Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-04-2010, 05:19 AM   #261
matrix911
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,591
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabea_blumenschein View Post
Yes, of course they can. Depends on the velocity of the bullet and the thickness of the steel.
DEPENDS ON THE VELOCITY? HUH?

as it pertains to 9/11 your argument is irrelevant since velocity and other variants you're talking about were not a factor in determining what did or didnt or could happen in that scenario.

but then you also have to explain how and why newtons law was suspended on that day as well

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabea_blumenschein View Post
On the other hand, the planes that crashed into the towers weighed over 100 tons each and were going about 500 mph on impact. That increases momentum by a factor of 35 and kinetic energy by a factor of 50.

If the little kamikaze plane can crater the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, then a 100 ton commercial jet can sure as hell punch its way through a facade of perimeter columns constructed of 1/4 inch thick steel.
except the engineer who designed the towers, says that couldn't have happened.

try again.
matrix911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 05:47 AM   #262
tabea_blumenschein
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 984
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix911
except the engineer who designed the towers, says that couldn't have happened.

try again.
Did he? Where?


Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix911
DEPENDS ON THE VELOCITY? HUH?

as it pertains to 9/11 your argument is irrelevant since velocity and other variants you're talking about were not a factor in determining what did or didnt or could happen in that scenario.

but then you also have to explain how and why newtons law was suspended on that day as well
I'm calling it a night. How about a post elaborating on that bolded part for me when I get back? Thanks.

And I love the way you no-planers talk about Newton's laws as though you knew something about them. I'd bet money that if I posted a little true/false quiz about Newton's laws none of you would get all the questions right.
__________________
De mortuis nil nisi bonum; of the living speak nothing but evil.

- Heinrich Heine
tabea_blumenschein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 06:48 AM   #263
matrix911
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,591
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabea_blumenschein View Post
Did he? Where?
so you deny the wtc engineer ever made such a statement about how the wtc was designed to withstand such impacts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabea_blumenschein View Post
I'm calling it a night. How about a post elaborating on that bolded part for me when I get back? Thanks.
What doesn't make sense? if you can't understand the simple point, then its a waste attempting to explain it.

how does what you're talking about pertain to the scenario at the wtc in terms of proving what allegedly occurred ie a plane flying at a given velocity penetrating the towers as it is claimed to have done when for starters, the footage is fake?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabea_blumenschein View Post
And I love the way you no-planers talk about Newton's laws as though you knew something about them. I'd bet money that if I posted a little true/false quiz about Newton's laws none of you would get all the questions right.
oh and i love the way intellectual know-nothings like yourself can't seem to show a shred of evidence there was any reaction to "175" upon impact.
matrix911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 09:41 AM   #264
stannrodd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2,301
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Looks like a Stann attack .. oh dear how sad ..

All off topic ..

When you decide to be human I might respond.

.. you mostly behave like a bunch of fucking imbeciles.. xx

Enjoy your journey to nowhere ..

A mutual admiration society which will have all you guys agreeing with each other .. but getting NO where.

You have nothing when you have no opposition .. Bye !

Stann

Last edited by stannrodd; 08-04-2010 at 09:45 AM.
stannrodd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 04:17 PM   #265
caper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 506
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Stann,

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I certainly wasn't attacking you. And my apologies if you think it's came across like that.

I think it's fair to say I get passionate about this stuff, as I'm sure do many others.

You asked me a question on a previous page of this thread, and I was simply responding to that question.

I'm simply going by the facts Stann, nothing more or nothing less. And that's all I'm trying to do...I'm trying to promote the truth, whatever that truth may look like.
__________________
"A single ear of corn in a large field is as strange as a single world in infinite space." - Metrodorus of Chios
caper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 04:33 PM   #266
caper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 506
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

A good video that is definitely worth a watch (check out the guy from 0:37 onwards)...
He'd already figured it out...structural failure! Gosh that made me laugh...you would have thought he would have been a little less obvious....but clearly not. Structural failure I tell you, structural failure.
__________________
"A single ear of corn in a large field is as strange as a single world in infinite space." - Metrodorus of Chios
caper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 06:46 PM   #267
kooskoets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 833
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stannrodd View Post
You have nothing when you have no opposition .. Bye !

