IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Flight 175 Turning And Burning, ...i`ve never seen this before!

skyarcher
post Dec 5 2008, 01:34 AM
Post #41





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Dec 4 2008, 08:41 PM) *
A pressurized cabin with a pressurized forward bulkhead and presurized wings is going to enter a building moving 600 mph.

Go find some witnesses to your lunacy. Until then you are just another operative here to sow your confusion and discrediting tactics.

That's all I have to say on the matter.



I think you will find that that is not what i asked you kind sir.

Please address the question i asked you if you can. Otherwise, you talking about my 'lunacy' and me being an 'operative' is just another smear tactic ..see above post,and one that breaks the rules of this alternative theory forum. would you mind having a look at the rules for the forum?

1.'A pressurized cabin with a pressurized forward bulkhead and presurized wings' ....mmmm and moving at 600 mph ... this is the reason the plane enters the building? I see, so 2 pressurized planes which hit eachother ? whats happens them? do they 'enter' each other. Surely any breach of a pressurised cabin is very serious and explosive?, and if the nose of a plane hitting a wall at '600' doesn't breach the cabin what will?

2. 600 mph? Who is an agent of disinfo? do you know that the Vmo of a 767 is just 400 mph at 700 feet?
Who is spreading disinfo? where did you get this number from?

thanks

skyarcher
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 5 2008, 12:02 PM
Post #42





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



If you're looking forward to his response Skyarcher, why have you not responded to my last?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Dec 6 2008, 07:35 PM
Post #43





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 5 2008, 12:02 PM) *
If you're looking forward to his response Skyarcher, why have you not responded to my last?




I have given you a long and detailed response outlining in simple terms why this video contradicts Newtons laws of motion.

Why not argue against what I have posted ? if you think I am in error.

Your theory of the window spacing simply ignores the laws physics completely.

Have heard the joke Q: What's the last thing that enters a fly's mind when it hits a car's windscreen moving at 70mph?
A: Its ass.
The nose of the 'plane' SHOULD have slowed down when it 'hit' the building ... this is what happens in any crash. A concertina effect. The front of the vehicle very often meets the back of the vehicle. Does a racing car pass through a wall or barrier( your spacing theory) when it hits it? No it implodes. Simple as that.

I am not going to think for you. If you can look at this video and think there is nothing wrong with it ... fine.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Dec 6 2008, 08:08 PM
Post #44





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 4 2008, 02:32 PM) *
Skyarcher,

You said that people of this site are trying to make others believe an airplane can pass through a wall without crumpling or deforming in any way.


That is a lie and that makes you a liar as we have never claimed as such. Which is also the reason why you do not source such a claim because it doesnt exist.

Be advised. Your spin, strawmans tactics and flat out being wrong (eg. there arent 3 concrete walls between C-E ring at pentagon on the first floor, wings dont seperate till second floor between C-E)... are wearing thin on my patience.




Here is the source of my claim.
I quote you from your comments in this thread..

"I personally know how hard and durable a leading edge of an aircraft is just by feeling it with my own hand... and bumping my own head into it more times than i wish to admit.."

"An arc is one of the most strongest structures engineered by man going back to the Romans. The leading edge of a wing is essentially an arc."


And most importantly this one..

"Personally, im puzzled by the wing tips. As they are much more 'fragile' when compared to steel and the wing root. But again, i would like to get Richard Gage's take on the outer perimeter materials, thickness, strength, etc..."


Now I quote Mr. Omega who posted this BEFORE your comments ..

"I do not believe for one minute that the outer columns of those buildings would have enabled any 767 meld into the building in the way implied by this clip. My world experience of aircraft hitting objects tells me that the force of the initial impact would have caused stresses to ripple out from the centre to the extremities and causing these to buckle and break off. There should be visible debris falling to the streets below outside of the building.

The fact that this clip shows no such things is clear evidence of it being faked."


Mr Omega states his case. The plane does not buckle or deform in any way and this is why the video is fake.
you come back saying that the leading edge of an airplane is so strong, based on an arch.
This is why I asked you to respond to the video of the bird hitting the leading edge of a jet and putting a hole in it.
I asked you twice to respond to this and both times you have ignored it?

