So you state that an aeroplane should crumble when it hits the building, and when it does and there's visible proof you claim magic wings?
OK
On some footage we see the plane wings glide through the tower, here we see no not so, so how could the wings glide through and not glide through at the same time.
Surely even you can see the problem there
300,000lbs travelling at 500+mph.
What about that can you not comprehend.
Where are the calculations for that amount of kinetic energy hitting that type of material?
You really don't get this do you?
I'm not on about the kinetic energy, how can we see the plane go through the tower here (wings included)
And here not so... (wings excluded)
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
You must register to post here.
i do believe the icke mods are getting worried by the dr judy wood supporters re 911
11 Feb 2014 07:47 #383
Exploding fuel is a myth. I've said that already and directed you to a myth busters episode. I've also shown you how difficult it is to get to get optimum combustion conditions in a real world environment,
So you state that an aeroplane should crumble when it hits the building, and when it does and there's visible proof you claim magic wings?
OK
On some footage we see the plane wings glide through the tower, here we see no not so, so how could the wings glide through and not glide through at the same time.
Surely even you can see the problem there
300,000lbs travelling at 500+mph.
What about that can you not comprehend.
Where are the calculations for that amount of kinetic energy hitting that type of material?
You really don't get this do you?
I'm not on about the kinetic energy, how can we see the plane go through the tower here (wings included)
And here not so... (wings excluded)
That gap is roughly two feet. Are you telling me that such kinetic energy could not compress a wing skin to such a depth? Of course it could. It STILL wouldn't take away its forward momentum though.
You don't have the slightest grasp of what is being discussed here. You are the only person IGNORING EVIDENCE to make it fit your belief system. The only person being owned, is you.
So you state that an aeroplane should crumble when it hits the building, and when it does and there's visible proof you claim magic wings?
OK
On some footage we see the plane wings glide through the tower, here we see no not so, so how could the wings glide through and not glide through at the same time.
Surely even you can see the problem there
300,000lbs travelling at 500+mph.
What about that can you not comprehend.
Where are the calculations for that amount of kinetic energy hitting that type of material?
You really don't get this do you?
I'm not on about the kinetic energy, how can we see the plane go through the tower here (wings included)
And here not so... (wings excluded)
That gap is roughly two feet. Are you telling me that such kinetic energy could not compress a wing skin to such a depth? Of course it could. It STILL wouldn't take away its forward momentum though.
Yesterday you said that the kinetic energy would permit the plane (wings included) to go through the tower.
You even said that Dr Wood had been wrong to state otherwise, now you are altering your 'analysis' to fit the fact, only when I show you evidence that you were of course wrong.
So now you've gone from kinetic energy permitting the entire plane to enter the building ...to..... compressed wing skin, thus not penetrating the building.
You're making it up as you go along to get around my debunk of your fairy tale
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
So you state that an aeroplane should crumble when it hits the building, and when it does and there's visible proof you claim magic wings?
OK
On some footage we see the plane wings glide through the tower, here we see no not so, so how could the wings glide through and not glide through at the same time.
Surely even you can see the problem there
300,000lbs travelling at 500+mph.
What about that can you not comprehend.
Where are the calculations for that amount of kinetic energy hitting that type of material?
You really don't get this do you?
I'm not on about the kinetic energy, how can we see the plane go through the tower here (wings included)
And here not so... (wings excluded)
That gap is roughly two feet. Are you telling me that such kinetic energy could not compress a wing skin to such a depth? Of course it could. It STILL wouldn't take away its forward momentum though.
Yesterday you said that the kinetic energy would permit the plane (wings included) to go through the tower.
You even said that Dr Wood had been wrong to state otherwise, now you are altering your 'analysis' to fit the fact, only when I show you evidence that you were of course wrong.
So now you've gone from kinetic energy permitting the entire plane to enter the building ...to..... compressed wing skin, thus not penetrating the building.
You're making it up as you go along to get around my debunk of your fairy tale
Er no.
My above statement that you quoted clarifies my position quite well. The forward momentum was not nullified even though part of the wing was compressed. What do you not understand? Do you know what this statement means?
I'll ask you again, show me how its even theoretically possible for a hologram to travel a couple of miles above the skyline of NYC at over 500mph with correct sound and time delay,
I'll ask you again. Have you decided on hologram or CGI yet?