Stann
Well...there IS no opposition.
Only distraction.

Nobody denies that a plane hitting a tower like one of the Twins will crush
it's front fusilage ( and loose large parts ), resulting in lots of debris on the
ground at the impact side.

Nobody denies that that is not what we see in ANY of the video's, so
these video's have to be fake.

Nobody denies the absence of debris/victims on the ground at the
impact side of the towers on 911, so there were no commercial
planes involved in the 911 attacs in NY.

All the shills have left is distraction.
__________________
If you cannot see why this is disinfo, there is no point in explaining it to you.
--grey area

Read Ace Baker's scientific treatise.
Composites-1-9.pdf
kooskoets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 09:25 PM   #268
d_duck
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 58
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kooskoets View Post
Well...there IS no opposition.
Only distraction.

Nobody denies that a plane hitting a tower like one of the Twins will crush
it's front fusilage ( and loose large parts ), resulting in lots of debris on the
ground at the impact side.

Nobody denies that that is not what we see in ANY of the video's, so
these video's have to be fake.

Nobody denies the absence of debris/victims on the ground at the
impact side of the towers on 911, so there were no commercial
planes involved in the 911 attacs in NY.

All the shills have left is distraction.
Amen, Prophetic words that sounds like music .

Stan, you and your shill friends are smoked and it brings joy to my heart to see that all you guys have left is distraction and confusion.

kooskoets, casper and matrix please check out:

www.septemberclues.info

If you have questions go to the forum.


Best
D.Duck
d_duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 09:50 PM   #269
heartysoup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: rock, moon.
Posts: 257
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

i dont think kooskoets, casper, and m911 really need sepclues. lol

their arguments are better than what is presented in sepclues.

simonshack & septclues is a bogus attempt to make us think all pictures/video/people/etc was cgi and that we cannot get any evidence from anything.

'collapse' videos are real; as well as many other highly anomalous pictures, data, that cant be ignored in understanding what happened.

...

like we've stated; there are all kinds of problems with the PHYSICS of what happened.

the ghostplane theory video on youtube is brilliant.
this is how you make a CGI video of a plane hitting the WTC:
look at how ridiculously easy it is!


i mean, isnt there a really advanced 3D CAD program that can do a better job? lol. this guy used Apples software/hardware to make it.

Last edited by heartysoup; 09-04-2010 at 07:13 AM.
heartysoup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2010, 04:16 AM   #270
tabea_blumenschein
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 984
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix911 View Post
so you deny the wtc engineer ever made such a statement about how the wtc was designed to withstand such impacts?
If you're thinking of the same statement I am, that would be the one that stated there would be "horrendous fires" but that "the building would remain standing." What wasn't said is that the plane would crash against the side of the building and fall to the street below.

Quote:
What doesn't make sense? if you can't understand the simple point, then its a waste attempting to explain it.
Here's what I was asking you to elaborate on again:

Quote:
as it pertains to 9/11 your argument is irrelevant since velocity and other variants you're talking about were not a factor in determining what did or didnt or could happen in that scenario.
To answer your question, none of this makes sense. Why are velocity and other variants "not a factor"?

Quote:
how does what you're talking about pertain to the scenario at the wtc in terms of proving what allegedly occurred ie a plane flying at a given velocity penetrating the towers as it is claimed to have done when for starters, the footage is fake?

oh and i love the way intellectual know-nothings like yourself can't seem to show a shred of evidence there was any reaction to "175" upon impact.
Truthers are as good at photo and video analysis as they are at understanding physics.

Take that how you will.
__________________
De mortuis nil nisi bonum; of the living speak nothing but evil.

