What is the flash before the plane hits the building?

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Wrong again.

It's fine. I expected you to be completely obtuse. Fact is, and I know you don't care, I saw the plane hit the south tower from just a few blocks away. If you had been there like me you'd understand just how crazy you sound.

It's pretty weird to go around pretending to be a witness. Tres creepy.

Originally posted by waypastvne

What's this, a pic that shows rubble from inside the towers?

I thought all the rubble stayed in the footprints in order to maintain mass for collapse?

Or is it just concrete, and steel floor pans, that wasn't ejected away from the building?

You talk about 'truthers' not using logic, you can't even address the equal opposite reaction and momentum conservation laws, and how they would effect the collapse.

What happens when two objects collide? Check it out...

www.fearofphysics.com/Collide/collide.html

A small mass can not crush a larger mass without being more damaged itself.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

Wrong again.

It's fine. I expected you to be completely obtuse. Fact is, and I know you don't care, I saw the plane hit the south tower from just a few blocks away. If you had been there like me you'd understand just how crazy you sound.

It's pretty weird to go around pretending to be a witness. Tres creepy.

It's even creepier to claim no witnesses. Thats really creepy Truther.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by waypastvne

What's this, a pic that shows rubble from inside the towers?

I thought all the rubble stayed in the footprints in order to maintain mass for collapse?

Or is it just concrete, and steel floor pans, that wasn't ejected away from the building?

You talk about 'truthers' not using logic, you can't even address the equal opposite reaction and momentum conservation laws, and how they would effect the collapse.

What happens when two objects collide? Check it out...

www.fearofphysics.com/Collide/collide.html

A small mass can not crush a larger mass without being more damaged itself.

Neither of the buildings had collapsed yet when this photo was taken Truther. You can see them in the background with their "potential energy still pushing up".

What is shown in this photo is plane parts and body fragments from FLT11

Originally posted by waypastvne


It's even creepier to claim no witnesses. Thats really creepy Truther.

Why is that creepy? Even a barnyard animal can see the planes were cheap CGI, therefore anyone who claims to have seen a plane in real life is lying.

hehe...he said Truther...

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

Wrong again.

It's fine. I expected you to be completely obtuse. Fact is, and I know you don't care, I saw the plane hit the south tower from just a few blocks away. If you had been there like me you'd understand just how crazy you sound.

It's pretty weird to go around pretending to be a witness. Tres creepy.

What's weird is how you keep insinuating that no one actually witnessed this first hand. Thousands of people were there. How do you resolve that in your mind, just out of curiosity.

Originally posted by septic

hehe...he said Truther...

So what's your opinion this photo Creepy Truther ? Is it computer generated or real photo planted evidence ?

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

What's weird is how you keep insinuating that no one actually witnessed this first hand. Thousands of people were there. How do you resolve that in your mind, just out of curiosity.

Thousands of people did not see planes, because the planes were a cheap video trick. They may have witnessed missiles traveling too fast to make-out, and explosions and smoking buildings but no planes.

911 was all propaganda, you should be relieved.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

Wrong again.

It's fine. I expected you to be completely obtuse. Fact is, and I know you don't care, I saw the plane hit the south tower from just a few blocks away. If you had been there like me you'd understand just how crazy you sound.

It's pretty weird to go around pretending to be a witness. Tres creepy.

What's weird is how you keep insinuating that no one actually witnessed this first hand. Thousands of people were there. How do you resolve that in your mind, just out of curiosity.

Ritual sacrifice includes the real loss of life.

The Aztec elite didn't cut out pretend human hearts you know.

reply to post by waypastvne


heh...he's making that face again...

I don't know what your point is...is this our evidence of a huge jet then? Whatever it is, it doesn't override physics.

reply to post by septic


Wow. I'll leave it right there. You're so deep in delusion that it borders on schizophrenia.

You need to get out more buddy.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by waypastvne

 

Whatever it is, it doesn't override physics.

Actually this photo shows perfectly the physics involved. It shows the downrange spread of body fragments and plane parts. Its real world physics Truther.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by waypastvne

 

Whatever it is, it doesn't override physics.

