Carlos

You are the one cutting and pasting from your silly repertoire of nonsense. Planes that burst into flames and crash at maximum velocity don't tend to leave much behind. It is a total waste of time casting pearls before swine but anyway. THIS plane landed and caught fire. It didn't crash at 530mph into an enclosed space or come down nigh on vertically and bounce into a million bits: That's with fire engines putting the fire out. Leave it to burn, after you crash it at high velocity into an enclosed space and you'd get bugger all left. Nope, that's physics. High energy impact and long duration burning. Stupid statement. Crashing a plane is so easy even a child could do it. An adult and they just need to point it in the right direction.

You really aren't thinking it through are you - it isn't saying what you think it is saying.

No you rather silly person. That is not what I am saying at all. If the coke can weighed 90 tons and was travelling at 500mph you might

Dude, is English your first language? I say that because nowhere have I stated that physics do not apply. I said that YOU and team no plane have no right to use it because your ignorance is substantial. As for making myself look foolish - when my "judges" are people like you, I kind of ignore it. Besides, looking foolish? THAT'S foolish.

https://prezi.com/i2kgy3uhzwnh/empire-state-building-vs-world-trade-center/?frame=8cd33b6de541acaaf7bc79da3fa1824bb1653df8 You need to shut up dude. Haha, the very point - you really don't debate well do you. It still went through the outside of a massive building. Slower, lighter. 1. Magic missile invoking the masses of people to distribute the plane parts and the dna, fire the missile, dispose of the plane and passengers etc. 2. Plane landing gear. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/#:~:text=Claim%3A Two holes were visible in the Pentagon,hole in Ring C%2C the Pentagon's middle ring.

That is going around 430mph. I see no wings coming off and I imagine the pilot was briefed not to tear the arse out of the engines. Can you show me your stress diagrams and physics to show why the wings would fall off at a speed the plane is designed to do?

You have about 50 posts to respond to and you choose this one to make another crass and useless response?

They were full of seats, people, luggage, cross members, food trolleys, fuel, instruments, tv screens, partitions, carpets, cables, undercarriage and other items all weighing at 82.4 metric tons. This travelling along at 530mph. Only the truly brainless can fail to understand the colossal kinetic energy in play. The engine was the correct type, not placed there and the passport was iffy. Irony. Anything with sufficient force would go through it. No it wasn't. Your sense of reality is quite disturbing. I don't recall seeing anywhere how the hijackers claimed to be trying to bring the buildings down. Completely irrelevant. It hit an immovable object, the packed ground at maximum speed. It smashed into tiny pieces and ejected over many miles. I won't bother posting clear-up accounts and links. It was a plane. CCTV is fairly useless at capturing such fast objects anyway. I just realised I am being dragged into an almost as dumb debate as the flat earth.

When are the no-plane tag-team going to answer this? 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.

Reading not your strong point is it. I said YOU don't get to invoke physics. Of course it applies, but since you know nothing about it, it negates you being able to refer to it.

I'm sure when you set out to write that it sounded good in your head, but written down, not so much.

OMG, the no-planers have been "activated" - spam the thread if all else fails.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No, it's not really possible, it is just moving and getting slowly bigger at altitude.

Carlin is amazing isn't he! But he wasn't impressed with protesting many years ago:

