what about the impact of the steel r/c floors on the tail? and wings?
9-11 an INSIDE JOB?
- Thread starter Chemtrail Kook
- Start date
- Status
Most of the tail just goes through the hole. The bits that impact the building are significantly damaged along the leading volumes. The vertical stabilizer seems crushed to about half way through:
Last edited:
and fuselage
In fact - where are the floors in that still?
the concrete seems to be absent and the trusses distant
Looks like it slices off some sections of wing, peels the fuselage apart. I can't see what happens to the tail. Have a look at the entire video, especially from 4:45 on where they show different viewpoints in sync. You can see the top of the fuselage is peeled off.
Remember the vast majority of the mass in the the center of the plane and the wings.
What of it?
It goes in though the hole, and impacts inside the building destroy it.
What hole? The tail shaped hole made by the advanced elements? The steel r/c floor is somewhere in front of that tail - and the tail still sails through?
I suspect the floor had been destroyed by that point.
But a lot of the renderings are rendered with some elements turned off, so you can see what's happening. All the partition walls for example. Obviosuly the interior of the building did not look like this:
Last edited:
You think I haven't looked at it? But what you are asked to believe is contrary to Newton's law. First, one catastrophic collision would reduce the aircraft to very small constituent parts - apart from larger, more resistant items like undercarriage or engines, made of steel by the way - reducing the mass so as to render it incapable of inflicting the kind of damage you are insinuating to the building's core. That's why the simulation needs to be fake, to show that the aircraft went inside and then did damage, which is what is known scientifically as bullshit.
Are you referring to the vertical stabilizer? Most of the tail assembly would just fit though the hole made by the fuselage and the wings.
Can you give a time on the video where you think it looks wrong?
Can you give a time on the video where you think it looks wrong?
Last edited:
But there was no "one catastrophic collision". It did not run into a 10 foot thick wall of concrete. It first ran into the exterior wall, which took very little energy to break a hole in. It then had a series of collisions of various parts of the interior against various parts of the plane.
Do you think it should have simply splatted against the exterior of the building?
And how does any of this violate Newton?
I suspect the floor had been destroyed by that point.
But a lot of the renderings are rendered with some elements turned off, so you can see what's happening. All the partition walls for example. Obviosuly the interior of the building did not look like this:
let's have the side view of this
Last edited by a moderator:
what time do I think it is wrong? from the first second right to the end.Are you referring to the vertical stabilizer? Most of the tail assembly would just fit though the hole made by the fuselage and the wings.
Can you give a time on the video where you think it looks wrong?
Last edited by a moderator:
If you think that an aircraft colliding with a steel and concrete facade of the largest building in the world is not catastrophic, then what can I say
I suspect the floor had been destroyed by that point.
But a lot of the renderings are rendered with some elements turned off, so you can see what's happening. All the partition walls for example. Obviosuly the interior of the building did not look like this:
Look, the wing is at such an angle that it is going to impact the floor about half way along its length - now the video will show a specific deformation relating to that extra resistance, won't it? Oh..... it doesn't
Last edited by a moderator:
I said there was not ONE catastrophic collision. There was a series of them. The collisions inside the building involved far more energy than the penetration of the building's skin.
Sure it does. Maybe just not so apparent from that angle. The wing gets ripped off at that point. Play the video. You'll see plenty of deformation. 3:17.06
Last edited:
Here you go. The video has a synchronized section at around 4:45. This also has a front view from a higher viewpoint, so you can see the upper floor.
Last edited:
Are you referring to the vertical stabilizer? Most of the tail assembly would just fit though the hole made by the fuselage and the wings.
Can you give a time on the video where you think it looks wrong?
Funny, but this 767 doesn't quite fit your criteria, or look much like the plane you chose, tail-wise
this is what a 767 looks like from all angles necessary:
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure it does. Maybe just not so apparent from that angle. The wing gets ripped off at that point. Play the video. You'll see plenty of deformation. 3:17.06
Rubbish - we're talking about from the outside view - there is no visible deformation of the wings as it impacts the steel r/c floors
Last edited by a moderator:
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
wow, you guys have gone 11 rounds?
