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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 14-08-2018, 09:50 AM   #61
madmax
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: By the beach in S.Aust.
Posts: 524
Likes: 122 (88 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltrad View Post
On the scale we are talking, the materials acting against each other and the speeds involved, the videos that are being used to compare this situation are not agreeable in experiment or contrast.
So your saying a steel beam traveling at 500mph and slicing a car in half is not comparable to a jet airliner traveling at slightly higher speed hitting a massive steel structure.
I understand a little about kinetic energy. A 5.56mm round has a muzzle velocity of around 991m/s it loses its energy fairly quickly on contact with dirt.
A 7.62mm Nato round is around 833m/s but will bury it's self deeper into the dirt.
A springfield .58 musket is about 350m/s the ball will punch much deeper than either of the other 2 rounds.
By design aircraft are tubes formed by frames bolted or riveted together with an outer sheath of light weight material and the interior lined for purpose. (Passenger or Cargo) with a large volume of empty space
This picture is the damage done to an aircraft by a bird no copyright infringement is intended
https://goo.gl/images/kTw6AK
__________________
"I'm here to kick ass and chew gum and I'm all outa gum" Duke Nukem

Just the opinion of a lad from the bush.
madmax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2018, 10:00 AM   #62
da2255
Senior Member
 
da2255's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 259
Likes: 148 (96 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by madmax View Post
So your saying a steel beam traveling at 500mph and slicing a car in half is not comparable to a jet airliner traveling at slightly higher speed hitting a massive steel structure.
I understand a little about kinetic energy. A 5.56mm round has a muzzle velocity of around 991m/s it loses its energy fairly quickly on contact with dirt.
A 7.62mm Nato round is around 833m/s but will bury it's self deeper into the dirt.
A springfield .58 musket is about 350m/s the ball will punch much deeper than either of the other 2 rounds.
By design aircraft are tubes formed by frames bolted or riveted together with an outer sheath of light weight material and the interior lined for purpose. (Passenger or Cargo) with a large volume of empty space
This picture is the damage done to an aircraft by a bird no copyright infringement is intended
https://goo.gl/images/kTw6AK
They are also saying it only had to penetrate hollow steel outer beams, but there was also a huge amount of steel and concrete running parallel to the ground to make up each floor, it would have faced a massive amount of resistance from that too.

But the video shows no deceleration or reaction whatsoever.

Last edited by da2255; 14-08-2018 at 10:13 AM.
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2018, 11:49 AM   #63
gerrycan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 146
Likes: 21 (14 Posts)
Default

The plane hit as much glass as it did steel.
For kinetic energy the mass is halved and the velocity is squared.
This was 1/4" steel plate forming box columns.
Buildings such as the WTC are designed to absorb lateral force and redistribute it.

What exactly would you expect a plane at that speed to do upon impact, bounce off ? Seriously ?? If so, take a basic physics class.

Last edited by gerrycan; 14-08-2018 at 11:49 AM.
gerrycan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2018, 12:09 PM   #64
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 511
Likes: 145 (108 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
Even if thats true, then why is there no post wing penetration wounds in the building? Video compression doesn't cut it for me.
It depends if you are talking about the single frame you have posted (unrealiable as it could have been doctored) or the actual video footage. It also depends on what footage you are looking at, the level of detail is going to vary from one source to another.

The main thing you should consider, is at those speeds, materials are going to act differently than when they are going slower. A portion of the thinner parts of the wing may have pulverised into the pillars. It seems clear some of it did. If you watch certain angles, you can see puffs of smoke come out of the buildings that outline the planes wings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk

Skip to 2.15 and 4.53 in this video. Freeze frame it best you can. You should see small parts of the plane bounce off and a cloud of debris forming not much but its there to see. These are areas which probably hit the solid beams or areas which were much more re-enforced. That is the equal and opposite reaction but it varies across the area it hit. Some areas are going to be stronger than others.

