What's with all the conspiracy theories?

[iluvatar5150]

Ah, well thank you. We no planers play within the fringes of madness, you know. Especially when we're trying to communicate to a brainwashed public still trusting their media and glued to the oh so welcoming flicker of their surrogate parent - Television...

"Plane" travels through steel framed skyscraper as fast as it does through air!:

Ah, so you haven't studied physics either. Might want to add that to your list of classes during this fall semester, before all of the sections fill up.

The part of the airplane you see is still travelling through the air. The part that you can't see - the part that's inside the building - is slowing down. In fact, it's slowing down quite rapidly.

As anyone who's ever watched a car crash test video would know, the front of a vehicle can stop moving (say, if it hits a brick wall), while the rear continues to move forward. That's how the front of a car crumples.

The problem with your theory is that it assumes that the airplane body is strong enough and rigid enough to maintain its shape while impacting a building, i.e. you assume that if the front of the plane were to slow down, then the back of the plane ought to slow down, too.

But an airplane is not that strong. If it were, plane fuselages would remain intact upon crashing, instead of breaking apart. But just as with a car, the front of the plane crumples while the rear of the plane maintains its forward momentum until something stops it.

BTW: I'm still waiting for some sort of response to the evidence I presented earlier.

-Dan.

 

[Nekoda]

Ah, so you haven't studied physics either. Might want to add that to your list of classes during this fall semester, before all of the sections fill up.

The part of the airplane you see is still travelling through the air. The part that you can't see - the part that's inside the building - is slowing down. In fact, it's slowing down quite rapidly.

As anyone who's ever watched a car crash test video would know, the front of a vehicle can stop moving (say, if it hits a brick wall), while the rear continues to move forward. That's how the front of a car crumples.

The problem with your theory is that it assumes that the airplane body is strong enough and rigid enough to maintain its shape while impacting a building, i.e. you assume that if the front of the plane were to slow down, then the back of the plane ought to slow down, too.

But an airplane is not that strong. If it were, plane fuselages would remain intact upon crashing, instead of breaking apart. But just as with a car, the front of the plane crumples while the rear of the plane maintains its forward momentum until something stops it.

BTW: I'm still waiting for some sort of response to the evidence I presented earlier.

-Dan.

Dan has superman eyes, apparently. He can see through the building and notice that the "airplane" being swallowed by the building is *slowing down*. Dan's mastery of "physics" also allows for an relatively thin aluminum alloy fuselage to pass seemlessly through thick steel beams like butter...

and...not only that

come out the other side, nose intact, at exactly the same speed? Wait...I thought it was slowing down "quite rapidly"?

NOSED OUT - YouTube

At this point I have to ask, Dan. Are you a shill or just incredibly stupid or naive?

 

[Btodd]

At this point I have to ask, Dan. Are you a shill or just incredibly stupid or naive?

Oooh, how surprising! That a Truther would use the word 'shill' in a response to a devastatingly reasonable rebuttal to a YouTube link (that's a pet-word of the Truth Movement when confronted with being ignorant about the subject matter they're dabbling in).

It's along the same lines as the term 'sheeple'. If you use that term at all, you most certainly are the very thing you are accusing the other person of being.


Btodd

 

[iluvatar5150]

Dan has superman eyes, apparently. He can see through the building and notice that the "airplane" being swallowed by the building is *slowing down*. Dan's mastery of "physics" also allows for an relatively thin aluminum alloy fuselage to pass seemlessly through thick steel beams like butter...

Why would you think that's a problem? Bullets are lightweight and made out of lead, which is far softer than steel or even aluminum, yet their velocity gives them enough momentum to penetrate objects much harder and more massive.

Damage from lightweight, high-speed meteoroids is also a serious problem for NASA engineers designing satellites and space craft.

Another example is a tornado driving straw into a tree trunk.

come out the other side, nose intact

You have no idea how intact it was. All you have is a dark blob on a grainy video that's been overly compressed a number of times.

Where is this intact nose coming out of the south tower in this video:

www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk&feature=player_detailpage#t=75s

, at exactly the same speed? Wait...I thought it was slowing down "quite rapidly"?

I don't know where you came up with the idea that it came out at exactly the same speed. Not only does your video not make that claim, but watching the frame-by-frame disproves that.

Here's your video:
www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=67s

(if you can't follow that link, just open your link and skip to 1:07)

Watch the "Nose In" and "Tower Penetration" sections and see how quickly the plane travels in those frames.

Now compare that to how far your mystery blob travels in the "Nose Out" section in frames 33-42.

