I'm not about to be baited into a slanging match with an idiot. How soft do you think I am?
You're the only person out of the two of us that can't understand what I'm saying. Its perfectly logical as well. I suppose you're just starting to feel the but hurt. Has it dawned on you that the height of that gap is only handful of inches smaller than the planes wing?
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.
Do you get it yet?
So if you're now stating that a 12 inch section of the wing was compressed by about four inches, it's nonsense you're making that up with no proof, the same evidence that I have continued to the extent of being bored of posting to you shows that the tips of the wings did not pass through the steel.
Thus DR Wood was of course correct to suggest this, and you were of course wrong to say that she was mistaken.
The whole length of the wing did not go through the steel even we see that on a video.
The wing tips did not go through steel, Dr Wood was right, you were wrong.
If you know continue to suggest that the whole length of the wing went through the steel frame, except for a 4 inch compression of wing skin, you're bonkers beyond belief, we can see the whole. lol it's not the length of the wing.
I hope you continue to post crap to cover your tracks as it shows how low you have stooped to cling onto your subjective point of view.
Link reposted, how tiresome.
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 09:33 #403
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.
Do you get it yet?
So if you're now stating that a 12 inch section of the wing was compressed by about four inches, it's nonsense you're making that up with no proof, the same evidence that I have continued to the extent of being bored of posting to you shows that the tips of the wings did not pass through the steel.
Thus DR Wood was of course correct to suggest this, and you were of course wrong to say that she was mistaken.
The whole length of the wing did not go through the steel even we see that on a video.
The wing tips did not go through steel, Dr Wood was right, you were wrong.
If you know continue to suggest that the whole length of the wing went through the steel frame, except for a 4 inch compression of wing skin, you're bonkers beyond belief, we can see the whole. lol it's not the length of the wing.
I hope you continue to post crap to cover your tracks as it shows how low you have stooped to cling onto your subjective point of view.
Link reposted, how tiresome.
Exactly what is it you think you're looking at? You know there's a gap in that one beam and its been forced back don't you? Its about 2ft all in. IE: The wing did indeed go through it, and suffered some compression as a result.
I have not ignored ANY of the posts you've made, you on the other hand have ignored many of mine. So...
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?
I'm not about to be baited into a slanging match with an idiot. How soft do you think I am?
You're the only person out of the two of us that can't understand what I'm saying. Its perfectly logical as well. I suppose you're just starting to feel the but hurt. Has it dawned on you that the height of that gap is only handful of inches smaller than the planes wing?
It was in response to your post ''Stop mentioning my name then you fucktard'' 371#
Anyone reading this thread will see your contradictions and your abusive slanging, I merely made another thread so you can keep your bullshit in there, instead of here.
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
12 inches did this, 4 inches did that, you have no clue, you're making it up, off of the top of your head, your calculations are plucked out of thin air.
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 09:41 #406
12 inches did this, 4 inches did that, you have no clue, you're making it up, off of the top of your head, your calculations are plucked out of thin air.
No they aren't. Unlike you, (someone who is flat out refusing to answer my questions because they're out of their depth) I know what I'm talking about.
Look at the damage to the 3rd and forth steel beams from the left. Can't you see where they've been sliced by the wing tip? Go and look at a scale overlay of the plane on that hole. Go on, do it.
I'm not about to be baited into a slanging match with an idiot. How soft do you think I am?
You're the only person out of the two of us that can't understand what I'm saying. Its perfectly logical as well. I suppose you're just starting to feel the but hurt. Has it dawned on you that the height of that gap is only handful of inches smaller than the planes wing?
It was in response to your post ''Stop mentioning my name then you fucktard'' 371#
Anyone reading this thread will see your contradictions and your abusive slanging, I merely made another thread so you can keep your bullshit in there, instead of here.
You may want to go and check who was the first to start being disrespectful and start laughing at who.
If the most moderate muslim you care to present lived under Shariah law he would be forced to participate in the stoning of gays and women who showed a bit of calf muscle.
If he didn't he would be put to death.
Why are people who live in the west retaining this crutch and method of dividing themselves from the mass of westerners?
LMFAO!!
/points at Saudi Arabia.
There is a monarchical dictatorship with sharia law and tyranny, I don't see us invading it though for some strange reason, I wonder why.