No they are not. Each one cannot be drawn to scale and merely demonstrates the IDEA being presented. The principle demonstrated in each case works if you were able to draw to scale. For example to all intents and purposes, in the eclipse duration the Moon has gone in a straight line, it has gone so little around a curve it is hardly worth noting. The rotation of the Earth is irrelevant to how the shadow presents. The proximity of the Moon to Earth is irrelevant when showing how the land speed varies etc. You keep repeating this lie. I showed them to add up exactly. I did some maths to show the shadow tracking within the 2017 eclipse time. I showed the size of the penumbra and it is easily viewable beyond one hour either side of the shadow being cast. You are either rather unintelligent, can't read properly or are playing the goat. The shallow curve is this: Maybe you didn't understand the simple diagram. The Moon goes from A to B at the same but where the curve is not shallow it covers MORE Earth distance, therefore less relative speed on the Earth. Please don't make yourself even more foolish by disputing that. The variance in rotational speed by latitude is indisputable, basic physics. That is correct. Though on Earth with variable rotation, variable Earth curve it appears to change accordingly. Exactly as you would expect. But I did the calculation of the time the Moon would track across the full face of the Earth and the 2017 eclipse falls within that figure. NO IT DOES NOT! Your whole case relies on data from a third party graphic. That data shows quite clearly that the shadow starts at 16.48 and ends at 20.02. For some odd reason the graphic designer has chosen to add penumbra data to each point on the shadow path, possibly because it involves a massive amount of extra work to do this for every point on his map. So once again, the parts you are afraid to address - read the bits in red FFS! https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/35635/during-an-eclipse-how-big-is-the-shadow-of-the-moon-on-the-earth#:~:text=Typically%2C the umbra is 100–160 km wide%2C while,km. Source%3A Geometry of a Total Solar Eclipse Typically, the umbra is 100–160 km wide, while the penumbral diameter is in excess of 6400km. Source: Geometry of a Total Solar Eclipse https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/partial-solar-eclipse.html#:~:text=During a partial solar eclipse%2C the Moon's umbra,a place close to one of the poles. "During a partial solar eclipse, the Moon's umbra or antumbra, the shadow's center portion, is cast into space just above the polar regions, missing poles." That is a screenshot from YOUR video, does it or does it not point to the start and end of the shadow on Earth? QUESTION 2: Every single diagram shows that thin line to be the shadow path of FULL eclipse - is that a correct statement? If not fully explain why not. QUESTION 3: The source of your video comes from Xjubier - here is another of their videos. http://xjubier.free.fr/site_movies/TSE_2017_Simulation_1024x768.mp4 Since I cannot embed the damn thing, the question is this - Does the screen shot show the shadow appearing on Earth at 15:55 or 16:48? QUESTION 4: Does this screen shot show the shadow disappearing off of the edge of the Earth at 20:02? You can't answer any of those questions and we both know why, you lost this debate pages ago and are simply too afraid to admit it.

The drawings are simplified to help people who are having trouble understanding simple stuff. I also gave you 3 animations that demonstrated this. The last one, the MP4 had the times of the shadow arfrival and departure. Of course you completely ignored that, no "junk drawings" there dude, just you afraid of things that show your silly claim to be wrong. You say that do you? I don't recall calculating it. All I did was show why the speed varies according to how sharp the curve is and how shallow the latitude. This is where YOU back up that statement with something other than relying on useless videos and hot air. Your "calculations" in your own time. After 3 pages of this evasion, has the penny finally sunk? Local speeds are varied for reasons explained. The Moon tracks across the Earth at a constant speed. No it doesn't dude. It results in exactly what is claimed. The Earth diameter at the equator is 12,756 at the equator and 17,712 at the poles. It's tracking diagonally across so lets split that and say 12,734 kilometres. The Moon is going at close on 3,800 kph at perigee, but it is at a 5 degree angle to the ecliptic, so slightly less than that relative to Earth, but we'll use that figure. That's 3.35 hours. Duration of 2017 eclipse 3.24 hours. YOUR TURN, show why it's a problem. There is no "additionally" - the arc distance is 0.51 degrees 3,474 km. It's straight line distance is 3,800 and already calculated. Gibberish. No it isn't. And once again like a truly dishonest person you quote this 5hrs bullshit. The shadow was on Earth 3hrs 14mins. But let's break this down and dispense with my previous estimates of 4hrs and 1hr either side, based purely on angular size. The Penumbra is 6400km wide. So in theory under ideal circumstances a partial eclipse can be seen well over an hour before the shadow arrives if the narrowest edge is on the path travelled.

OK, no worries. There is no conundrum and forgive me for posting this once more: "most of the time they give a perfectly straight answer but some of the time I suspect it isn't because I like to believe other stuff". And that is all there is suspicion. I suspect they have some secrets they would rather not share, but there is no evidence for this at all.

You lost pal and lack the balls to admit it. MY DIAGRAM is nothing to do with movement and is simply to show that which you are afraid to admit - the Moon is visible when it passes in front of the Sun during a partial eclipse, before and after the shadow passes across the Earth. Once again avoiding 90% of the post.

The scattering is what makes the new moon invisible. It can be seen as it passes partially across the Sun - which is what we are talking about. Stop playing games now, try and show some balls and admit you now understand this.