I'll ask you again. Where are the KE calculations of such an object hitting such a building?
So you state that an aeroplane should crumble when it hits the building, and when it does and there's visible proof you claim magic wings?
OK
On some footage we see the plane wings glide through the tower, here we see no not so, so how could the wings glide through and not glide through at the same time.
Surely even you can see the problem there
300,000lbs travelling at 500+mph.
What about that can you not comprehend.
Where are the calculations for that amount of kinetic energy hitting that type of material?
You really don't get this do you?
I'm not on about the kinetic energy, how can we see the plane go through the tower here (wings included)
And here not so... (wings excluded)
That gap is roughly two feet. Are you telling me that such kinetic energy could not compress a wing skin to such a depth? Of course it could. It STILL wouldn't take away its forward momentum though.
Yesterday you said that the kinetic energy would permit the plane (wings included) to go through the tower.
You even said that Dr Wood had been wrong to state otherwise, now you are altering your 'analysis' to fit the fact, only when I show you evidence that you were of course wrong.
So now you've gone from kinetic energy permitting the entire plane to enter the building ...to..... compressed wing skin, thus not penetrating the building.
You're making it up as you go along to get around my debunk of your fairy tale
Er no.
My above statement that you quoted clarifies my position quite well. The forward momentum was not nullified even though part of the wing was compressed. What do you not understand? Do you know what this statement means?
I'll ask you again, show me how its even theoretically possible for a hologram to travel a couple of miles above the skyline of NYC at over 500mph with correct sound and time delay,
I'll ask you again. Have you decided on hologram or CGI yet?
I'll ask you again. Where are the KE calculations of such an object hitting such a building?
Yesterday <<<< Do you know what that means ?
You stated to me in response to my posts (including video information from Dr Wood) That myself and Dr Wood were wrong about our information that the wings of the plane would not have gone through the building, you used kinetic energy to excuse this detail.
Today <<<< I hope you can keep up?
You now state an altered version due to the evidence that I have presented to you, you now say the 'wing skin' was compressed against the steel.
So when were you telling the truth, yesterday when the wings went through steel due to kinetic energy, or today when wing skin is compressed against steel, thus not penetrating through it due to kinetic energy?
I'm interested in what you going to post next in the continuation of your denial squirming ?
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
So you state that an aeroplane should crumble when it hits the building, and when it does and there's visible proof you claim magic wings?
OK
On some footage we see the plane wings glide through the tower, here we see no not so, so how could the wings glide through and not glide through at the same time.
Surely even you can see the problem there
300,000lbs travelling at 500+mph.
What about that can you not comprehend.
Where are the calculations for that amount of kinetic energy hitting that type of material?
You really don't get this do you?
I'm not on about the kinetic energy, how can we see the plane go through the tower here (wings included)
And here not so... (wings excluded)
That gap is roughly two feet. Are you telling me that such kinetic energy could not compress a wing skin to such a depth? Of course it could. It STILL wouldn't take away its forward momentum though.
Yesterday you said that the kinetic energy would permit the plane (wings included) to go through the tower.
You even said that Dr Wood had been wrong to state otherwise, now you are altering your 'analysis' to fit the fact, only when I show you evidence that you were of course wrong.
So now you've gone from kinetic energy permitting the entire plane to enter the building ...to..... compressed wing skin, thus not penetrating the building.
You're making it up as you go along to get around my debunk of your fairy tale
Er no.
My above statement that you quoted clarifies my position quite well. The forward momentum was not nullified even though part of the wing was compressed. What do you not understand? Do you know what this statement means?
I'll ask you again, show me how its even theoretically possible for a hologram to travel a couple of miles above the skyline of NYC at over 500mph with correct sound and time delay,
I'll ask you again. Have you decided on hologram or CGI yet?
I'll ask you again. Where are the KE calculations of such an object hitting such a building?
Yesterday <<<< Do you know what that means ?
You stated to me in response to my posts (including video information from Dr Wood) That myself and Dr Wood were wrong about our information that the wings of the plane would not have gone through the building, you used kinetic energy to excuse this detail.
Today <<<< I hope you can keep up?
You now state an altered version due to the evidence that I have presented to you, you now say the 'wing skin' was compressed against the steel.