Hmmm what could possibly be the reason?
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
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.
Do you get it yet?
So if you're now stating that a 12 inch section of the wing was compressed by about four inches, it's nonsense you're making that up with no proof, the same evidence that I have continued to the extent of being bored of posting to you shows that the tips of the wings did not pass through the steel.
Thus DR Wood was of course correct to suggest this, and you were of course wrong to say that she was mistaken.
The whole length of the wing did not go through the steel even we see that on a video.
The wing tips did not go through steel, Dr Wood was right, you were wrong.
If you know continue to suggest that the whole length of the wing went through the steel frame, except for a 4 inch compression of wing skin, you're bonkers beyond belief, we can see the whole. lol it's not the length of the wing.
I hope you continue to post crap to cover your tracks as it shows how low you have stooped to cling onto your subjective point of view.
Link reposted, how tiresome.
Exactly what is it you think you're looking at? You know there's a gap in that one beam and its been forced back don't you? Its about 2ft all in. IE: The wing did indeed go through it, and suffered some compression as a result.
I have not ignored ANY of the posts you've made, you on the other hand have ignored many of mine. So...
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?
I have stated the possibilities that it might be, I can't say that they're holograms or Entomopters, missiles, CGI.
I can't say for sure which, it's likely to be top secret technology that we are not privy to, akin to the DEW, that we can't pinpoint, it's just that we know the other options don't add up.
And that's where this particular conversation about 'No planes' came from, I did not say how, who, what in particular, only that we don't know this or that do we?
We might know about other DEW's or other Holograms or cloaking technology, however everything we don't know do we?
Or do you only want to discuss what can be displayed, if so please display the exact DEW that destroyed WTC?
This is where my bottom line would be if it existed.
12 inches did this, 4 inches did that, you have no clue, you're making it up, off of the top of your head, your calculations are plucked out of thin air.
No they aren't. Unlike you, (someone who is flat out refusing to answer my questions because they're out of their depth) I know what I'm talking about.
Look at the damage to the 3rd and forth steel beams from the left. Can't you see where they've been sliced by the wing tip? Go and look at a scale overlay of the plane on that hole. Go on, do it.
Please display your calculations, I don't mean '4inches of this or 12 inches of that, there are no measurements, you're guessing, you don't know how much wing skin may or may not have been compressed, you're guessing.
On the video clip that I'm tired of posting, it's clear that the aluminium façade has been broken but not all the steel frame behind it, thus the end of the wing, penetrated the façade and not the steel.
You appear to think that you are teaching me something, you don't know anything, you're cherry picking Dr Wood, and making estimated calculations from nowhere in relation to wing skin compression depths.
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.
Do you get it yet?
So if you're now stating that a 12 inch section of the wing was compressed by about four inches, it's nonsense you're making that up with no proof, the same evidence that I have continued to the extent of being bored of posting to you shows that the tips of the wings did not pass through the steel.
Thus DR Wood was of course correct to suggest this, and you were of course wrong to say that she was mistaken.
The whole length of the wing did not go through the steel even we see that on a video.
The wing tips did not go through steel, Dr Wood was right, you were wrong.
If you know continue to suggest that the whole length of the wing went through the steel frame, except for a 4 inch compression of wing skin, you're bonkers beyond belief, we can see the whole. lol it's not the length of the wing.
I hope you continue to post crap to cover your tracks as it shows how low you have stooped to cling onto your subjective point of view.
Link reposted, how tiresome.
Exactly what is it you think you're looking at? You know there's a gap in that one beam and its been forced back don't you? Its about 2ft all in. IE: The wing did indeed go through it, and suffered some compression as a result.
I have not ignored ANY of the posts you've made, you on the other hand have ignored many of mine. So...
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?
I have stated the possibilities that it might be, I can't say that they're holograms or Entomopters, missiles, CGI.
I can't say for sure which, it's likely to be top secret technology that we are not privy to, akin to the DEW, that we can't pinpoint, it's just we know the other options don't add up.
And that's where this particular conversation about 'No planes' came from, I did not say how, who, what in particular, only that we don't know this or that do we?
We might know about other DEW's or other Holograms or cloaking technology, however everything we don't know do we?
