9/11 was there a plane ?

[legion]

2 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Beef cake

Beefcake dont melt steel beams  
 

[Morpheus]

16 minutes ago, legion said:

Beefcake dont melt steel beams  
 

Depends if you're in the WWF and you can pretty much wrap a metal bar round most people's heads. 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Morpheus

[legion]

14 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

Second answer down by Earnest, expand and read. 

pretty sure that was on the previous versions of this forum - lve certainly seen lots about that

[TheConsultant]

https://www.bitchute.com/video/T1Qmi8dFqEdE/ BUSH SLIPS UP 2006 CONFERENCE SAYS EXPLOSIVES USED AT WORLD TRADE CENTER 9-11

[zArk]

18 hours ago, TheConsultant said:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/T1Qmi8dFqEdE/ BUSH SLIPS UP 2006 CONFERENCE SAYS EXPLOSIVES USED AT WORLD TRADE CENTER 9-11

 

 

[peter]

On 9/12/2022 at 11:12 PM, Arnie said:

 

Nope, you are the one making the claim though and I just showed you a video disproving your claim. It didn't fall apart and were it to do so, they wouldn't have cared much as it subsequently disintegrated at full speed into a brick wall.

I will grant you the hollow body of the aircraft may disintegrate to a certain extent but not entirely ,however the landing gear, tires and engines will not,basically the damage to the pentagon  looked to be a round hole ,what happened to the wings at the very least they should have been lying on the grass with their engines, very damaged but easily recognizable. what happened to the seating some should have been on the lawn and where did all the passengers go   I don't know what hit the pentagon ,I have my suspicions, however I'm sure it wasn't a passenger jet

Edited September 15, 2022 by peter

[peter]

The other problem I see with the passenger jet explanation at the pentagon is a concrete lamp post was supposed to have been sliced in two by one of the wings, this very act would have caused significant damage to the wing as they are steel reinforced concrete. If this is indeed the case I very much doubt a passenger jet going at that speed and that height would have even made it to the pentagon as damage to the wing would have altered the lift characteristics of said wing and therefore  made control of the aircraft at that height near impossible given the precise nature of the flying required even for an experienced pilot to hit the intended target.

[Arnie]

8 hours ago, peter said:

I will grant you the hollow body of the aircraft may disintegrate to a certain extent but not entirely ,however the landing gear, tires and engines will not,basically the damage to the pentagon  looked to be a round hole ,what happened to the wings at the very least they should have been lying on the grass with their engines, very damaged but easily recognizable. what happened to the seating some should have been on the lawn and where did all the passengers go   I don't know what hit the pentagon ,I have my suspicions, however I'm sure it wasn't a passenger jet

 

 

It all went in at 550mph. The seats went straight down the centre. Landing gear and parts of engines were photographed. See list above that needs doing when you don't use the obvious and dead easy to crash airplane. The round hole seen in many pictures is the exit hole within from chunks of the airplane flying inwards. The passngers squashed into smithereens and burnt to a crisp.

 

This is what happens at high velocity only the plane breached the exterior wall with it's kinetic energy.

 

j

[Arnie]

1 minute ago, peter said:

The other problem I see with the passenger jet explanation at the pentagon is a concrete lamp post was supposed to have been sliced in two by one of the wings, this very act would have caused significant damage to the wing as they are steel reinforced concrete. If this is indeed the case I very much doubt a passenger jet going at that speed and that height would have even made it to the pentagon as damage to the wing would have altered the lift characteristics of said wing and therefore  made control of the aircraft at that height near impossible given the precise nature of the flying required even for an experienced pilot to hit the intended target.

 

It wasn't concrete it was hollow steel. Also it wasn't that far from the target and it was already low enough to make any wing damage irrelevant. The wing was packed with fuel so fairly strong at its leading edge.

[peter]

I saw the debris of the so called plane  to me there wasn't enough and no I didn't see any landing gear from that type of aircraft or wheels for that matter and from memory they said a few parts were from the outside engine casings but no internals of the motors ,and as far as kinetic energy goes a bullet is going many times faster that a passenger aircraft and even they don't disintegrate into nothing , the video looks good but you're comparing apples with oranges 

[peter]

19 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

It wasn't concrete it was hollow steel. Also it wasn't that far from the target and it was already low enough to make any wing damage irrelevant. The wing was packed with fuel so fairly strong at its leading edge.

so you don't think steel would damage the wing and alter its flying characteristics, fine then but I would have thought the lower you got the relevance of the wings lift and flying  capabilities would become more critical if you wish to hit a precise target,because the lower you get the more factors come into play and the more precise you need to be ,lucky they could fly sophisticated passenger jets ,they just couldn't handle a Cessna 

Edited September 15, 2022 by peter

[TheConsultant]

Where did the black box go from 4 airliners? Those are supposed to be as protected/safe/hardy as that passport that was found at ground zero. 