I'm sorry. But where exactly in the video would you expect this deformation to be visible. And what would you expect it to look like?
When the leading edge of the wing hits the floor, it's inside the building. Would you expect the entire wing to bend.
Perhaps you should look at the F4 video again. The collisions at the front of the plane do not noticeably deform the regions that are not in immediate contact with the concrete.
don't you think even just the wing tips or the tip of the tail or anything might have broken on that plane as it hit the building - the very instant it contacted the steel? Or even that structural deformation (demolition) of the leading edges would have an immediate effect on the rest? You think 'the rest' remains intact and goes on to its next collision? What, the trailing bits - about 95% of the plane according to the video? so only the front bits of the plane were damaged but they completely destroyed the steel and allowed the rest of the plane, tail and all, to sail through the hole without so much as a sniff of deceleration or disintegration?
You can't see the wing tips in the outside view of the simulation, but the top of the tail (the top of the vertical stabilizer) looks pretty much messed up to me.
Yes, I think that's what happened. Again, look at the F4 video. The front half the plane is totally destroyed, but the back half seems fine.
Now in the WTC case, the front part of the plane was destroyed breaking the skin of the building. This had very little visible effect on the rest of the plane.
Again, what would you expect to see?
Funny, but this 767 doesn't quite fit your criteria, or look much like the plane you chose, tail-wise
this is what a 767 looks like from all angles necessary:
My diagram was just to label the parts of the plane, not for scale.
The horizontal stabilizers are higher than the wings, and so the clip the upper remains of the exterior beams, and are appropriately damaged.
Last edited:
I think I'll stick with this assessment.
Your cartoon still at post #418 is showing the wing coming into contact with central core columns, several of which it severs along with the rest of the still quite recognisable aircraft. You say that this is plausible and that the wings would not have been severed by the blades of the r/c floors, only a tiny proportion of the extreme leading edges of the much softer aircraft were damaged (not even visible in the cartoon unless you zoom in and freeze frame) while the steel suffered complete catastrophic failure. This is where it comes into conflict with Newton's law - despite your protests, it is safe to say, and I quote you: ...that is not an accurate representation of what happened
Let's not forget that this is the same Mick who says of the 9/11 Commission Report that it is 'A very reasonable account of what happened'
So, do you know how Purdue spent the Homeland Security Institute grant they received after producing this fiction? Or don't you want to talk about that?
Could you also quote where I say all that other stuff?
The portion of the wings that is shown to sever the central columns (and we don't know if they actually did) is the portion with fuel tanks, containing tons of fuel.
I don't want to talk about it. You should feel free though. Explain how it's relevant, how unusual it is, and how it changes the science.
Getting back to the science - can you describe what you think SHOULD have happened when the plane hit the building, and what you think actually DID happen on that day. WTC2 specifically.
Plenty of meat here, but I don't have time right now....maybe for starters, you can tell me what stuff specifically you'd like me to point out, so I can show where you said or strongly implied it. Thanks
You claim that I say
When I said regarding the floors:
And I'm not sure where you get "tiny proportion of the extreme leading edges". It seems like several feet of the leading edges were destroyed in the simulation.
I think you are veering into semantics though. Maybe we should focus on the root of the disagreement here?
Do you think that the actual videos show a normal fully loaded 767 hitting WTC2? I do.
Remembering that this thread is titled 9-11 an Inside Job? And given that you are on the record here as saying that the 9/11 Commission report is a fair account of what happened that day (indicating that you agree with the regime's version of events) then perhaps you might show me the evidence for that position
My evidence for it is the lack of evidence against it.
The report contains what appears to be a physically accurate description of what happened. Objections have been raised, but have been shown to be groundless. The report has been read by thousands of of scientists. A very small minority of them raise objections to the science, but they generally don't stand up to scrutiny (such as saying progressive collapse was impossible, or that the apparent near-free-fall velocity was impossible). On instances where the objection have some merit - like the lack of a clear explanation for the sulphur, then it does not change the overall conclusion - simply identifies some unknowns.
