.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Comedy Time
-
Posts
794 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Comedy Time
-
-
12 hours ago, screamingeagle said:
with all that force and kinetic energy we don't need bombs at all......and to think all the work and time that went into development
kinetic energy.....yea right
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!
-
9 hours ago, oddsnsods said:
They could have possibly blown that section out the building with that wheel stuck in it & if you check the art students "Gelatin - B thing" who occupied that building before hand, they were doing all sorts of strange bizarre shit..accessing the outside of the building.
There are videos of no plane, just explosion & witnesses.
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.
-
18 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:
The invisible plane part fairies at work.
-
2 hours ago, Haunted Universe said:
Yet you contradict yourself with the plane hitting the wall and vaporizing saying why cant the plane on 9/11 do the same. Make your mind up hot shot. Either the plane goes through the wall or it doesn't. (But of course, the 9/11 plane managed to smash through steel before it did the same thing).
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.
-
1 hour ago, Haunted Universe said:
And again, the THREE exit holes made by Carlos's landing gears. Seems totally plausible doesn't it?
.jpg.1b8bace5a8fd82a9b90cbf56d730a51a.jpg)
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:
-
20 minutes ago, mishy said:
I'd call them irrelevant, rather than difficult. But then, you also knew what I meant.
You'd call them whatever you need to to avoid answering them. How is it irrelevant to ask why the columns bent inwards?
-
1 hour ago, Haunted Universe said:
Paper trail, paper trail, paper trail. I'm talking about no planes and expected to explain how the psy op was planned and who was involved in detail. I guess im supposed to know exactly what went on at Epstein's island as well, at what time, what day, etc etc.
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.
1 hour ago, Haunted Universe said:Heres your bullshit hole Carlos. You havnt disproved anything regarding these perfectly, perfectly straight square/rectangle holes.
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?
1 hour ago, Haunted Universe said:Also, a real uncontrolled explosion would have looked exceedingly different. How is this hole NOT created by design?
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.
1 hour ago, Haunted Universe said:And wheres any evidence of a giant plane thats just hit it, for the LAST time.
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?
1 hour ago, Haunted Universe said:
No it isn't. Got any more bare assertions?
-
1
-
1 hour ago, Haunted Universe said:
Like I said, in every video of the plane paused when its half way inside the tower, there is no impact/impact hole. This is impossible.
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
1 hour ago, Haunted Universe said:Add in all the other blatant dodgy shit on 9/11 and it all adds up to one massive stinking turd, just like you.
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.
1 hour ago, Haunted Universe said:A turd that just wont flush. In that case, you should suck one of your arms to sharp point and commit seppuku.
Another one, look at this bloke go. Questions? Nope, not having any of it, too difficult. Ad hominems and insults, excelling.
1 hour ago, Haunted Universe said:The irony of you asking for a paper trail when you leave one as obvious as neon orange breadcumbs, CARLOS.
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.
-
1 hour ago, mishy said:
It's the questions you're asking. But then, you know that.
Yes, I know this, difficult aren't they.
-
2 minutes ago, mishy said:
Strong sense of Deja-vu going on here lol
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.
-
23 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:
This IS my thread, so there for I can not 'hijack' it. Much like I can not steal my own car. If you dont like it, go and shill on some one elses with your baseless anecdotal horseshit replies.
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.
23 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:Im done going round in circles replying to the same questions.
Evasion noted. You haven't been round in any circles, you have avoided difficult questions and obvious alternative evidence.
23 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:NO PLANES end of story, 90% of your replies are outlandish fantasy backed up by nothing but pseudo intellectual gaslighting.
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.
23 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:Planes that vanish upon impact yet you now post fake photos of plane wreckage at the penta-con.
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.
23 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:And landing gears that go through three buildings creating 3 holes.
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.
23 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:Absolutely nothing you have presented is plausible.
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
23 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:Your shanksville and twin towers replies were laughable.
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.
23 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:I'll stick with no planes and you can remain in your controlled delusion/blatant shilling.
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
-
15 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:
Im going to the laundrette to dry my tin foil hat and straight jackets, and to scare the muzzled normies by waxing lyrical about the matrix we are living in.
Be back in about an hour. I do hope to see those photos and concrete proof of giant flimsy planes and its innards staring back at me.
cheers and good luck on your quest brave sir knight.
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
-
@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.
5 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:Is this Carlos re-incarnated? Again with the paper trail bullshit.
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?
5 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:Which wreckage is this? The tiny engine (that is the wrong kind by the way) planted in a street? Great detective work there Watson.
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:
Kindly address the content of that rather than the standard ad-hom dismissal.
5 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:Photos of the Penta-con show three exits holes 3 buildings in. Game over. Please do bullshit your way out of that one.
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/
5 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:There is no substantial wreckage proof from 4 planes each made of millions of parts at any crash site.
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.
5 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:First you give me substantial proof of:
1) plane wreckage debris in manhattan
2) Shanksville
3) the Penta-con
4) shanksville-all the best with that one.
Until then you are blowing smoke up my ass.
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 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:
So if i hit a Lucky Larry pinata with 59484473834&48,009,999,,00,000
joules of energy with a baseball bat, do the gold coins inside magically dissapear?
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.
-
57 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:
True, but my point is the news reporter paid zero notice of him. The news is supposed to be objective isnt it (altho we know they arent). Yet they give the blatant shill a full interview with men in suits monitoring him and verbally signalling when the interview should end. Plus the other suite who commented he couldnt say who he was. Totally not suspicious.
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.
-
30 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:
LOL
Evasion noted.
30 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:Thats piss easy, the explosives were designed to do that hence the laughable plane hole that looks like its been cut with an angle grinder. How do you explain the perfectly straight square and rectangle hole?
Right, magic explosives noted. None of it is perfectly straight or rectangular.
30 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:The problem the perps had however were the outer column strips blown outwards INTACT. So how is this possible if a plane smashed through it?
Images please and I will answer.
30 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:Theres more Indication of no planes. Those phoney videos arent fooling anyone.
They aren't phoney and they fooled you completely.
30 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:You keep saying there were planes, so WHERE did they go after the impact?
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.
-
42 minutes ago, Basket Case said:
How would you work out the potential energy of the planes?
Assuming they are travelling at least 450mph..? (500mph has been mentioned a lot)
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.
-
9 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:
You've interpreted it how you saw fit. Its my thread so im hardly hijacking it.
Hey, I have no problem with it, just pointing it out. I'll not mention it again. No planes discussion it is.
9 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:'Yeeh, 'collossal kinetic energy' that implodes on itself leaving no trace what so ever. Where did the planes go? Did they just explode inside the tower and vanish? Makes sense.
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.
9 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:So if they werent hollow then they contained passengers, seats, luggage, delicious peanut snacks and giant engines, they too went poof and evaporated. Same with the black boxes.
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.
9 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:go back and look at the photo i posted of the impact explosion. WHERE is your plane?
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?
9 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:Where is the evidence of any plane AFTER the so called crashes? You have zip. I can not see or find any evidence of planes crashing.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:
Yeeeeeeh.
"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.
-
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".
Twin Towers Nuked
in 911
Posted
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.