Or do you only want to discuss what can be displayed, if so please display the exact DEW that destroyed WTC?
I have explained the theory behind such a DEW, we have discussed the existence of signatures of DEW's being used at the incident site.
I am asking you to provide the same theory and point out signatures for planes not hitting the building, given the fact that black boxes seem to have been recovered, the damage to the building is consistent with a real plane hitting it, and the planes engine flew through the building and landed on the street below.
Given all of this information, I suggest that it is important to not develop a belief, and merely examine ALL of the evidence at hand. I suggest it paints the picture that a plane did indeed hit the building.
Andy also made some very sensible points about the trouble they've have to go to in order to make the passengers on that plane, along with the plane itself disappear, rather than just fly the plane in to the building.
12 inches did this, 4 inches did that, you have no clue, you're making it up, off of the top of your head, your calculations are plucked out of thin air.
No they aren't. Unlike you, (someone who is flat out refusing to answer my questions because they're out of their depth) I know what I'm talking about.
Look at the damage to the 3rd and forth steel beams from the left. Can't you see where they've been sliced by the wing tip? Go and look at a scale overlay of the plane on that hole. Go on, do it.
Please display your calculations, I don't mean '4inches of this or 12 inches of that, there are no measurements, you're guessing, you don't know how much wing skin may or may not have been compressed, you're guessing.
On the video clip that I'm tired of posting, it's clear that the aluminium façade has been broken but not all the steel frame behind it, this the end of the wing, penetrated the façade and not the steel.
You appear to think that you are teaching me something, you don't know anything, you're cherry picking Dr Wood, and making estimated calculations from nowhere in relation to wing skin compression depths.
There's a difference between an educated guesstimate and a stab in the dark. The speed of the plane for one, is a guesstimate you're quite willing to accept.
Watch the video. The size of the gap in relation to the woman is about to just above knee height. About 2 feet.
Now go and check how thick a 767 wing is. This image should help you:
Now factor in the angle of the plane. According to the width of the steel beam at the same angle, how much of the wing was compressed and by how much?
No you're right. I am not teaching you anything. Thus far you have shown you are unwilling to learn.
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.
Do you get it yet?
So if you're now stating that a 12 inch section of the wing was compressed by about four inches, it's nonsense you're making that up with no proof, the same evidence that I have continued to the extent of being bored of posting to you shows that the tips of the wings did not pass through the steel.
Thus DR Wood was of course correct to suggest this, and you were of course wrong to say that she was mistaken.
The whole length of the wing did not go through the steel even we see that on a video.
The wing tips did not go through steel, Dr Wood was right, you were wrong.
If you know continue to suggest that the whole length of the wing went through the steel frame, except for a 4 inch compression of wing skin, you're bonkers beyond belief, we can see the whole. lol it's not the length of the wing.
I hope you continue to post crap to cover your tracks as it shows how low you have stooped to cling onto your subjective point of view.
Link reposted, how tiresome.
Exactly what is it you think you're looking at? You know there's a gap in that one beam and its been forced back don't you? Its about 2ft all in. IE: The wing did indeed go through it, and suffered some compression as a result.
I have not ignored ANY of the posts you've made, you on the other hand have ignored many of mine. So...
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?
I have stated the possibilities that it might be, I can't say that they're holograms or Entomopters, missiles, CGI.
I can't say for sure which, it's likely to be top secret technology that we are not privy to, akin to the DEW, that we can't pinpoint, it's just we know the other options don't add up.
And that's where this particular conversation about 'No planes' came from, I did not say how, who, what in particular, only that we don't know this or that do we?
We might know about other DEW's or other Holograms or cloaking technology, however everything we don't know do we?
Or do you only want to discuss what can be displayed, if so please display the exact DEW that destroyed WTC?
I have explained the theory behind such a DEW, we have discussed the existence of signatures of DEW's being used at the incident site.
I am asking you to provide the same theory and point out signatures for planes not hitting the building, given the fact Given all of this information, I suggest that it is important to not develop a belief, and merely examine ALL of the evidence at hand. I that black boxes seem to have been recovered, the damage to the building is consistent with a real plane hitting it, and the planes engine flew through the building and landed on the street below.
suggest it paints the picture that a plane did indeed hit the building.
