Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: neutronflux

Again..

No. I pray you find the answers you seek. I don't see how me doing your homework just to be insulted helps.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Again..

No. I pray you find the answers you seek. I don't see how me doing your homework just to be insulted helps.

That has nothing to do with you having no understanding how reader works

Now, answer the question.

How do you transfer a “radar signature”. Do you even understand how Radar works. The radar transmits a signal that travels through the air, bounces off items in the air, then the bounced radar signal returns to the radar tower. There is no radar signature to transfer because what ever is in the air is going to bounce the radar wave back to the radar tower.


Then you have the actual jet wreckage at the WTC. Then you have the recovered crew and passenger remains and DNA.

———-

The truth isn’t through your pseudoscience and your false authority.

But keep being smug in your ignorance.

a reply to: kwakakev

How do you transfer a “radar signature” when the signal originates from a radar station and the signal would bounce of both aircraft in your fantasy to return their own radar signatures to the radar station.

a reply to: neutronflux

How do you transfer a “radar signature” when the signal originates from a radar station and the signal would bounce of both aircraft in your fantasy to return their own radar signatures to the radar station.

I have already presented that information in this thread, you just called it lies as it did not fit with the official story. I am sick of this merry go round. It is sad to see.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

How do you transfer a “radar signature” when the signal originates from a radar station and the signal would bounce of both aircraft in your fantasy to return their own radar signatures to the radar station.

I have already presented that information in this thread, you just called it lies as it did not fit with the official story. I am sick of this merry go round. It is sad to see.

What? Fantasy based on pseudoscience.

All I see is conspiracists being hoodwinked by charlatans pushing a product for consumption to a biased and untechnical target audience that cannot discern fantasy from real science.

Now.

How do you transfer a “radar signature” when the signal originates from a radar station and the signal would bounce of both aircraft in your fantasy to return their own separate radar signatures to the radar station.

a reply to: kwakakev

And you still have the actual wreckage, crew remains /DNA, and passenger remains/DNA. With families that had lived ones that went missing who claimed the remains found at the WTC.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: turbonium1

18 Views of 'Plane Impact' in South Tower | 9/11 World Trade Center [HD DOWNLOAD]

The no plane theory is just one part of the psychological war going on around 9/11. Helps keep the matter confused. The pilots for 9/11 truth done a lot of good work trying to sort out some of the facts from the fiction.

What I gathered from a lot of their work, the planes that had the passengers had their radar signature transferred to some military drones while they where flying around mid air for about an hour. It was the military drones that hit the towers with a C130 in the area directing operations. There was no way they could trust some inexperienced pilots to hit the right target.

The planes with the passengers did land at some nearby airports. Those in the plane where either in on the operation and got new identities or executed.

There where some reports that the black boxes from the drones where recovered in the clean up, but got quickly censored like many other things. The video footage from buildings around the pentagon is just one example of this censorship.

For those that have been on this since the start, there is a lot of evidence and witnesses that planes did hit the towers. With all the censorship over the years and for those new to the topic, I can understand some people at least looking at these theories. I have in the past, it does not add up.

Planes cannot go through buildings like this.

Planes are thin aluminum shells, other than the engines, and they crumple, and crush, from impact with steel/concrete structures.

Forget about all the steel in the towers, for a minute. What does the plane contact, beyond steel, which is the only thing they talk about here. For good reason, obviously.

This building had thick concrete floors, so a plane at this angle would contact the edges of 4-5 slabs of thick concrete.

Then, the plane must bore 160 feet through those 4-5 concrete slabs, within milliseconds!


If anyone believes this is possible.... get serious.


The plane is aluminum, mostly. The nose is aluminum, the wings are aluminum, except for the engines. When it hits the concrete slabs along the edges, with it's aluminum wings - slicing through 4-5 concrete slabs only happens in fairy tales.

Explain how aluminum wings slice through 160 feet of thick concrete, on 4-5 floors, within milliseconds.....

Even a moron wouldn't buy up this crap. Sorry to be blunt, but it's true.

This shows what happens when a plane hits concrete...

www.youtube.com...


Let's imagine what would happen if a 757 hit a concrete bridge, with one of its wings, perpendicular to the bridge.