Anybody following this forum can read this for themselves..

Now if you are not saying that a plane (wings) can pass through a wall without deforming or crumpling in any way what exactly are you saying? Why are you puzzled by the wings? Did you expect them to crumple and they did not??
Would you mind clarifying this please because you have called me a 'liar', which I note is actually against the rules of this forum.
I choose to ignore your insults. In my experience people who insult you have no argument.

Skyarcher. (51,000 video views on youtube.. mate Pollen B has 400,000 video views)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 6 2008, 08:12 PM
Post #45



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Skyarcher,

The wing leading edge, although very strong, will crumple and deform when hitting anything at high speed. It will also crumple and deform anything it hits. Im not surprised you werent able to understand the meaning when first written.

Skyarcher, i'll ask you the same i asked Ace Baker before he got banned. When are you going to do a breakdown of the thousnds of witnesses at the WTC as did CIT at the pentagon?

Until then, your theories are rubbish, you have been wrong on many issues, you fail to comprehend simple sentences and spin them into something they are not... and your sh*t attitude doesnt help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Dec 6 2008, 08:39 PM
Post #46





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



QUOTE
The nose of the 'plane' SHOULD have slowed down when it 'hit' the building ... this is what happens in any crash. A concertina effect. The front of the vehicle very often meets the back of the vehicle. Does a racing car pass through a wall or barrier( your spacing theory) when it hits it? No it implodes. Simple as that.


Not that I want to be involved in a NPT shitfight but dude a racetrack reinforced concrete barrier designed to prevent car parts knocking the hot dogs out of people as an example is a real stretch as an analogy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 6 2008, 08:57 PM
Post #47



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Timothy Osman @ Dec 6 2008, 05:39 PM) *
Not that I want to be involved in a NPT shitfight but dude...

Aussie, Aussie, OY, OY!!! wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Dec 6 2008, 09:04 PM
Post #48





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (Timothy Osman @ Dec 6 2008, 08:39 PM) *
Not that I want to be involved in a NPT shitfight but dude a racetrack reinforced concrete barrier designed to prevent car parts knocking the hot dogs out of people as an example is a real stretch as an analogy.


Thanks for your contribution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=criOxvnnDtA

Reason for edit: Embedded video, "tightened whitespace"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 6 2008, 09:59 PM
Post #49



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Perpendicular
http://www.mathopenref.com/perpendicular.html

Normal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_(mathematics)

Design engineer whistle.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_engineer
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 7 2008, 11:04 AM
Post #50





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



An interesting video of the truck driving through the Boeing.

It seems to beg the question, if a truck can pass through a Boeing, can a Boeing pass through a steel building with windows?

Yes Skyarcher, my theory is that the Boeing passed through the building, and your video at question in this thread seems to confirm that.

That the building had windows with something like 2 foot spacing is not a theory, it is a fact.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Dec 7 2008, 03:40 PM
Post #51





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 6 2008, 08:12 PM) *
Skyarcher,

The wing leading edge, although very strong, will crumple and deform when hitting anything at high speed. It will also crumple and deform anything it hits. Im not surprised you werent able to understand the meaning when first written.

Skyarcher, i'll ask you the same i asked Ace Baker before he got banned. When are you going to do a breakdown of the thousnds of witnesses at the WTC as did CIT at the pentagon?

Until then, your theories are rubbish, you have been wrong on many issues, you fail to comprehend simple sentences and spin them into something they are not... and your sh*t attitude doesnt help.



Which witnesses are you talking about? where can i read their testimonies?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Dec 7 2008, 09:54 PM
Post #52





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 7 2008, 11:04 AM) *
An interesting video of the truck driving through the Boeing.

It seems to beg the question, if a truck can pass through a Boeing, can a Boeing pass through a steel building with windows?

Yes Skyarcher, my theory is that the Boeing passed through the building, and your video at question in this thread seems to confirm that.

That the building had windows with something like 2 foot spacing is not a theory, it is a fact.




Here is the blurb that comes with the video amazed..