- Heinrich Heine
tabea_blumenschein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2010, 02:24 PM   #271
matrix911
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,591
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabea_blumenschein View Post
If you're thinking of the same statement I am, that would be the one that stated there would be "horrendous fires" but that "the building would remain standing." What wasn't said is that the plane would crash against the side of the building and fall to the street below.
Not sure what you're talking about or what "engineer" you're talking about stated that, but i'd love to see a source or reference to support that and then i'll respond again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabea_blumenschein View Post
To answer your question, none of this makes sense. Why are velocity and other variants "not a factor"?
first, as it relates to what allegedly occurred at the wtc, how does the velocity of 175 in this case, have to do with penetrating the wtc when
it was designed to withstand such impacts? You were discussing how the velocity of 175 was a factor in why it was able to "penetrate"? and velocity is a factor in an object being able to penetrate a more dense object? thats fine and dandy...
but how does the correlation and numbers, relate to what happened at the wtc?

what did occur though, was physically impossible if one uses newtons 3rd law as a measure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabea_blumenschein View Post
Truthers are as good at photo and video analysis as they are at understanding physics.

Take that how you will.
and skeptic/deniers have as much common sense as an ant.

But then like an "analysis" as you insinuate, is necessary to recognize an obvious CD at wtc7 or that you need any more than common visual sense to understand and see the photos and footage of 175 doesn't depict REALITY where physical laws in this universe normally apply.

you must be a happy robot in the matrix. May i suggest taking the red pill this time?

oh, i'm still waiting for a response to my last question/challenge. thanks!

Last edited by matrix911; 10-04-2010 at 02:39 AM.
matrix911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2010, 06:32 AM   #272
tabea_blumenschein
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 984
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix911 View Post
Not sure what you're talking about or what "engineer" you're talking about stated that, but i'd love to see a source or reference to support that and then i'll respond again.
Here you go:

Quote:
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
I got this from a search over at JREF; hopefully the link still works:

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...&date=19930227

The analysis considered a 707 lost in a fog, which means a smaller plane at a much slower speed. Also, the analysis did not consider what the resulting fires would do to the now-damaged building.

But obviously, John Skilling nailed it; all the fuel dumping into the building did indeed lead to horrendous fires. And all that SFRM stripped off the steel during impact and no subsequent firefighting measures allowed those fires to finish the job.

Quote:
first, as it relates to what allegedly occurred at the wtc, how does the velocity of 175 in this case, have to do with penetrating the wtc when
it was designed to withstand such impacts? You were discussing how the velocity of 175 was a factor in why it was able to "penetrate"? and velocity is a factor in an object being able to penetrate a more dense object? thats fine and dandy...
but how does the correlation and numbers, relate to what happened at the wtc?
As mentioned, the building was expected not to collapse if impacted by a 707 at a speed something around 180 mph. The 767s that actually hit the buildings had over 3x the momentum and their kinetic energy on impact was greater by an order of magnitude. If the 707 is expected to penetrate the structure, then the 767s sure as hell will.

Did you see the USS Enterprise incident I mentioned a couple of pages back? A plane not much bigger than your car managed to punch through over 5 inches of steel before the bomb it was carrying exploded. How do you explain that one?

Quote:
what did occur though, was physically impossible if one uses newtons 3rd law as a measure.
Oh, really.

Quote:
and skeptic/deniers have as much common sense as an ant.

But then like an "analysis" as you insinuate, is necessary to recognize an obvious CD at wtc7 or that you need any more than common visual sense to understand and see the photos and footage of 175 doesn't depict REALITY where physical laws in this universe normally apply.

you must be a happy robot in the matrix. May i suggest taking the red pill this time?

oh, i'm still waiting for a response to my last question/challenge. thanks!
There's a reason you don't trust "common sense" answers when it comes to physics: because they're often wrong.

Which body exerts a stronger gravitational pull on the Moon, the Earth or the Sun?

The answer might surprise you!
__________________
De mortuis nil nisi bonum; of the living speak nothing but evil.

- Heinrich Heine
tabea_blumenschein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2010, 08:14 AM   #273
stannrodd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2,301
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I think Matrix 911 is totally correct (NOT) .. therefore He needn't comment any more !!

Stann

Last edited by stannrodd; 10-04-2010 at 08:15 AM.
stannrodd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2010, 06:39 AM   #274
matrix911
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,591
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabea_blumenschein View Post
Here you go:

I got this from a search over at JREF; hopefully the link still works:

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsourc...&date=19930227

The analysis considered a 707 lost in a fog, which means a smaller plane at a much slower speed. Also, the analysis did not consider what the resulting fires would do to the now-damaged building.