Actually this photo shows perfectly the physics involved. It shows the downrange spread of body fragments and plane parts. Its real world physics Truther.

edit on 29-10-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

Yes, because like we saw on TV, it really, really IS possible to have a jet cut through a steel building without slowing down.

Are you afraid you'll have to put two and two together if you admit the obvious?

Originally posted by septic
Yes, because like we saw on TV, it really, really IS possible to have a jet cut through a steel building without slowing down.

Are you afraid you'll have to put two and two together if you admit the obvious?

This is just ridiculous now. Here's a video of a guy in the path of the plane debris:



Would a missile do that? Wouldn't there be at least one or two eyewitnesses who saw a missile?

reply to post by Varemia


Wait...what? So physics be damned then, is that what this is? An exercise in cognitive dissonance?

Weren't you going to tell me about how great the MIT paper's models were? I don't think you've read that paper, by the way.

Originally posted by septic


Yes, because like we saw on TV, it really, really IS possible to have a jet cut through a steel building without slowing down.

Are you afraid you'll have to put two and two together if you admit the obvious?

At 800 feet per second yes it's really really possible. 1/4" of mild steel is nothing in comparison to the wing spars backed up by the mass of the fuel. Sorry Truther real world physics beats truther physics every time.

Originally posted by waypastvne

At 800 feet per second yes it's really really possible. 1/4" of mild steel is nothing in comparison to the wing spars backed up by the mass of the fuel. Sorry Truther real world physics beats truther physics every time.

So since physics is the law, therefore what we saw on TV cannot possibly be real; what does that say for people, governments, academic groups, news organizations and websites that continue to claim it was real?

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia

 

Wait...what? So physics be damned then, is that what this is? An exercise in cognitive dissonance?

Weren't you going to tell me about how great the MIT paper's models were? I don't think you've read that paper, by the way.

I'm not qualified to dissect the paper, but from my very basic understanding, it makes sense.

YOU haven't dissected it either, which I assume means you don't have sufficient understanding to hand-wave it away like you are. This is just a great big circle-jerk.

Originally posted by septic


Wait...what? So physics be damned then, is that what this is? An exercise in cognitive dissonance?

Weren't you going to tell me about how great the MIT paper's models were? I don't think you've read that paper, by the way.

I read the paper. By blending the formers and stringers mass into the skin of the fuselage they actually weakened their model not strengthened it. But that really doesn't matter it is the mass weight of the plane versus the total area it impacted that's important. Sorry Truther the building lost.

What exactly don't you like about the paper, besides the fact it makes Truthers look like idiots

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia

 

Wait...what? So physics be damned then, is that what this is? An exercise in cognitive dissonance?

Weren't you going to tell me about how great the MIT paper's models were? I don't think you've read that paper, by the way.

I'm not qualified to dissect the paper, but from my very basic understanding, it makes sense.

YOU haven't dissected it either, which I assume means you don't have sufficient understanding to hand-wave it away like you are. This is just a great big circle-jerk.

I beg to differ, and my hands are on the keyboard thank you.

As a propaganda piece they begin with the tug on our emotions, as most do.

They are not calculating what they think happened, they are attempting to calculate how a plane "could" have done what we saw on TV.

They say the wings cut through the steel facade and "sheared off" affected portions of the tower, but don't explain why the laws of physics only go one way at MIT.

They claim they couldn't estimate the "exact position" of the impact, even though you can see it clearly in the same image.

They use language like "most probably", and don't consider alternative explanations that don't suit their premise that the hole was caused by a plane, eg. the direction of travel of the projectile(s).

For their wing model they combined all the components of a wing, excluding the engine, and then reformed it into a square aluminum tube 34.5 mm thick but even then they couldn't justify with their figures just how that wing was able to slice steel columns, so they say:

Therefore it is not possible, at this point in time, to give any detailed account on this interaction, between the wings and outer column, with a higher degree of accuracy than our approximate engineering analysis.

In other words "EVEN WE CAN'T LIE OUR WAY OUT OF THIS"