Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Carlos

  1. OMG, the no-planers have been "activated" - spam the thread if all else fails.
  2. Physics. Show me your physics. Observing through the eyes of ignorance is all you are doing. It certainly is. Pick up a physics handbook and answer the request. I looked at the "fucking footage" and saw an enormous chunk of metal travelling at maximum velocity, carrying an astronomical amount of kinetic energy. I don't own any shill handbooks, but if I did I imagine it would say steer clear of the mentally challenged at all cost. What an ignorant observation. The plane wings were full of fuel and travelling at 500+ mph. In the mad world of a no-planer maybe we would see the comedy bounce off. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/plane-crashes-into-empire-state-building#:~:text=A United States military plane,Airport in New York City. "Upon impact, the plane’s fuel exploded, filling the interior of the building with flames all the way down to the 75th floor and sending flames out of the hole the plane had ripped open in the building’s side. One engine from the plane went straight through the building and landed in a penthouse apartment across the street. Other plane parts ended up embedded in and on top of nearby buildings. The other engine snapped an elevator cable while at least one woman was riding in the elevator car. The emergency auto brake saved the woman from crashing to the bottom, but the engine fell down the shaft and landed on top of it." B25 = 9,210kg Top speed 272mph and it was unlikely to be going at full pelt. 757 = 82,400kg and travelling at estimated 530mph. Cue the no-planer Janet and John diversionary handbook.
  3. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/israelis-absent-911/ A total of 2,071 occupants of the World Trade Center died on September 11, among the 2,749 victims of the WTC attacks. According to an article in the October 11, 2001, Wall Street Journal, roughly 1,700 people had listed the religion of a person missing in the WTC attacks; approximately 10% were Jewish. A later article, in the September 5, 2002, Jewish Week, stated, “based on the list of names, biographical information compiled by The New York Times, and information from records at the Medical Examiner’s Office, there were at least 400 victims either confirmed or strongly believed to be Jewish.” This would be approximately 15% of the total victims of the WTC attacks. A partial list of 390 Cantor Fitzgerald employees who died (out of 658 in the company) lists 49 Jewish memorial services, which is between 12% and 13%. This 10-15% estimate of Jewish fatalities tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area. According to the 2002 American Jewish Year Book, 9% of the population of New York State, where 64% of the WTC victims lived, is Jewish. A 2002 study estimated that New York City’s population was 12% Jewish. Forty-three percent of the WTC victims lived in New York City. Thus, the number of Jewish victims correlates very closely with the number of Jewish residents in New York. If 4,000 Jews had not reported for work on September 11, the number of Jewish victims would have been much lower than 10-15%. He took dozens of pictures, it was a fluke that this particular one lined up with the building uprights.
  4. No, no you don't. Show me some figures. Now that would be a first wouldn't it. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/170695/what-was-the-amount-of-energy-released-in-the-9-11-terrorist-attacks The old "stands to reason", "because I know physics" and it's "obvious" because you say so is up there with fairies and unicorns.
  5. Last I heard there was a Grand Jury investigation - didn't see any conclusion to it. I find it painfully ironic that you and the other painfully wrong no planers who have been soiling any internet discussion of this have the audacity to claim nothing has been concluded. Ad hominem rubbish. No planers are the bottom feeders for 911 conspiracies. And thank you for the "so fucking obvious" bullshit. Could you pretty please tell me which of the two alternatives I identified, that you would go with if you were a perp. Hypocrisy. Not a good look dude. What next? Try to avoid getting into a drawn out argument with people who have no capacity for reasoned debate.
  6. No. You don't get to rely on physics. If any group of people exist that have no right to claim they "know" about physics, it's the people who make all this ridiculous noise about no planes. The physics involved amount to team no-plane simply denying things and refusing to learn. No point in debating such people. September clues is appalling inaccurate junk. The mad claim about nose-out epitomises this, with the same view of the exit debris and fireball being visible on other footage.