But obviously, John Skilling nailed it; all the fuel dumping into the building did indeed lead to horrendous fires. And all that SFRM stripped off the steel during impact and no subsequent firefighting measures allowed those fires to finish the job.
oh right, here we go again.. the ridiculous insanity of the "fires brought down the wtc as well" argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabea_blumenschein View Post
As mentioned, the building was expected not to collapse if impacted by a 707 at a speed something around 180 mph. The 767s that actually hit the buildings had over 3x the momentum and their kinetic energy on impact was greater by an order of magnitude. If the 707 is expected to penetrate the structure, then the 767s sure as hell will.

Did you see the USS Enterprise incident I mentioned a couple of pages back? A plane not much bigger than your car managed to punch through over 5 inches of steel before the bomb it was carrying exploded. How do you explain that one?
You're comparing apples and oranges and leaving out so much context its not even worth responding to until you want to discuss far more factors than you have... and tarkus07 already addressed at least part of it.

oh, and I DARE YOU...no i DOUBLE dare you to bring your so-called evidence and arguments over to ATS... you'd get shredded far worse over there than you have around here. Let me know when you're ready to play with the big dogs.. that also goes for YOU STANN... or do you guys just play it safe and hang out here and JREF?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabea_blumenschein View Post
There's a reason you don't trust "common sense" answers when it comes to physics: because they're often wrong.
if you can show ANY evidence that 175's impact was consistent with what newtons 3rd law states should occur in such a scenario, let me know. But since anyone with a brain who uses basic common visual sense can see the footage is fake, you'll only look foolish.

Last edited by matrix911; 11-04-2010 at 06:58 AM.
matrix911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2010, 06:45 AM   #275
matrix911
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,591
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stannrodd View Post
I think Matrix 911 is totally correct (NOT) .. therefore He needn't comment any more !!
Stann
oh stannly shut the f up... puuhlease?

you're such a chicken-hawk shill/troll its pathetic
matrix911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2010, 03:28 AM   #276
tabea_blumenschein
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 984
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix911 View Post
oh right, here we go again.. the ridiculous insanity of the "fires brought down the wtc as well" argument.
If it's such a ridiculous conclusion, why do the world's fire experts believe it, and why did the NIST investigations lead to all those changes to the building codes?

Quote:
You're comparing apples and oranges and leaving out so much context its not even worth responding to until you want to discuss far more factors than you have... and tarkus07 already addressed at least part of it.
Okay, hotshot, how am I comparing apples and oranges, what context am I leaving out, and what other factors should I be discussing?

Quote:
oh, and I DARE YOU...no i DOUBLE dare you to bring your so-called evidence and arguments over to ATS... you'd get shredded far worse over there than you have around here. Let me know when you're ready to play with the big dogs.. that also goes for YOU STANN... or do you guys just play it safe and hang out here and JREF?
ATS?!?!?! Those idiots have probably won more Stundie awards than the members of any other forum, and deservedly so. Why would I want to waste my time with them?

Seriously, I'm not going to register somewhere where I'd probably be banned in about five minutes. Truthers and conspiracy loons don't like people like me showing up and "just asking questions" if you'll pardon the expression.

Of course you can always invite your "big dogs" to register here, if you like.

Quote:
if you can show ANY evidence that 175's impact was consistent with what newtons 3rd law states should occur in such a scenario, let me know. But since anyone with a brain who uses basic common visual sense can see the footage is fake, you'll only look foolish.
Your argument, your burden of proof.

Let's have it, IF you can provide any.
__________________
De mortuis nil nisi bonum; of the living speak nothing but evil.

- Heinrich Heine

Last edited by tabea_blumenschein; 12-04-2010 at 03:31 AM.
tabea_blumenschein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2010, 10:10 AM   #277
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tabea_blumenschein View Post
If it's such a ridiculous conclusion, why do the world's fire experts believe it, and why did the NIST investigations lead to all those changes to the building codes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
For the controllers of our world it is preferred we remain sheeple, who can be divided into opposing camps by believing lies. But some have an IQ higher than a cushion and sniff that something is wrong with the standard picture.

