened to the airframe from inside the building. Thats where you are getting the facts confused.



No have i have adressed it, you are perfectly comfortable being closed mined and ignoring the facts.

So...you say that the cockpit first made a hole without breaking up
and after that, it fell apart ?

So it was not the steel beams that destroyed the cockpit...
What did ?

[ultima1]

How did the team of scientists know how much fuel was on board at the time of impact? Did they do the maths or did they just assume the tanks were full?

For that part of the study they are simply looking at the facts of an aluminum airframe being shredded by a steel lattice.

You bring up about fuel in the wing tanks but cannot post any evidence to state the center tank was empty.

[ultima1]

So...you say that the cockpit first made a hole without breaking up and after that, it fell apart ?

No, that not what i said. At the high spped the plane was flying the impact would punch it into the building but as it entered the building it was shreded as lot of evidence has proven.

So it was not the steel beams that destroyed the cockpit...
What did ?

As stated and proven by lots of evidnece the aluminum cockpit and airframe was destroyed by the steel lattice as it entered the building.

[bryan]

For that part of the study they are simply looking at the facts of an aluminum airframe being shredded by a steel lattice.


http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html


"It is the weight, the kinetic energy of the fuel that causes much of the damage in these events," Hoffmann says. "If it weren't for the subsequent fire, the structural damage might be almost the same if the planes had been filled with water instead of fuel."

To calculate the weight and kinetic energy of the fuel (or water), they need to know the volume. What source did they use for the volume of fuel on board at the time of impact?


The simulation found that the airplane's metal skin peeled away shortly after impact and shows how the titanium jet engine shafts flew through the building like bullets.

Why weren't the shafts recovered?


"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says.

Looks like the Purdue scientists enjoy a drop of Pinot Gris!

[bryan]

No, that not what i said. At the high spped the plane was flying the impact would punch it into the building but as it entered the building it was shreded as lot of evidence has proven.

If the plane punches through the columns, the columns are no longer there to shred the plane.



As stated and proven by lots of evidnece the aluminum cockpit and airframe was destroyed by the steel lattice as it entered the building.

If the steel lattice shreds the plane, the steel lattice is still there after the plane has been shredded.

[ultima1]

If the plane punches through the columns, the columns are no longer there to shred the plane.

It not punch through all the collums, anyone with coomon sense could see this from the evidencprovided.

If the steel lattice shreds the plane, the steel lattice is still there after the plane has been shredded.

Yes and a lot of the outside steel lattice was still there.

[bryan]

It not punch through all the collums, anyone with coomon sense could see this from the evidencprovided.


Yes and a lot of the outside steel lattice was still there.

Common sense should tell you that the same columns that were punched through would have to stay in place to shred the plane. The plane can't be shredded by the columns that were left outside of the plane-shaped hole.

[ultima1]

Common sense should tell you that the same columns that were punched through would have to stay in place to shred the plane.

How many times do iahve to keep posting this evidence ??

The planes aluminum airframe was shredded as it hit the steel lattice of the building. Some steel columns were taken out but not before shredding the airframe.

[bryan]

The planes aluminum airframe was shredded as it hit the steel lattice of the building. Some steel columns were taken out but not before shredding the airframe.

What took out the steel columns if the airframe had already been shredded?

[catnap]

For that part of the study they are simply looking at the facts of an aluminum airframe being shredded by a steel lattice.

You bring up about fuel in the wing tanks but cannot post any evidence to state the center tank was empty.

Aircraft dont fly with fuel in the centre tank unless they are going long distance or to a destination where they dont want to pick up fuel due to cost, poor quality etc. Its standard practice in the aviation industry.

[ultima1]

What took out the steel columns if the airframe had already been shredded?

What was stated in the Purdue study of course.

[ultima1]

Aircraft dont fly with fuel in the centre tank unless they are going long distance or to a destination where they dont want to pick up fuel due to cost, poor quality etc. Its standard practice in the aviation industry.

Yes but we do not have evidence if the center tank had fuel and if so was it emptied before hitting the towers.

I have been asking over and over for this information that some people like bryan seem to have but will not share it.

[stannrodd]

What took out the steel columns if the airframe had already been shredded?

Use your brain bryan .. the shredded mass which clogged the shredder = broken perimeter columns.

The laziness of your grey matter is a bit of a worry mate .. too much wacky baccy I reckon.

:D

[ultima1]

Use your brain bryan .. the shredded mass which clogged the shredder = broken perimeter columns.

Also the Purdue study states what broke the columns.