Andy also made some very sensible points about the trouble they've have to go to in order to make the passengers on that plane, along with the plane itself disappear, rather than just fly the plane in to the building.
I can't actually believe that you require an explanation.
1) Very few people report seeing 'air liners' usually witnesses report either no planes or 'other aircraft'
(I have posted many examples)
2) Black box recorders could be planted, I mean if they're stitching up Islamic extremists why not be able to plant evidence.
3) Of course the damage is going to be consistent with aircraft hitting, that would be what would be planned.
4) Passengers were not on the plane, they were falsely boarded onto the other plane that crashed in a rural area. conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/911/flight-93/
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 10:22 #414
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.
Do you get it yet?
So if you're now stating that a 12 inch section of the wing was compressed by about four inches, it's nonsense you're making that up with no proof, the same evidence that I have continued to the extent of being bored of posting to you shows that the tips of the wings did not pass through the steel.
Thus DR Wood was of course correct to suggest this, and you were of course wrong to say that she was mistaken.
The whole length of the wing did not go through the steel even we see that on a video.
The wing tips did not go through steel, Dr Wood was right, you were wrong.
If you know continue to suggest that the whole length of the wing went through the steel frame, except for a 4 inch compression of wing skin, you're bonkers beyond belief, we can see the whole. lol it's not the length of the wing.
I hope you continue to post crap to cover your tracks as it shows how low you have stooped to cling onto your subjective point of view.
Link reposted, how tiresome.
Exactly what is it you think you're looking at? You know there's a gap in that one beam and its been forced back don't you? Its about 2ft all in. IE: The wing did indeed go through it, and suffered some compression as a result.
I have not ignored ANY of the posts you've made, you on the other hand have ignored many of mine. So...
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?
I have stated the possibilities that it might be, I can't say that they're holograms or Entomopters, missiles, CGI.
I can't say for sure which, it's likely to be top secret technology that we are not privy to, akin to the DEW, that we can't pinpoint, it's just we know the other options don't add up.
And that's where this particular conversation about 'No planes' came from, I did not say how, who, what in particular, only that we don't know this or that do we?
We might know about other DEW's or other Holograms or cloaking technology, however everything we don't know do we?
Or do you only want to discuss what can be displayed, if so please display the exact DEW that destroyed WTC?
I have explained the theory behind such a DEW, we have discussed the existence of signatures of DEW's being used at the incident site.
I am asking you to provide the same theory and point out signatures for planes not hitting the building, given the fact Given all of this information, I suggest that it is important to not develop a belief, and merely examine ALL of the evidence at hand. I that black boxes seem to have been recovered, the damage to the building is consistent with a real plane hitting it, and the planes engine flew through the building and landed on the street below.
suggest it paints the picture that a plane did indeed hit the building.
Andy also made some very sensible points about the trouble they've have to go to in order to make the passengers on that plane, along with the plane itself disappear, rather than just fly the plane in to the building.
I can't actually believe that you require an explanation.
1) Very few people report seeing 'air liners' usually witnesses report either no planes or 'other aircraft'
(I have posted many examples)
2) Black box recorders could be planted, I mean if they're stitching up Islamic extremists why not be able to plant evidence.
3) Of course the damage is going to be consistent with aircraft hitting, that would be what would be planned.
4) Passengers were not on the plane, they were falsely boarded onto the other plane that crashed in a rural area. conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/911/flight-93/
That still doesn't show me any evidence that holograms were used to falsify the planes, but OK
1) Very few people walk around NYC looking straight up in the air, you would see the plane before you would hear it. People looked up when they heard it, by that time of course it was either too late, or you couldn't see it anyway due to the number of skyscrapes obscuring your view.
2) Why would you go to the trouble of planting FDR's in the rubble, then deny you had them? Wouldn't that falsified data help bolster your assertion that it was terrorists with Stanley knives that hijacked and crashed the planes?
3) Why then, have you been trying to wrongfully point out that the damage is not consistent with a plane hitting the building?
4) I don't dispute this point, though it wouldn't make sense as to why this fact would be needed if no planes were involved. Why board them onto another plane at all? Why not just put them on a bus, drive hem out to a ditch and pop them in the head?
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.