"How tough is an airliner anyway?
Video from coffinmanWould this go straight through a steel and concrete wall like a ghost?!!
http://www.coffinman.co.uk"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 7 2008, 10:09 PM
Post #53



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (skyarcher @ Dec 7 2008, 02:40 PM) *
Which witnesses are you talking about? where can i read their testimonies?


lol... did he really say that? Especially regarding WTC witnesses? Wait, let me rub my eyes and read it again...

(rubbing eyes and focusing on the above quote...)

... yep... it appears he really doesnt know there are witnesses to the WTC impacts...

Wow, and i thought GL's were ignorant.

Start here Skyarcher..

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....15628&st=20

Then when you're done with that, pay for a trip to downtown NYC if you dont live there (as did CIT to Arlington), and ask around (as did CIT in Arlington). Im sure you'll find many. Let us know when you have conflicting witnesses statements regarding flight path and impact (as does CIT at the pentagon).


Skyarcher,

Are you going to do some actual research or are you just here to spout your nonsense and continue to expose your ignorance?

Hey, here's an idea, how about actually reading this forum before engaging your fingers?

If it becomes a problem, i can arrange it to help you actually read the forum instead of spouting off based on prejudice. Kind of like a parent would do with a 10 yr old. How old are you anyway?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 7 2008, 11:25 PM
Post #54



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 7 2008, 08:04 AM) *
That the building had windows with something like 2 foot spacing is not a theory, it is a fact.

1.02 meter [3.3464566929 ft] perimeter column centers according to this post #8 Amazed:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10747239

According to my Boeing-supplied B767-200 CAD drawing, the fuselage "tube" is "Delta Y = 17'-9"." Wingspan is "Delta X = 156'-1" "

EDIT: Turbofan centerline-centerline "axis" distance measured "Delta X = 52'-0 11/16" " in the CAD drawing for B767-200, and the fuselage appears to be slightly "narrower" than it is tall (16 feet and change "wide").
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skyarcher
post Dec 8 2008, 07:48 AM
Post #55





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 16-November 08
Member No.: 3,991



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 7 2008, 10:09 PM) *
lol... did he really say that? Especially regarding WTC witnesses? Wait, let me rub my eyes and read it again...

(rubbing eyes and focusing on the above quote...)

... yep... it appears he really doesnt know there are witnesses to the WTC impacts...

Wow, and i thought GL's were ignorant.

Start here Skyarcher..

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....15628&st=20

Then when you're done with that, pay for a trip to downtown NYC if you dont live there (as did CIT to Arlington), and ask around (as did CIT in Arlington). Im sure you'll find many. Let us know when you have conflicting witnesses statements regarding flight path and impact (as does CIT at the pentagon).


Skyarcher,

Are you going to do some actual research or are you just here to spout your nonsense and continue to expose your ignorance?

Hey, here's an idea, how about actually reading this forum before engaging your fingers?

If it becomes a problem, i can arrange it to help you actually read the forum instead of spouting off based on prejudice. Kind of like a parent would do with a 10 yr old. How old are you anyway?




This is a murder. I asked you to point me to a place where I could read the testimonies of witnesses to this murder.
You direct me back to pilots for truth website? 6 people? 2 of these high up in their organisation( funny handshakes and all lohttp://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gifl)?I thought you said their were 'thousands' of witnesses.
I will ask you again. You make the claim that their are thousands of witnesses to this murder. Where are their testimonies?
You have not answered any of the claims I have made regarding the video under discussion in this thread. Instead of actually replying you choose to continually insult me and engage in name calling? what was that you said about a 10 year old child?
Now since you have changed the topic away from tv fakery and introduced the topic of witnesses, your claim of thousands of witnesses ( your argument goes that all these SAW planes ) must have been based on something factual otherwise you would be talking rubbish.

Many people did not see any plane, or thought they saw a missile, or thought they saw something other than a large jet.
You do not mention this.


In fact , this gentleman is actually under the tower and being interviewed by the BBC. He sees an explosion. He does not mention a plane. The anchor interviewing him does not mention a plane or see one either..and is prompted about a plane near the end.