Before striking the tower, the plane covers its entire length in the span of about 7 frames, but after coming out the other side, it only covers 1/3-1/4 of its length in 10 frames.

That's a pretty significant deceleration.

At this point I have to ask, Dan. Are you a shill or just incredibly stupid or naive?

Neither. I just know how to read things and find information.

-Dan.

 

[Nekoda]

Oooh, how surprising! That a Truther would use the word 'shill' in a response to a devastatingly reasonable rebuttal to a YouTube link (that's a pet-word of the Truth Movement when confronted with being ignorant about the subject matter they're dabbling in).

It's along the same lines as the term 'sheeple'. If you use that term at all, you most certainly are the very thing you are accusing the other person of being.


Btodd

It wasn't "devastatingly reasonable rebuttal" the way I saw it. Dan's right in that a 767 hitting this particular building with it's thick steel frame lattice structure should have "slowed down rapidly" (although not really - it should have mostly broken up *at the point* of impact, similar to what you see here:

Plane Smashes Into A Concrete wall!!! - YouTube

Rather than melt seemlessly into the building and *then* explode.

He also inserts something that is not part of my argument (called a "straw man") here:

The problem with your theory is that it assumes that the airplane body is strong enough and rigid enough to maintain its shape while impacting a building, i.e. you assume that if the front of the plane were to slow down, then the back of the plane ought to slow down, too.

That wasn't an argument I was making. Watch the videos, do you see the plane breaking up at the moment of impact? I don't. I see a plane melting into a building, then exploding.

The plane should have shown considerable breakup at the point of impact, similar to the video above.

But instead, on the incredible "nose out" shot that Fox has since had removed from the 911 T.V. archives on copyright claims (nothing suspicious about that, folks!) we see the impossibility of the plane nose section flying straight through, without slowing, and completely intact.

Unless "Dan" is unaware of that shot, he is doing double speak, which makes me think he's just another shill.

 

[Btodd]

Dan's right in that a 767 hitting this particular building with it's thick steel frame lattice structure should have "slowed down rapidly" (although not really - it should have mostly broken up *at the point* of impact, similar to what you see here:

Rather than melt seemlessly into the building and *then* explode.

Cool, so you're proposing that it's not part of basic physics, but that the conspirators set off the explosion just a tad later (within less than a second or so) than they should have when trying to pull off the giant magic trick? Which you gleaned from soliciting conspiracy sites and YouTube videos?

Good luck with that. I suggest you put your theories to the ultimate test, and start by researching the histories of the people who died on that day, by contacting their relatives, friends, and personal histories. Let's see just how 'made-up' they were, other than your base assertion of the supposed fact. This is not very far-removed from the claims that the 'hijackers are still alive'. If the Truth Movement weren't already the height of ridiculousness, you are at least commendable in raising the bar.


Btodd

 

[iluvatar5150]

It wasn't "devastatingly reasonable rebuttal" the way I saw it. Dan's right in that a 767 hitting this particular building with it's thick steel frame lattice structure should have "slowed down rapidly" (although not really - it should have mostly broken up *at the point* of impact, similar to what you see here:

Plane Smashes Into A Concrete wall!!! - YouTube

Rather than melt seemlessly into the building and *then* explode.

You're basically arguing that it should have broken up on the outside of the building.

Nobody has claimed that the outer shell of the building was designed to withstand that kind of impact. The concrete wall in your F-4 video is a model of the kinds of walls used to protect nuclear power plants (which are designed to repel plane crashes), not a model of a skyscraper. The entire structure of the WTC towers withstood the initial impact, but no one has claimed that the skin should've remain unbreached. (until you did)

He also inserts something that is not part of my argument (called a "straw man") here:


That wasn't an argument I was making. Watch the videos, do you see the plane breaking up at the moment of impact? I don't. I see a plane melting into a building, then exploding.

The plane should have shown considerable breakup at the point of impact, similar to the video above.

Why should the plane have not punched through the wall of the building?

But instead, on the incredible "nose out" shot that Fox has since had removed from the 911 T.V. archives on copyright claims (nothing suspicious about that, folks!) we see the impossibility of the plane nose section flying straight through, without slowing, and completely intact.

Unless "Dan" is unaware of that shot, he is doing double speak, which makes me think he's just another shill.

I just watched the shot. In fact, I've already commented on it.

-Dan.

 

[durangodawood]

Silliness.
.
A 4 ft thick panel of concrete compared to an architectural cladding thats full of windows?
.

 

[Nekoda]

You're basically arguing that it should have broken up on the outside of the building.

