Jump to content

Comedy Time

Members
  • Posts

    794
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Comedy Time

  1. Isn't Rudy talking about the WTC1/2? "“I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.” Eyewitnesses hearing loud noises. I would be amazed if there weren't. Silverstein said the fire crews were pulled from the building. BBC made an error. How come this one of thousands is the "truth". Why on earth would they tell the reporters about this anyway? 911 commission eventually did analyse this. The number who know about it isn't really relevant. The zionist media refused to report it, yet the BBC did and so did all the other TV crews that day.
  2. Which is why the line said this "Watch the video and prove it wrong. Or not, feel free to ignore it." You weren't told what to do. I was hoping for a little more detailed examination. Quite clearly there is an area in the second closed circuit TV footage which corresponds to the outline of a plane. Could you pretty please watch it again and offer a proper response? One that involves analysis rather than arm waving. I ask again. WHERE is the missile? Now we are into the following territory: Nobody must see the missile. Witnesses must be planted to say they saw a plane. A team must be quickly assembled to invisibly sprinkle plane parts all over the Pentagon lawn. This cannot be done in advance and must be completed before emergency services arrive and/or staff leave the buildings. Another team(or same one) must break or attach explosives to the streetlights and the generator. Synchronised to go off with the missile! If any of the emergency team are not in on it, they must not see any of this The actual plane and all passengers must be disposed off. The bodies must be burnt and mashed and a team/person to sprinkle the DNA quickly all over the crash site. A hole in the Pentagon wall must be created that resembles a plane impact that somehow occurs at the same time as a missile strike. The missile must be fired with some sort of guidance system installed. That involves a branch of the military and a launch mechanism. It must approach the Pentagon at ground level and parallel involving a manoeuvre that sees the missile coming down and altering course. That must be done via software link. The missile must penetrate all walls of the Pentagon. Correct. A Plane. Here is a list of interviewed witnesses, are they all lying and in on it? http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html Neither can yours, not even with the massive variance in theories amongst conspiracy theorists. Your evasion of the video and the mathematics concerning kinetic energy is noted.
  3. Space exists whether you like it or not. I'm not going through that entire video only for you to ignore it so I'll address point number one. Have you ever seen one piece of film edited into another with a cross fade? That is what we are seeing. And you know what, it's dead easy to prove. The following animated gif contains two screen shots, one just before he exits and one immediately after. See all the things "moving"? QED.
  4. Yes I know. It carries over 3 times the kinetic energy of a conventional Tomahawk missile. Dare you admit this though, because your response seems once again to be sarcastic. Well in fairness that IS a shitty closed circuit TV shot. There were two of them and one captured something - see below. To answer your point though, the kinetic energy being big is not in the least bit relevant to your claim that there is no plane. Where is the missile? The impact went INWARDS, so we're back to magic explosions again or something hit the Pentagon. Not rocket science to work this out. Do you believe a missile was used? The physics of kinetic energy are as I say irrelevant to your claim. And besides you actually CAN'T argue with it can you? No need to shout dude, I get it that you have an opinion about this. Watch the video and prove it wrong. Or not, feel free to ignore it.
  5. https://willywhitten.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/nist-data-disproves-collapse-theories-based-on-fire/comment-page-2/ The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was = 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174 = 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules). One 767 on 911 carried 6.22 Gigajoules One metric ton of TNT is equal to 4.184 Gigajoules Conventional Tomahawk missile is equal to 1.88 Gigajoules. Kinetic energy. Yeah right!
  6. Like a comedy "plane-part" cannon? The energy to get that thing moving that distance would be fairly excessive. How do you figure they got it to look like that, transport it to wherever they got it to look like that, people to do it, transport it to magic plane-part cannon (who made that), people to do it (yeah - you lot go up in that seriously compromised building that's on fire and blast bits out of the window). Not really likely is it. Occam's razor says it was a plane part ejected during impact.
  7. The invisible plane part fairies at work.
  8. No contradiction. On the impact jet testing, they used a specifically reinforced wall to stop the jet dead in its tracks. To explain - the resistant force of the wall exceeded the kinetic energy of the jet. On the WTC1 / WTC2 and Pentagon it did not. On the ground at Shankesville it most certainly did, spewing tiny fragments and large off in every direction at hundreds of miles per hour - just like the impact test. Simple really.
  9. Yes. What you need to do is compute the kinetic energy of the landing gear. The resistant force of the inner walls which were not as reinforced like the outer wall. Then you need to see how much kinetic energy is lost through resistant force on wall 1, wall 2 and wall 3. Or just carry on doing this:
  10. You'd call them whatever you need to to avoid answering them. How is it irrelevant to ask why the columns bent inwards?