  7. Why do these threads invariably get taken over by people who think no planes were involved? It makes a mockery of the truth movement. These things have got hundreds of thousands of tons of kinetic energy. It boils down to a straight choice: Alternative one involves manufacturing dozens of sequences of footage and making sure it all ties together. Faking each crash with missiles or whatever and magical charges that blow the uprights INWARDS (right there is your opening clue). You then have to dispose of the planes with nobody seeing or pay off all who do (for life and hope they don't talk), then dispose of the bodies. And for the Pentagon you have to secrete DNA remains of the passengers onboard all around the crash site. Quite who does al that work is enough to worry about secrecy, but then you have to worry about all private cine-cameras and eye witnesses who are in a good position to see planes approach. Oh and just for good measure do all that complete ridiculously unfeasible list live on TV in front of the entire planet. Alternative two involves crashing the planes. Tough choice I know.
  8. No, it's not really possible, it is just moving and getting slowly bigger at altitude.
  9. Carlin is amazing isn't he! But he wasn't impressed with protesting many years ago:
  10. If you saw on the news that the flight had crashed why would you go to the airport? The question is more about how many would have failed to have noticed the events on the news.
  11. https://www.loc.gov/everyday-mysteries/item/why-is-pluto-no-longer-a-planet/ So, the three criteria of the IAU for a full-sized planet are: It is in orbit around the Sun. It has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape). It has “cleared the neighborhood” around its orbit. The Moon fails on point 3 it hasn't cleared mass from around its vicinity, it isn't the dominant mass and point 1, it orbits the sun by virtue of it orbiting Earth - and that makes it a Moon by definition. Big Moon though, very intriguing.
  12. OK, I thought about it. On a flat Earth(your off topic claim) It's a distance where it cannot POSSIBLY see the entire surface of the Earth, therefore it will only reflect what it can see. And you roll the eyes at ME. IF it can see the entire surface, the entire surface sees IT all the time.
  13. Ludicrous. The "giant mirror" presents the exact same "reflection" no matter where it appears on the entire surface of the Earth.
  14. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/bird-seen-frozen-mid-air-22359476 That it?
  15. Doubtful, they're much bigger and easy to observe - you can land on them analyse them and watch their variances. No need for Mr rolly eyes.
  16. https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=23806
  17. This doing the rounds : https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-uk-troops-given-insect-repellent-citriodiol-as-part-of-enhanced-protection-11978318 Can't wait for large scale manufacture of citriodiol to be mass sprayed everywhere.
  18. We were already on topic - the OP references the Greenland ice sheet and historical variances are very relevant.
  19. I have no doubt it is littered with errors, but they are correct about Greenland. Your source?
  20. Whatever, what's your source? https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/06/iceland-greenland-name-swap/
  21. Err not really. https://skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm#:~:text=So how did Greenland get its name%3F According,would have been limited to rather small areas. Any pending Earth climate crisis will be probably in 40- 50 years at a guess. I'll be well out of here and will recommend any surviving relatives stay inland
  22. I wanted to expand on this. Let's give the Sun an altitude of 10000 miles (don't laugh): http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm Little a is 10000 Big A is 5 degrees - now the Sun is 114,000 miles away. LMAO. Regarding the Speed it moves How about sticking with 3000 miles and it is 15 degrees/30 degrees/45 degrees from zenith(directly overhead) - that is 3 one hour movements everywhere on Earth - proven and irrefutable. Little a is 3000 Big A is 75 degrees - It has gone 804 miles. So 804mph. Little a is 3000 Big A is 60 degrees - It has gone 1730 miles. 1730-804 = 926. So 926mph now! Little a is 3000 Big A is 45 degrees - It has gone 3000 miles. 3000-1730 = 1270. So 1270mph now! QED - any fence sitters? Really?
  23. No it isn't. This is classic hearsay from blog to blog. The DMI source for this data makes no such observations.
  • Create New...