Nobody has claimed that the outer shell of the building was designed to withstand that kind of impact.

Dan, Dan, Dan:

WTC built specifically to withstand multiple crashes - YouTube

Granted, that's a 707, not a 767 - but he describes it as a pencil with relation to the building. He even says the building could withstand *multiple* hits by 707's. And yes - he's talking about the outer cladding.

Why should the plane have not punched through the wall of the building?

See above and :

9-11 Research: The Perimeter Walls

The perimeter lattice steel configuration was designed to be super strong.

 

[Nekoda]

Silliness.
.
A 4 ft thick panel of concrete compared to an architectural cladding thats full of windows?
.

See above. I might also mention the pentagon...no steel reinforced concrete there...not 3 rings in...right?

It's important to remember what these airbuses are made of. The largest steel components are in the engines. The fuselage and wings are mostly made of relatively thin aluminum alloy. A 200 pound man can actually cause damage to the wings of such airbuses simply by standing on them (that's why you often see "no step" on the wings). In other words, they are relatively fragile. They're designed like that so they can carry many passengers and cargo and actually get off the ground. They aren't and never were designed to be missile's of mass destruction.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Dan, Dan, Dan:

Granted, that's a 707, not a 767 - but he describes it as a pencil with relation to the building. He even says the building could withstand *multiple* hits by 707's. And yes - he's talking about the outer cladding.

You don't even understand the content of your own videos.

He said the plane would "puncture" the building. That means it would breach the outer wall, just like I said.

What he's talking about is the design of the towers that distributed the weight of the building onto those numerous outside columns. The plane crash would take out some of them, but there'd be enough redundancy in the design so that the load would shift to the remaining columns.

And that's exactly what happened. The towers didn't collapse until quite a long time after the initial impacts.

See above and :

9-11 Research: The Perimeter Walls

The perimeter lattice steel configuration was designed to be super strong.

Yes, super strong with regards to lateral and vertical loads with relatively slow changes in velocity (e.g. wind), not to concentrated high-speed impacts, which are entirely different.

A similar comparison could be made to a backyard hammock and its ability to support the weight of a large man, but its inability to withstand being stabbed by a child with a sharp knife. Would you call that hammock "weak" because it could be stabbed through?

Another comparison could be drawn to the inability of some bulletproof vests to repel knife attacks. They're "strong" and designed to handle one kind of impact force, but not another.

-Dan.

 

[Nekoda]

You don't even understand the content of your own videos.

He said the plane would "puncture" the building. That means it would breach the outer wall, just like I said.

What he's talking about is the design of the towers that distributed the weight of the building onto those numerous outside columns. The plane crash would take out some of them, but there'd be enough redundancy in the design so that the load would shift to the remaining columns.

And that's exactly what happened. The towers didn't collapse until quite a long time after the initial impacts.

See Dan - when you are confronted with your own bullstuff you slighly change the subject. This side discussion isn't about the collapse of the towers or the distribution of load effecting the overall structure of the entire building.

It's about how a passenger airbus - which is mostly relatively thin aluminum alloy - would react to smashing up against a thick steel lattice structure that was the outside of the WTC Towers.

I'm going to ignore the latter part of your post because it's off topic for what we are discussing.

Passenger Airbuses simply don't melt into buildings such as the WTC with it's thick steel mesh and then explode once they are inside.

What we see in the videos is like what Mr. Fairbanks describes as a "bad special effect" - like "an entire floor was missing". No damage can be seen to the plane itself. Nothing breaks off. The fuselage stays completely intact. The wings stay completely intact. There is no large explosion of plane debris at point of impact. No, the "plane" simply glides though the building as if it were not there then explodes once inside.

Further, in the Fox video that Fox had removed due to copyright - there is more damning evidence. Like I said - the wings and fuselage of these planes are relatively thin aluminum alloy. A man with a sledge hammer could go up to them and do some serious damage. But in the Fox "nose out" video - the plane glides completely through the building, outside steel mesh, core, and all - and exits with it's nosecone intact.

Why do you think Fox has tried hard to remove this video? Why did CNN, when replaying that Fox shot, cover it with their screen banner?

They did it because it is evidence of video fakery. Airbuses simply don't do what we've been told they did. Most people will believe the glide in planes (heck, I did as well for some time) that were the "amateur" shots shown after 911 - but eyebrows would have been raised if they had played the "nose out" shot over and over again.

Why didn't they play that clip over and over again?

 

[USincognito]

None of the liners used by the hijackers on 9/11 were Airbus'.