Unluckily for them they opened a wormhole in the fabric of lies - and that was the excessively chutzpatic event primarily known by its Gematria number 911.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=103619

Nine stands for the nine, the Nazgul, The Mysterious Force (TMF). 11 stands the twin pillars J n B. Or maybe it doesn't. That's just a theory I put together. If someone comes along with a better idea I will listen. If someone came up with a better solution to the infinite set of simultaneous equations YOU think of as reality would YOU be prepared to change your mind? I will tell you right now - if you are NOT at ALL TIMES ready to examine dispassionately evidence that CONTRADICTS your BELIEF - then get outa here. You are no longer seeking truth but confirmation of your established position. You are the new establishment.

It is directly prove-able by anyone with a school level understanding of Newtonian physics and access to the internet that this was a demolition job, not a terror attack.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...0&postcount=91

Perhaps the most famous recorded opprobium heaped on the practice of usury was delivered by Jesus, who overturned the tables of the money-changers in the Temple. 2000 years later in the same Holy Land we have nuclear weapons being built @ Dimona, Israeli Explosive experts all over the US at the time of 911,

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=108830

and clear evidence for the use of the use of unconventional weaponry...

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=100590

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101609

...of the sort that would fit the bill of Armageddon.

to be continued....
Debunk bold and referenced link below - I am all ears

Last edited by rodin; 12-04-2010 at 10:13 AM.
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2010, 03:36 AM   #278
tabea_blumenschein
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 984
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Okay, rodin, I looked at the post you called to my attention to.

FYI, it was a series of internal structural failures propagating upward to the east penthouse that allowed it to collapse into the building. In other words, the building collapsed "from the inside out", and that collapse began several seconds before you see the penthouse enter the building. Once what was left of the building started to fall in earnest, there wouldn't be a large amount of resistance because of prior damage from those internal collapses, not to mention the seven+ hours the fires burned out of control. You're not looking at the collapse of a building that's in blueprint condition - far from it.

The numbers in your screen captures are 330 feet in 5 seconds for the main collapse of what's left of the building. That's an average downward acceleration of about 26.4 feet per second. Or about 0.82 g's.

What's important in this case isn't air resistance (the building isn't falling through air), but the increase in air pressure inside the building that slows down the collapse. I won't bore you with the details, but I did a quick check with a calculator, and I get about 6.2 gigajoules of energy required to increase air pressure in the building by one pound per square inch, assuming the building has a 1 square acre footprint and is 226 meters in height. Anyway, taking that energy loss into account slows the average downward acceleration to about 30.3 feet per second by my calculations, or 0.94 g's. I admit that those results are very rough and might be off by a fair margin, but your numbers don't have a high degree of certainty either. At any rate, it looks like there was more resistance involved than just air pressurization.
__________________
De mortuis nil nisi bonum; of the living speak nothing but evil.

- Heinrich Heine

Last edited by tabea_blumenschein; 13-04-2010 at 03:38 AM. Reason: fixed a typo
tabea_blumenschein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2010, 06:42 AM   #279
1776
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 40.126N -74.049W
Posts: 2,582
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Exclamation Too much evidence to be ignored or hushed away!

The 9/11 Shills

The 9/11 Network Scam

The 9/11 "Plane" Lie

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 1 of 16) <-- I strongly recommend watching this entire 16 part series

Relics from the Dust - Exotic Weaponry and 9/11

Impossible Plane Speed with Boeing 9/11

2001 a Fake Odyssey

FBI Covers up 9/11

Pentagon Strike 9/11

Nose-Out 9/11

Bush KNEW and DID NOTHING on 9/11

Indira Singh & P-Tech on 9/11



9/11 was an inside job and the 'commercial airliners' we all watched from television that fateful day were faked. I do not know what, if anything, hit the buildings that day, but the planes depicted in film from TV that day were staged, faked. It's obvious. If you objectively look at all the video evidence, you cannot deny the blatant TV fakery!
1776 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2010, 12:46 PM   #280
caper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 506
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Nice post!

For anyone who cares or is interested in 9/11... all those videos above need to be watched.
__________________
"A single ear of corn in a large field is as strange as a single world in infinite space." - Metrodorus of Chios

Last edited by caper; 13-04-2010 at 12:47 PM.
caper is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:59 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.