  11. I expect the slightest piece of physical evidence. Considering the astonishing number this fairy tale no plane scenario involves, just anything other than your very poor opinion. Those are the decorative edgings on the outside of the columns. Surely somebody could have tapped you on the shoulder and told you this? I mean can you not see them on every intact column either side? Thank you once again for furnishing us all with your hopeless opinion. Again, I value it less than you could possibly imagine. Can you identify other uncontrolled explosions where you have something similar to compare to. A controlled explosion would have blown the columns outwards. THAT is why you are afraid to answer any of the questions posed to you. Really? For the last time I doubt that? Which part of the responses that you have evaded is confusing for you? I provided very easy to understand media and explanations. Can you explain PROPERLY how the explosion at the plane impact point went inwards and bent the outer columns in that direction? Since you claim an astonishing amount of work was done to fake this whole thing, why didn't they just fake some black boxes? Fairly simple to do. On the posted picture of an impact test where a jet hits a wall and breaks into tiny bits, why shouldn't the 911 plane do the same? How many people to plant it all, how were they paid, paper trail etc. Please provide images where the outer columns bend outwards. Can you please, give me a follow up question to "yeah it was an explosion" bearing in mind the reporter knows it was a plane? Do you have evidence for planted wreckage, any dodgy pictures, witness accounts etc.? Do the multiple images provided show severe fire damage and lots of the plane now gone after it has landed at low speed and not impacted anything? No it isn't. Got any more bare assertions?
  12. Like you said is not what everyone else saw. Yes there is. Mostly there is the actual plane in the way of seeing it! What is impossible is you being able to be reasoned with. You see what you wish to see Yet again this member breaches the guidelines. What's that now, eight times you've fired insults at me? The "other blatant dodgy shit" is nothing to do with the totally impossible no planes nonsense. Another one, look at this bloke go. Questions? Nope, not having any of it, too difficult. Ad hominems and insults, excelling. Rupert. I hate to break it to you, but they have an inkling. The irony is in asking you for evidence that actual goes beyond your badly biased and drastically misguided opinion.
  13. Yes, I know this, difficult aren't they.
  14. Sharp as a tennis ball. Yes I see it too. I ask lots of questions no-plane dudes run away and make lots of noise.
  15. We already covered this. More insulting and hostility once again noted (just by me it would seem). None of my replies are baseless, anecdotal or horseshit. Evasion noted. You haven't been round in any circles, you have avoided difficult questions and obvious alternative evidence. If you find it "gaslighting" when somebody asks you pertinent questions then you really shouldn't bring it up. My replies are not outlandish fantasy and are backed up by images, of which there are copious amounts. There were planes whether you like it or not. Dozens of other questions shall remain unasked, let alone ignored by you. Prove it's faked. How many to plant it all, dissect the planes, muddy it all up, burn it a little, transport it and drop it here there and everywhere. We covered the plane "vanishing" issue with some really easy to understand pictures. You have avoided answering to any of them. Over 2 tons in weight and travelling at 530 mph. I struggle to understand how anyone can find it hard to work that one out. Large guffaw at that one. From someone who makes the claims you do, nuclear bombs, no planes, no victims - a virtual army of people to prepare, transport and distribute the dna and plane parts, god knows how many involved in the TV claims, the preparation of video and witnesses. Then there are the 4 planes and all the passengers to be disposed of. Yeah, real plausible I really have zero value on your opinion - it's the fence sitters who need to see this. To see how you have evaded questions that demand answers. Most telling. More insults and baiting. Dude, you just threw your toys out of the pram and evaded the basic questions. Go on, be brave. If you are right you must have answers to these: Can you explain PROPERLY how the explosion at the plane impact point went inwards and bent the outer columns in that direction? Since you claim an astonishing amount of work was done to fake this whole thing, why didn't they just fake some black boxes? Fairly simple to do. On the posted picture of an impact test where a jet hits a wall and breaks into tiny bits, why shouldn't the 911 plane do the same? How many people to plant it all, how were they paid, paper trail etc. You stated that the impact was "perfectly straight square and rectangle hole" - how did the two pictures posted not disprove that? Please provide images where the outer columns bend outwards. Can you please, give me a follow up question to "yeah it was an explosion" bearing in mind the reporter knows it was a plane? Do you have evidence for planted wreckage, any dodgy pictures, witness accounts etc.? Do the multiple images provided show severe fire damage and lots of the plane now gone after it has landed at low speed and not impacted anything
  16. Yet again, the same claim and complete evasion. No planers huh. To recap as we appear to have hidden it all by jumping page: Can you explain PROPERLY how the explosion at the plane impact point went inwards and bent the outer columns in that direction? Since you claim an astonishing amount of work was done to fake this whole thing, why didn't they just fake some black boxes? Fairly simple to do. On the posted picture of an impact test where a jet hits a wall and breaks into tiny bits, why shouldn't the 911 plane do the same? How many people to plant it all, how were they paid, paper trail etc. You stated that the impact was "perfectly straight square and rectangle hole" - how did the two pictures posted not disprove that? Please provide images where the outer columns bend outwards. Can you please, give me a follow up question to "yeah it was an explosion" bearing in mind the reporter knows it was a plane? Do you have evidence for planted wreckage, any dodgy pictures, witness accounts etc.? Do the multiple images provided show severe fire damage and lots of the plane now gone after it has landed at low speed and not impacted anything