So when were you telling the truth, yesterday when the wings went through steel due to kinetic energy, or today when wing skin is compressed against steel, thus not penetrating through it due to kinetic energy?
I'm interested in what you going to post next in the continuation of your denial squirming ?
I have made the same assertion both today and yesterday.
I never once suggested the wings did not penetrate the building, you're making that bit up to try to support your argument.
The forward momentum of the plane carried through the bulk of the building, with one flaming engine coming out of the other side, bouncing off a building into the ground and being sectioned off for photographs and analysis. As the plane entered the building part of one wing was compressed to about two feet tall, but its forward momentum and kinetic energy was so vast it continued with the rest of the plane.
Why are you trying to assert I said it didn't penetrate the building? That is not what I said. That is what you said.
Do you understand what I am saying or not?
I have asked you some questions in previous posts, please answer them.
The plane can indeed travel that fast. That blog article also speaks of how I believe they were flown. Autopilot program via GPS.
The plane weight about 300,000lbs, was travelling at over 500mph, and is aerodynamically shapped. Of course its going to continue flying through the building. You can't tell me that a building designed to sway in the wind would stop it.
One more point, they were comparing the plane crashing with vehicles not so aerodynamic nor weighty, and not travelling at 500+mph. What they were crashing into, was neither absorbatitve by nature.
Did you not see Dr Wood on that YouTube clip?
Yes. In this instance, she is wrong.
says SilvaRizla
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
That gap is roughly two feet. Are you telling me that such kinetic energy could not compress a wing skin to such a depth? Of course it could. It STILL wouldn't take away its forward momentum though.
Says SilvaRizla
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
I showed you a YouTube clip where Dr Wood was suggesting that the tips of the aeroplane wings could not go through the steel.
You replied that 'she was wrong.'
That isn't you answering any of my questions. But I'll respond none the less.
I have already shown you the power of kinetic energy. The plane was travelling at 500mph+ and was back by 300,000lbs of weight. The wing is aerodynamically shaped.
It is basically a 300,000lb sword colliding with a steel beam at 500mph.
What do you think will happen?
Dr Wood, in this case is mistaken, probably due to the fact that she now BELIEVE'S in something.
Where are Dr Wood's calculations proving that such a force could not possibly have that effect on the steel frame? The steel frame that was designed to absorb such an impact none the less.
Those calculations don't exist, because if they did, they wouldn't support the NPT.
That gap is roughly two feet. Are you telling me that such kinetic energy could not compress a wing skin to such a depth? Of course it could. It STILL wouldn't take away its forward momentum though.
Says SilvaRizla
You also said that Dr wood was wrong, when she suggested the wing tips would not go through the building.
You are contradicting yourself.
Either Dr Wood was right about the wing tips not going through the building , or the wing skin was not compressed.
You can't have it both ways, you're arguing against yourself.
Can you not see that. or are you pretending not to see that?
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
That gap is roughly two feet. Are you telling me that such kinetic energy could not compress a wing skin to such a depth? Of course it could. It STILL wouldn't take away its forward momentum though.
Says SilvaRizla
You also said that Dr wood was wrong, when she suggested the wing tips would not go through the building.
You are contradicting yourself.
Either Dr Wood was right about the wing tips not going through the building , or the wing skin was not compressed.
You can't have it both ways, you're arguing against yourself.
Can you not see that. or are you pretending not to see that?
I'm not contradicting myself at all. How is it you can't understand my perfectly reasonable position? Could it be because your brain is so desperately trying to protect your belief system? I suspect so.
THE PLANE HIT THE BUILDING. A 12 INCH SECTION OF ONE WING WAS COMPRESSED BY ABOUT 4 INCHES TO A DEPTH OF ABOUT 2 FEET AS IT CONTINUED PLOUGHING IN TO THE BUILDING.
The EPA (environmental protection agency) and OSHA took air samples in the days following September 11th, they reported that they found no excessive levels of asbestos contrary to other findings....
With the anniversary of September 11th literally just around the corner, unanswered questions still remain for families who lost loved ones during the tragic event, as well as from families...
In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a series of lower court rulings that restrict the United States Navy's use of sonar in submarine detection training exercises off...
Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2020 - May 2021,
in USD.
No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.
says SilvaRizla 