Do you believe the plane's wing would slice through the bridge, or not?

Say the bridge has the same thickness/type of concrete, as one of the WTC floors, as well. Only one floor, btw, not 3, 4, or 5 floors...


By your argument, the plane's wing WOULD slice through the bridge, right? Same as you believe a plane sliced through FOUR or FIVE slabs of thick concrete, for about 160 feet, or more, until it blew through to the other side of the tower, and blasted a hole through it, and then, our magical plane finally stopped, within the building, and out of all sight!

No plane can ever slice through 4-5 floors of solid, 4-inch thick concrete, for 160 feet or more, because planes have thin aluminum wings, which don't weigh much, and their wings do not, cannot, cut through thick slabs of concrete, as if it was butter, either!

a reply to: turbonium1

Planes cannot go through buildings like this.

Yes they can.

The Jets that hit the towers had around 10,000 pounds of fuel. With large amounts of fuel in the wing tanks.

If you don’t think a 68,000 pound slug of fuel traveling over 400 mph can take out building structures, then you are clueless about physics.


Then you have the landing gear, wing bases, and engines that are made out of more durable alloys than the skin of the jet.

A B-25 bomber weighing 25,000 pounds, and flying 200 mph punched a hole through the Empire State Building. Vs a 767 flying over 400 mph and weighing over 200,000 lbs hitting a building cheaply clad.

When an Army Plane Crashed Into the Empire State Building

time.com...

“The bomber gored through the thick steel and stone of the building as if they were papier-mâché,” TIME reported.

Plane crashes into Empire State Building

www.history.com...


One engine from the plane went straight through the building and landed in a penthouse apartment across the street. Other plane parts ended up embedded in and on top of nearby buildings. The other engine snapped an elevator cable while at least one woman was riding in the elevator car. The emergency auto brake saved the woman from crashing to the bottom, but the engine fell down the shaft and landed on top of it. Quick-thinking rescuers pulled the woman from the elevator, saving her life.

1945 Empire State Building B-25 crash


en.m.wikipedia.org...

At 9:40 a.m., the aircraft crashed into the north side of the Empire State Building, between the 78th and 80th floors, making an 18-by-20-foot (5.5 m × 6.1 m) hole in the building[7] into the offices of the War Relief Society and the National Catholic Welfare Council. One engine shot through the south side opposite the impact and flew as far as the next block, dropping 900 feet (270 m) and landing on the roof of a nearby building and causing a fire that destroyed a penthouse art studio. The other engine and part of the landing gear fell down an elevator shaft. The resulting fire was extinguished in 40 minutes. The Empire State Building fire is the only significant fire at such a height[vague] to be brought under control by firefighters.[7]

Plane crashes into apartment building

www.history.com...

A cargo plane crashes into an apartment building near an airport in Amsterdam, Holland, on October 4, 1992. Four people aboard the plane and approximately 100 more in the apartment building lost their lives in the disaster.

Pictures from crash

El Al flight 1862
aviation-safety.net...

Simulation of WTC impact

Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center

m.youtube.com...

The bridge thing? Your comparing hitting a solid reinforced concrete structure vs a building that is over 95 percent hollow. Buildings built cheap as possible, and built to maximize open rental space.


Might like to compare the aircraft, speeds, angle of impacts between the WTC and what ever bridge you are referring too.

a reply to: turbonium1

Another example of passenger planes destroying buildings

When a TWA and United planes collided above New York City, crashed in Brooklyn and Staten Island leaving rubble and human remains in their wake

www.nydailynews.com...

In Brooklyn, where the frightening crash of the jet demolished a church, wrecked 11 other buildings and touched off a seven-alarm fire, six persons died on the street, in buildings and in a flaming auto.

Park Slope’s ‘60 horror

nypost.com...

The nose of the craft sliced open the walls of the Pillar of Fire Church and killed the caretaker.

a reply to: turbonium1

How many blatant falsehoods do you have.....

a reply to: neutronflux

There are booms expected from an office / building fire. They do no have the energy / frequency/ decibel level / seismic register of an explosion with the force and resultant pressure wave that could cut steel columns.