 

[Nekoda]

None of the liners used by the hijackers on 9/11 were Airbus'.

I'm using term generically to describe a large passenger jet such as a Boeing 767.

 

[USincognito]

I'm using term generically to describe a large passenger jet such as a Boeing 767.

Airbus is not a generic term. It is a brand name. The generic term is airliner.

 

[iluvatar5150]

See Dan - when you are confronted with your own bullstuff you slighly change the subject. This side discussion isn't about the collapse of the towers or the distribution of load effecting the overall structure of the entire building.

It's about how a passenger airbus - which is mostly relatively thin aluminum alloy - would react to smashing up against a thick steel lattice structure that was the outside of the WTC Towers.

I'm going to ignore the latter part of your post because it's off topic for what we are discussing.

Passenger Airbuses simply don't melt into buildings such as the WTC with it's thick steel mesh and then explode once they are inside.

That's the issue I was addressing when I mentioned the micrometeoroids and bullets. It's quite possible for a smaller, lighter, less rigid object to penetrate a larger, stronger object if the smaller object has sufficient velocity.

If that's not true, explain to me how a lead bullet can penetrate steel.

What we see in the videos is like what Mr. Fairbanks describes as a "bad special effect" - like "an entire floor was missing". No damage can be seen to the plane itself. Nothing breaks off. The fuselage stays completely intact. The wings stay completely intact. There is no large explosion of plane debris at point of impact. No, the "plane" simply glides though the building as if it were not there then explodes once inside.

It behaves just like the F4 did in the video you provided earlier - the portion of the plane that's come in contact with the building/wall gets damaged, but the portion that hasn't remains perfectly intact. The building has a lot more give than a 4' concrete wall, so that damage only becomes visible on the inside of the building.

Further, in the Fox video that Fox had removed due to copyright - there is more damning evidence.

There's no more damning evidence. The video you provided had everything pertinent from the original. Speaking of the original, here it is from WNYW:

WNYW 9/11 8:57 - 9:07 - YouTube

But in the Fox "nose out" video - the plane glides completely through the building, outside steel mesh, core, and all - and exits with it's nosecone intact.

Again, you don't know it's intact. All you know is that there was a roughly-nosecone-shaped blob that came out the other side that vanished almost immediately.

Why do you think Fox has tried hard to remove this video?

It's still available, but generally, media companies do that to protect their copyrighted material.

Why did CNN, when replaying that Fox shot, cover it with their screen banner?

Because CNN sucks, and because news stations always have a lower crawl.

-Dan.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I'm using term generically to describe a large passenger jet such as a Boeing 767.

Well, truthers seem to enjoy taking commonly understood terms and redefining them to suit their own purposes. Like that "pull them out" nonsense meaning "blow it up".

 

[cow451]

Well, truthers seem to enjoy taking commonly understood terms and redefining them to suit their own purposes. Like that "pull them out" nonsense meaning "blow it up".

Precise, 100% accurate information is only required of non-Truthers.

 

[Husky7]

So, I'm new here (hi!), but I recognize some familiar faces from Crosswalk & Bible.org.

I was a pretty active participant in the current Events/Politics forums over there and while there were plenty of far right-wing conservatives with whom I disagreed, I don't recall the straight-up conspiracy folks (truthers, birthers, etc) ever having nearly the amount of traction as they do here.

Oddly, it seems like the two camps here are progressives and the conspiracy folks, with only a few regular conservatives stuck in the middle.

What gives?

-Dan.

9/11 and the Birther claims are legitimate theories. If you remember back when these first started, it was weeks/months when they started. Especially with 9/11 where people had to spend time verifying the information our Government gave us about the event. The "conspiracy theories" came about once people started finding inconsistencies and problems with the official story.

Conspiracy theories come about because "the people" (us) are supposed to act as watch dogs to keep our leaders and lawmakers in check. Remember, "we" are the Government. Conspiracy theories aren't bad in themselves, we should applaud truth seekers who strive to keep our Government honest and transparent. After 9/11, the Bush Administration purposely propagated the lie that conspiracy theorists are nuts who hate the United States. The only reason they'd go to such lengths to do this would be to cover something up. What are they covering up? We don't know yet; but that's why we need conspiracy theories. We need to question our Government so we can obtain the truth.

 

[usexpat97]

but I recognize some familiar faces from Crosswalk & Bible.org.
...I don't recall the straight-up conspiracy folks (truthers, birthers, etc) ever having nearly the amount of traction as they do here.

On crosswalk at least, the conspiracy folks were censored a lot. They didn't last very long. Simply because of their beliefs.