  17. @Haunted Universe Your continued evasion of the questions is most telling. You are doing the gish gallup two step thing. What are you afraid of. Evasion noted once again. Do you have any paper trail for any single thing you claim? It's a fairly biog standard request. Surely you have something? Planted? By whom? Do you have evidence for that? My name is not Watson. That erroneous and often parroted notion has been thoroughly discussed here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/explaining-the-9-11-murray-st-engine-from-flight-175-n612ua-that-hit-wtc2.9022/ Kindly address the content of that rather than the standard ad-hom dismissal. No need for any "bullshit". The landing gear made the hole. Hence the discovery of lots of bits close by. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/ Nor should there be. You are repeating the same claim without responding to any of the presented responses. Do not Hijack threads with the same questions if a Moderator or other member has already answered them; Smithereens. Tiny bits burnt to a crisp. Respond to the presented points and kindly stop evading virtually everything I am posting. Same claim yet again. Address the questions that explain this. How much simpler do I need to make it for you? We have video and pictures of impact testing showing breakage into tiny pieces. We have images of numerous ejected plane pieces. We have images and video of burning planes showing that impacts and fire at slow speeds result in leaving very little of the plane and THAT is with fire crews right next to the burning plane on the runway after landing at landing speed! Here's a couple more:
  18. Hey, great question. Not relevant though and not transposable to the real thing. I imagine the kinetic energy would carry the bat straight through it slicing it in two. It wouldn't have enough resistance to release hardly any of it.
  19. The news reporter was aware that it was a plane. Besides he thanked him for his observation and moved off. He didn't "shit himself". Can you please, give me a follow up question to "yeah it was an explosion". Consider that another request you seem to be accumulating.
  20. Evasion noted. Right, magic explosives noted. None of it is perfectly straight or rectangular. Images please and I will answer. They aren't phoney and they fooled you completely. I keep showing you very simple to understand visual aids - explain why you have trouble with them. Now answer properly, explain exactly how an explosive device sends the exterior of a building inwards.
  21. We would assign kinetic energy to the Plane because it is in motion. Find weight of the plane as estimated. Find speed of the plane as estimated. https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/kinetic.php#:~:text=In classical mechanics%2C kinetic energy,* 5 m%2Fs2.
  22. Hey, I have no problem with it, just pointing it out. I'll not mention it again. No planes discussion it is. The planes entered into buildings at maximum speed. That is an enclosed space much bigger than the plane. It broke into tiny pieces and burnt to a crisp. That was a plane that collided on the runway after landing - not at top speed. Kindly stop using this "plane disappeared" argument as though it means something. Here is a picture sequence of an impact test. Smithereeens is the term. Tiny bits that then proceeded to get burnt in raging fires and minimum accessibility for fire crews. The larger steel components and titanium alloys survived the collision. We can actually see one being ejected. Landing gear pictures exist at the Pentagon. The black boxes - I have a question for you. Please answer, it's kind of like the missing WMD in Iraq. Since you claim an astonishing amount of work was done to fake this whole thing, why didn't they just fake some black boxes? Fairly simple to do. In teeny weeny bits, burnt to a crisp inside the building - exactly as you would expect - it went in at 500 + mph and carried on going in that direction. Another question, please answer. Above is a picture of an impact test where a jet hits a wall and breaks into tiny bits, why shouldn't the 911 plane do the same? You hand wave away the pictures of plane wreckage and say it was planted. How many people to plant it all, how were they paid, paper trail etc.
  23. "do not make any personal insults or irrelevant one word answers." Off topic, rude and insulting, and now one word answers - you have a full house. You have been hoodwinked and sucked into a ridiculous self-reinforcing nonsensical argument. The planes were not "hollow" aluminium tubes and they carried colossal kinetic energy. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020710082205.htm The smallest part of the collapsing tower which gave way at the impact point carried 549,172,400,000 joules of potential energy. I often wonder how anyone can quote physics when the physics show the whole thing as inevitable. Explain how the explosion at the plane impact point went inwards and bent the outer columns in that direction.
  24. Whodathunkit - Off topic thread hi-jacking, abusive, antagonistic and of course useless. An interviewee tells us he saw it all and "he's a plant" because of "reasons" - must be faaaaaake. Some guy on the street who wouldn't have been able to see the plane anyway unless he was on the right side and looking up at the split second it occurred - he must be right because of "reasons". And anybody who disagrees with no-plane disinformation must be "shilling for the zionists" or a "joke and a liar".
×
×
  • Create New...