You sound like Bot.
Any proof of what you claim?
Start with frequency plz, end with dB.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

There are booms expected from an office / building fire. They do no have the energy / frequency/ decibel level / seismic register of an explosion with the force and resultant pressure wave that could cut steel columns.

You sound like Bot.
Any proof of what you claim?
Start with frequency plz, end with dB.

No. Again. The sounds are expected for a building fire. They are not sounds indicate of planted explosives. And not indicate of explosions with the force to cut steel columns.


And the core was not cut anyway.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

There are booms expected from an office / building fire. They do no have the energy / frequency/ decibel level / seismic register of an explosion with the force and resultant pressure wave that could cut steel columns.

You sound like Bot.
Any proof of what you claim?
Start with frequency plz, end with dB.

Or me the Bot? You keep posting the same debunked crap. The long argument you keep ignoring.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Again with your recoding.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

You created your own “evidence”.
Now again... "I counted them on the video did i not?"
Is that after your claim you tweaked the audio? So you are manipulating the sound? Where, if the “explosions” actually had the force to cut steel columns, the detonations would be clear, obvious, and would have echoed about manhattan. Let’s say you claim eight loud bangs that are expected from any large building fire, or from a structure failing by overloading. Eight bangs who’s audio you manipulated, is that false?

Tweaked and manipulated the sound...oh sweet baby Jeesus.

Tell you what

1.Download the original Huibregtse clip:
archive.org...

2.Get a decent Audio Editor (i use WavePad)

3.Since explosive detonations create low frequencies this is where you want to concentrate on. So a Band-Pass filter must be used.
See where i whipped mine: 96-169Hz
Essentially this operation disregards the helicopter and random street noise, leaving the juicy bits.

4. Report back if your results vary.

Don’t have too. Your created evidence and frequencies are not reflected in the seismic data for detentions with the force to cut steel columns. By frequency, how can you tell if a fire cracker sets off vs a pressurized air conditioning unit exploding in a fire. Other then the ac unit exploding would be more forceful. Again, nobody is say there were no explosions. But, keep on making your own reality.

And the whole argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

With ease:

The same old out of context with no attempt at quantification argument.

Nobody disagrees there was explosions from closed pressurized systems like refrigeration units and air conditioning units cutting loose in the fires. And nobody disagrees there wasn’t a pop when floor connections failed as in WTC 5 being an example.


A detonation that makes a transient pressure wave in the atmosphere where the pressure wave has the force to cut steel columns is entirely different.

And your easily debunked again.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

You didn’t hit a nerve with me. You created your own “evidence”.

Now again...

I counted them on the video did i not?

Is that after your claim you tweaked the audio? So you are manipulating the sound? Where, if the “explosions” actually had the force to cut steel columns, the detonations would be clear, obvious, and would have echoed about manhattan.

Let’s say you claim eight loud bangs that are expected from any large building fire, or from a structure failing by overloading.

Eight bangs who’s audio you manipulated, is that false?

Next, there is no way CD systems would survive the jet impacts and fires to initiate collapse on the floors impacted by the jets as attested to by the video evidence.

Next you claim:

Nature of material used to cut core colums (Nano-thermite anyone)?

If you are saying nano-thermite cut the columns by shockwave, it still would have to create a pressure wave to cut the columns. The energy created by that shockwave is still going to produce audible energy of at least 130 dB.

If you are saying thermite cut the core columns, then why is the no visible white hot sparking from the WTC video evidence. Why would there be “explosive” sounds. Thermite burns relatively slow. Why is there no glowing metal from the collapse video?



Next. You.

Would, lets say, a normal shaped cutting charges even leave this evidence in the first place? Provide evidence for your claim!

But you are not claiming shape cutting charges are you?

You claim eight explosions from the video you “tweaked”?

I did some tinkering with the original video/audio and ended up with this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh. Sorry. You tinkered. Nice that you “tinkered” to create your “evidence” that should be obvious.

Anyway.

You again.

Would, lets say, a normal shaped cutting charges even leave this evidence in the first place? Provide evidence for your claim!

Let’s say you claimed eight loud bands you
Tinkered into “evidence”.

You claim eight cutting charges? Well, flight 175 probably took out about 7 core columns, and the tower did not fall.