[jois]

10 hours ago, peter said:

so you don't think steel would damage the wing and alter its flying characteristics, fine then but I would have thought the lower you got the relevance of the wings lift and flying  capabilities would become more critical if you wish to hit a precise target,because the lower you get the more factors come into play and the more precise you need to be ,lucky they could fly sophisticated passenger jets ,they just couldn't handle a Cessna 

Cessna's are quite difficult to fly they drift all over the place. I've not flown an airliner but I'm betting it's more stable and easier in flight.its taking off and landing that would be the issue

 

I f you take that out of the mix I cant see a problem with just pointing it at a large building

Edited September 16, 2022 by jois

[mishy]

Edited September 16, 2022 by mishy

[jois]

20 minutes ago, mishy said:

You could put a hole a concret steel building with a can of coke if it was going fast enough. It's rather how 15lbs of iron used to knock holes in solid rock

It's conservation of energy

It's carrying significant energy/ momentum. That has to go some where.if it had been rubber plane the energy would be absorbed by the rubber and it would just bounce off. But they don't make planes out of rubber, generaly 

 

In that picture where it was only traveling at a few mph it's bent the steel

Edited September 16, 2022 by jois

[mishy]

8 minutes ago, jois said:

You could put a hole a concret steel building with a can of coke if it was going fast enough. It's rather how 15lbs of iron used to knock holes in solid rock

It's conservation of energy

It's carrying significant energy/ momentum. That has to go some where.if it had been rubber plane the energy would be absorbed by the rubber and it would just bounce off. But they don't make planes out of rubber, generaly 

 

In that picture where it was only traveling at a few mph it's bent the steel

 

How fast would the coke can need to be going? And are we talking unopened or empty?

 

And thanks for explaining that rubber bounces...

 

 

[jois]

20 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

How fast would the coke can need to be going? And are we talking unopened or empty?

 

And thanks for explaining that rubber bounces...

 

 

About a million times faster than the plane.full ,an empty one would need to be going faster than that.

 

The mass of the object and its speed dictate the energy brought to bare on the target.

 

Why rubber bounces rather than just it does is key to understanding this.

 

If anobject is capable of deforming such as it absorbs all the energy it doesn't damage the target (much). If it's deformation leaves surplus energy it does, substantially in this case.

 

It's not that hard to work out either the energy in jewels or the force in Newton meters that a 600 ton plane traveling at X hundred miles an hour is carrying.

 

You could then find out how many Newton meters of force concrete can with stand.

 

I'm betting one figure is considerably greater than the other

 

If you want to argue it's an inside job or even that there were no planes ok. But there is no sense at all in arguing you can't put a hole in a building with a big plane

Edited September 16, 2022 by jois

[mishy]

3 minutes ago, jois said:

About a million times faster than the plane.full ,an empty one would need to be going faster than that.

 

So you don't know then?

 

What would have happened to the wing in the picture I posted if the plane was going say, twice as fast?

[TheConsultant]

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf - Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

The key to understanding WTC is not understanding rubber, nor conservation of energy.

[jois]

17 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

So you don't know then?

 

What would have happened to the wing in the picture I posted if the plane was going say, twice as fast?

It's an estimate as I couldn't be arsed e getting my calculator out. Find the weight of a can of coke and the plane.devide one into the other
Then times the speed of the plane by that figure. It's not taking into account surface area. But it will get you in the ball park

 

Twice as fast as what. We don't know how fast it was going. But ok.the wing would have deformed twice as much and the steel would be twice as bent.is a fair estimate I feel

Edited September 16, 2022 by jois

[mishy]

9 minutes ago, jois said:

It's an estimate as I couldn't be arsed e getting my calculator out. Find the weight of a can of coke and the plane.devide one into the other
Then times the speed of the plane by that figure

 

Twice as fast as what. We don't know how fast it was going. But ok.the wing would have deformed twice as much and the steel would be twice as bent.is a fair estimate I feel

 

So you don't know then?

 

The wing would have deformed twice as much? It wasn't getting deformed it was getting sliced through/ripped off. And the pole at impact isn't bent, it's the base as that's where it's secured.

 

You're not selling these planes very well are you?

[jois]

22 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

So you don't know then?

 

The wing would have deformed twice as much? It wasn't getting deformed it was getting sliced through/ripped off. And the pole at impact isn't bent, it's the base as that's where it's secured.

 

You're not selling these planes very well are you?

It's a different shape that's deforming.  The pole was I assume reasonably straight and now is not . That's bent !

". As it's acting as a lever most force is applied to the base area. That's where the bend is. I just checked! If it was equally fixed top and bottom the bend would be in the middle. Though with out the lever amplifying the force it would be bent as much

Edited September 16, 2022 by jois

[mishy]

10 minutes ago, jois said:

It's a different shape that's deforming.  The pole was I assume reasonably straight and now is not . That's bent !

". As it's acting as a lever most force is applied to the base area. That's where the bend is. I just checked! If it was equally fixed top and bottom the bend would be in the middle

 

Yes, bent at the bottom....not where the wing is. The pole is slicing through the wing and NOT bending at the impact point while doing so.

 

Compare it to 911 where the wings slice through the steel.

 

 

 

 

[jois]

2 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

Yes, bent at the bottom....not where the wing is. The pole is slicing through the wing and NOT bending at the impact point while doing so.

 

Compare it to 911 where the wings slice through the steel.

 

 

 

 

I've just dealt with that, cant be bother typing it again when you either haven't read it or failed to grasp how levers work

The key difference between a plane in flight and one taxing is most of the 600 tones is being supported by the ground. And so isn't available to slice steel.

 

There is also quite a lot of difference between deforming 12'inches of aluminium and a whole plane

[mishy]

3 minutes ago, jois said:

I've just dealt with that, cant be bother typing it again when you either haven't read it or failed to grasp how levers work

The key difference between a plane in flight and one taxing is most of the 600 tones is being supported by the ground. And so isn't available to slice steel.

 

There is also quite a lot of difference between deforming 12'inches of aluminium and a whole plane

 

You're right, there is a difference. It means whatever it's hitting exerts even more of the exact same force back onto it. Aluminium hitting steel, steel hitting aluminium, it doesn't matter, the results would be the same. Steel wins.