From from close up images and videos of the North Tower, the right hand wing outline is clearly there.

Last edited by MKUltrad; 14-08-2018 at 12:31 PM.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2018, 12:17 PM   #65
gerrycan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 146
Likes: 21 (14 Posts)
Default

More close ups of the N Tower N face here
https://youtu.be/JR2iRElSCho
gerrycan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2018, 12:30 PM   #66
da2255
Senior Member
 
da2255's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 259
Likes: 148 (96 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
The plane hit as much glass as it did steel.
For kinetic energy the mass is halved and the velocity is squared.
This was 1/4" steel plate forming box columns.
Buildings such as the WTC are designed to absorb lateral force and redistribute it.

What exactly would you expect a plane at that speed to do upon impact, bounce off ? Seriously ?? If so, take a basic physics class.
Of course I don't think it should have bounced off, but likewise I do not think it would show absolutely no reaction at all - and look like its just basically being digitally "deleted" as it supposedly enters the building.

The 9/11 Planes break the Laws of Physics - The Plane that cuts through Steel!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XydM49pgOkc

Retired Expert Pilot John Lear - No Planes Hit the Towers on 9/11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQBlv7sZGVE

Last edited by da2255; 14-08-2018 at 12:39 PM.
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2018, 12:35 PM   #67
gerrycan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 146
Likes: 21 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
Of course I don't think it should have bounced off, but likewise I do not think it would show absolutely no reaction at all - and look like its just basically being digitally "deleted" as it supposedly enters the building.
So what caused the building to sway in the same direction as the plane was hitting it ?
gerrycan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2018, 12:45 PM   #68
da2255
Senior Member
 
da2255's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 259
Likes: 148 (96 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
So what caused the building to sway in the same direction as the plane was hitting it ?
Evidence?
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2018, 01:38 PM   #69
gerrycan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 146
Likes: 21 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
Evidence?
https://youtu.be/6RVQwBH9UYc
gerrycan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2018, 02:52 PM   #70
da2255
Senior Member
 
da2255's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 259
Likes: 148 (96 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
I cant see any motion from the tower.
Likes: (1)
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2018, 03:01 PM   #71
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 511
Likes: 145 (108 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
I cant see any motion from the tower.
Good thing the camera is fixed. You can see the parallel lines of the buildings exterior moving against the edge of the building in front. Not easy to see at first.

Hold your mouse cursor over one of the lines. Its a huge shift for a building that size.

Edit: In fact, hold your cursor over the edge of the building just below the crash line. The sway is enormous, then comes back in.

Last edited by MKUltrad; 14-08-2018 at 03:06 PM.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2018, 08:05 PM   #72
tinfoil hat
Senior Member
 
tinfoil hat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2,010
Likes: 1,232 (712 Posts)
Default

I cant see any sway!
Not saying it isn't there, I just cant see it if it is.
tinfoil hat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2018, 08:30 PM   #73
da2255
Senior Member
 
da2255's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 259
Likes: 148 (96 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinfoil hat View Post
I cant see any sway!
Not saying it isn't there, I just cant see it if it is.
Ditto
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2018, 09:35 PM   #74
gerrycan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 146
Likes: 21 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinfoil hat View Post
I cant see any sway!
Not saying it isn't there, I just cant see it if it is.
https://youtu.be/-Gi74LIkzgg Do you se that moving there?
Likes: (1)
gerrycan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2018, 11:44 PM   #75
madmax
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: By the beach in S.Aust.
Posts: 524
Likes: 122 (88 Posts)
Default

Tall buildings are designed to move in the wind so the building shaking would be expected to occur.
__________________
"I'm here to kick ass and chew gum and I'm all outa gum" Duke Nukem

Just the opinion of a lad from the bush.
madmax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-2018, 11:57 PM   #76
gerrycan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 146
Likes: 21 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by madmax View Post
Tall buildings are designed to move in the wind so the building shaking would be expected to occur.