Some estimates are more than 7 core columns taken out by Flight 175, with no serious consideration the tower would have collapsed from the jet impact.

That indicates your eight supposed “explosions” could not be cutting charges on individual core columns to take out enough of the 44 core columns to initiate collapse. For you fantasy to work, the supposed explosives would had to be wide area in nature. Not eight shape charges only taking out eight columns. Explosions that would need to take out multiple core columns with each detonation. Explosions that would look like the one event that is known to have taken out 7 core columns, and produced a seismic event of .7 magnitude.




Again. CD systems would not have survived the jet impacts and fires to initiate collapse of the twin towers as attested to by video evidence.

You are falsely confusing expect sounds of “explosions” from a building fire, and expected from a building failing from being overloaded.

You have produced no evidence of explosions with the force to cut steel columns. Explosions that would be obvious, awe inspiring, and echoed about manhattan.
Very similar to the explosive sounds starting around 4:14 mark of the FDR drive video

18 Views of "Plane Impact" in South Tower | 9/11 World Trade Center [HD DOWNLOAD]
m.youtube.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

Still waiting for that frequency (Hz) and dB evidence, to prove otherwise.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Still waiting for that frequency (Hz) and dB evidence, to prove otherwise.

Still waiting on you to post proof of cut columns to warrant such effort. And how a CD system would survive the jet impacts and fires. Show proof the sounds are not the expected sounds of a building fire. Burden of proof on you.

The core fell last, the floor connections were sheared or bent down from overloading. Proving the vertical columns fell after the floor system. So what the hell did your fantasy explosives cut anyway.

And there is nothing reflected in the frequencies of the seismic data to indicate planted explosives setting off. Analysis completed.

And there is nothing in the seismic data to indicate pressure transients, explosions, that had the force to cut steel columns.

BOOM YA!

a reply to: turbonium1


We've been over this how many times and you still don't get it ……..

B 25 vs Empire state building

www.youtube.com...

Façade of Empire State is 11 inch thick stone

One of the motors traveled all way through building , punched through the opposite wall and landed 1 1/2 blocks away

or how lightweight Japanese fighter punch hole in side of American warship

USS HINSDALE APA 120

upload.wikimedia.org...

World Trade Center façade was steel lattice of columns bolted and welded together

Plane impact snapped the bolts and welds holding the columns

9/11 Missing Links [FULL Length]

Anonymous
www.youtube.com...
Published on Aug 20, 2014
Discover the definitive truth about 9/11 and learn why even the most popular movies on the subject have failed to address the evidence exhaustively presented in this video. ‘if you want to control the dissent you lead the dissent.’ Missing Links goes where no other 9/11 video has dared to go.

Links to a 2 hour video on Brighteon. Asks a lots of questions, has some research into areas I had not heard about before. A lot of it familiar material by now. Looks good enough to add to the list from here.

a reply to: neutronflux

Is that after your claim you tweaked the audio? So you are manipulating the sound? Where, if the “explosions” actually had the force to cut steel columns, the detonations would be clear, obvious, and would have echoed about manhattan.

Let’s say you claim eight loud bangs that are expected from any large building fire, or from a structure failing by overloading. Eight bangs who’s audio you manipulated, is that false?

FILTERED is the word; getting rid of that chopper frequency Hz, as i kindly instructed you to replicate(which you did not). Seconds from NISTs "collapse inition" is what remains; 8 large booms.

NIST had the same Huibregtse tape in their archives, did they say anything about these booms in the reports? No. Why not?

Still waiting on you to post proof of cut columns to warrant such effort. And how a CD system would survive the jet impacts and fires. Show proof the sounds are not the expected sounds of a building fire. Burden of proof on you.

No Neutron. Since YOU support this theory YOU bare this.

a reply to: democracydemo

You

FILTERED is the word; getting rid of that chopper frequency Hz, as i kindly instructed you to replicate(which you did not). Seconds from NISTs "collapse inition" is what remains; 8 large booms.

Yeap. And I posted there is no frequencies and waves in the seismic data that indicates planted explosives. As in the total absence of the resultant frequencies and seismic wave types that should be there for the type of explosives with the force to cut structural members as you claim.

Analysis was completed by the seismic data long ago.