The report contains what appears to be a physically accurate description of what happened. Objections have been raised, but have been shown to be groundless. The report has been read by thousands of of scientists. A very small minority of them raise objections to the science, but they generally don't stand up to scrutiny (such as saying progressive collapse was impossible, or that the apparent near-free-fall velocity was impossible). On instances where the objection have some merit - like the lack of a clear explanation for the sulphur, then it does not change the overall conclusion - simply identifies some unknowns.
Really? That's interesting.
How can evidence be a lack of evidence to the contrary (in your opinion)?
Physically accurate? Can it be so to have an incompetent flying a massive aircraft such as was allegedly flown at the Pentagon? Physically possible to have organized all this from a cave in Afghanistan (that is the official version and it is 'physical')? Physically possible to have organized the visas for the alleged hi-jackers even though some of them were on a 'watch list'? Physically possible to have arranged for military exercises to be going on that day? And for them not to be stopped when the plan unfolded? Physically arranged for military aircraft to stand down, and when finally launched, to be sent the wrong way, something which had been successfully and quickly conducted 91 times in the previous year? How could 'al qaeda' and Osama bin Laden (from their 'hi-tech' cave-Bond-villain-hq-of-evil) ensure that none of the surface to air missiles that protect the Pentagon would be launched when the alleged airliner that hit the pentagon approached (see here the stuff about Cheney being asked if the orders still stood as a plane was 30 miles out - he said yes according to Norman Mineta) and defensive measures were never taken even though any plane approaching without a valid U.S. military transponder is targetted? How also, according to your faith-based belief in the official conspiracy theory, did al q manage to ensure that the Bush gang didn't do anything about the eleven discrete warnings they received from other intelligence agencies?
Those who think an inside job is impossible: can you answer these questions and explain these points? If not, then you're taking the Bush regime's statements at face value and following faith-based reasoning, faith in Bush's version. One must show how such things could occur and negate the possibility of an inside job; if you can't, then 'inside job' begins to look like the logical conclusion.
Absence of evidence against A is evidence for the validity of A if A is subject to intense scrutiny. If you can't find anything wrong with something, and it fits that known facts, then it seems quite reasonable.
Where in the official story does it claims that everything was organized from inside a cave?
You know you could quite easily explain all those things yourself. They are just questions that have been brought up many times, and just as many times debunked. For example, the "stand down" idea:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Stand_Down
Of the lack of missiles shooting passing planes down over the Pentagon:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Pentagon_Missile_Batteries
Perhaps next time you could bring up a theory, and also explain why you think the 911myths explanation is wrong.
Where in the official story does it claims that everything was organized from inside a cave?
You know you could quite easily explain all those things yourself. They are just questions that have been brought up many times, and just as many times debunked. For example, the "stand down" idea:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Stand_Down
Of the lack of missiles shooting passing planes down over the Pentagon:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Pentagon_Missile_Batteries
Perhaps next time you could bring up a theory, and also explain why you think the 911myths explanation is wrong.
911 myths.com...your great source of truth. You really like them - what's the deal? I think you might have a dose of skeptopathy - a psychological disorder denying ability to see past anything official. Your idea of debunking something is simply to reinforce it in your own mind regardless the truth. There is no way to really apply the scientific method to this, the empiric; it's only by Reason, inductive or deductive, we can assemble the facts, create axioms, discern (hopefully, at least an approximation if not the entire detail) truth. Please show me by this method, how you come to your erroneous conclusion. Wouldn't you like to understand where your reasoning went wrong?
Also, for all the obvious incompetence inherent in the official narrative of the day of sept 11 2001, can you show me which military or civil personnel responsible got punished for their role in the incompetence? Surely a natural (physical) consequence of such grand incompetence...
Why was the president allowed to sit in a classroom full of kids when the US was apparently suffering a 'surprise attack' (that's the official line)?
Who should have been sacked, and why?
I'm sure, if I could be bothered to read it, I'd find plenty wrong. Almost all your sources are unreliable, why should I bother? Why don't you answer some of those questions rather than spamming crappy links?
- Status
Similar threads