Expected to occur when a plane rams into them yes. That's the point I am making. The building moves with the direction of impact then as it is redistributing the overstress the sway becomes more E-W than N-S because it redistributes more on the long span floor axis than the short span which is exactly what the building was designed to do.

Keep in mund this is WTC2 so the N and S faces are short span, unlike WTC1 where the N and S faces are long span.
gerrycan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2018, 07:47 AM   #77
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 511
Likes: 145 (108 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by madmax View Post
Tall buildings are designed to move in the wind so the building shaking would be expected to occur.
The only problem with that statement is that the plane impact was around 590mph and wind forces don't reach anywhere near that speed. So even if there were a Hurricane and you were able to see that building from this viewpoint, the movement would be nowhere near this extreme.

If anything, from the video, the lines on the building against the foreground building edge before the impact are almost perfectly parallel, which is fortunate because you can see zero movement before the collision. This is interesting because bombs went off a few seconds before impact. So this had no effect on the buildings sway at all.

If the Hologram/CGI theory had any weight behind it, the building would not sway like this. The only force would be the detonation which acts outwardly not directional like a plane.

Green line side is clearly observable in video below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHVDMJ7Dgzg

Other angles from the North side of the South Tower show the building swaying of centre to the right and then back in. From the side angle, the sway back is more sever than the initial forward movement. It's consistent with the angle the planes force hitting the building.

Last edited by MKUltrad; 15-08-2018 at 08:11 AM.
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2018, 08:26 AM   #78
MKUltrad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 511
Likes: 145 (108 Posts)
Default

How does Richard D Hall, a supposed mechanical engineer explain this? I think he needs to go back to school.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcPICd0o_kg
MKUltrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2018, 08:54 AM   #79
merlincove
Premier Subscribers
 
merlincove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28,781
Likes: 316 (178 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKUltrad View Post
From everything I've sourced and based on what can be observed (and measured) it was either 400mph or 590mph. Either way the planes did not fit the description of the jetliners listed to be hijacked and a majority of witnesses are quoted that they were of military appearance.

It's clear they were of some military origin. A few ex-military operatives claimed the planes to fit the descrption of AWACS drones a long time back because the command module can be observed underneath the plane.

What tests can you do to come up with two very different figures, MK - would be interested to hear.

i don't think for one minute the planes were travelling in excess of 500mph, i see no proof they were other than the OS that shows massive bias toward an agenda that is hell bent on enslaving the population and removing freedoms.

As for the 'majority of witnesses' - that is quite a bold statement.

Some said they were military in appearance

But, at the end of the day, we have a concocted 'story' telling us that men of Arabic extraction boarded planes with stanley knives and tok control from pilots to fly them into buildings in NYC and Washington DC.

In the case of Hanjour who 'flew' the plane into the Pentagon, the OS barely holds water. He 'took control' of a plane from a pilot who was A) trained in counter terrorism, B) had several tours of duty, C) was about as hard as they come, D) was physically and mentally fit - and yet the demure Hanjour storms the cockpit (even though data says the cockpit door was never opened) with a stanley knife and overpowers a pilot whom according to his friends and colleagues, could out-box almost anyone....

https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...hlight=hanjour

https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...hlight=hanjour
__________________
"Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.”
The Buddha
merlincove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-2018, 08:55 AM   #80
merlincove
Premier Subscribers
 
merlincove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28,781
Likes: 316 (178 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the nine View Post
There was an interview on BBC radio 2 a few years ago, and the presenter said that flight 93 was expected to attack new york when it was actually en route..never heard it since nor herd it repeated

If flight 93 had hit WTC7, then very few people would acknowledge any discrepancies with the official story..


Did this post or not....?
Flight 93 is explained in the threads i linked to above, it fits in with Hanjour and flight 77 perfectly - and shows more discrepancies in the OS and raise further questions to the validity of the official lies.
__________________
"Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared.”
The Buddha
merlincove 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 03:32 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.