..take a look..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB7ehoL_67Y

Here again, no plane , the anchor says 'we have just had another explosion'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZR4Jfx9dmc

You can choose to ignore this if you want.

Infact , the people who were interviewed that morning on TV and said that they DID see a plane were all connected with the MSM broadcasters..producers, employees etc. Sean Murtagh (CNN), Owen moogen, Mark obenhaus, Dr. atlasberg, mark birenbach (fox), Eric shaun (fox) Jeane yurman (cnn) don dahler (abc .. actually he says missile).....

Take a look.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UchCRAR7tc


Skyarcher.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 8 2008, 11:23 AM
Post #56





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Thanks dMole--1 meter spacing.

Skyarcher

I hope all of your attention in regards to studying the events of the day are not concentrated on video analysis, but it appears to be the case, judging from your statement above.

There must have been hundreds, if not thousands, of people who saw 175 strike the building. Many people not associated with the media recorded part of it with their own cameras, still and video. From many different angles and perspectives.

I'm still willing to entertain that some sort of hologram was employed on the masses, but there is no convincing evidence of that yet.

Ultimately, your questions about the mysteries of video lead to the suggestion that there was no airplane. Mysteries of videos do not really prove very much.

I wonder if you believe that images of the Virgin Mary on pieces of burnt toast mean that she really existed?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 8 2008, 11:52 AM
Post #57



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (skyarcher @ Dec 8 2008, 06:48 AM) *
... funny handshakes and all...


You ask for witnesses, we give you 6 to start with that are right here in this forum section, then you make the excuse to not contact them because they have a "funny handshake"? You have proof of that "handshake"?

QUOTE
I will ask you again. You make the claim that their are thousands of witnesses to this murder.


And i will tell you again...

....pay for a trip to downtown NYC if you dont live there (as did CIT to Arlington), and ask around (as did CIT in Arlington). Im sure you'll find many. Let us know when you have conflicting witnesses statements regarding flight path and impact (as does CIT at the pentagon).

Now since we are going in circles, and you apparently need people to hold your hand to get you "witness statements" (is that you Ace?) which are right here on this forum, then make excuses to not contact them (funny handshakes), you are on vacation in hopes you will do more study and be more prepared sans absurd excuse.

(i'll email this to Skyarcher with his suspension notice).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 8 2008, 02:28 PM
Post #58



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 2 2008, 01:43 PM) *
Personally, im puzzled by the wing tips. As they are much more 'fragile' when compared to steel and the wing root. But again, i would like to get Richard Gage's take on the outer perimeter materials, thickness, strength, etc... i may contact him myself soon as i'll need to consult for our upcoming presentation Pandora's Black Box - Chapter IV - Flight of American 11 and United 175. We will be using 3D scale modeling as used in 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon....

For those interested parties, here are some more values pulled out of the Boeing-supplied B767-200 CAD drawing:

NOTE: All values are approximate as the CAD drawing was rather coarse, not well-dimensioned, and there may be some very slight "scaling" issues inherent in the original Boeing file.

approx. turbofan intake area [inside nacelle fairing, and the axial turbine shaft(s) would likely become a much smaller "penetrator" projectile in an impact IMHO] : Area = 6996.9781" sq. (48.5901' sq.) [4.514170391 m^2], Circumference = 24'-8 1/2"
turbofan intake radius: 3'-11 3/16"

approx. fuselage tube area (circular approximation of slightly "elliptical" fuselage tube): "Area = 32830.9587" sq. (227.9928' sq.), [21.1812213149 m^2], Circumference = 53'-6 5/16" "

approx. wing "stub box" for 1 wing stub [should be x2 for BOTH wing stubs, out to turbofan pylon] = "Area = 11520.3553" sq. (80.0025' sq.), [7.4324724253 m^2], Perimeter = 58'-7 1/2" "
approx wing "tip" area for 1 wing [should be x2 for BOTH]: 10731.7474" sq. (74.5260' sq.), [6.9236941526 m^2], Perimeter = 105'-10 1/8"
approx. horizontal stabilizer area for 1 horizontal stabilizer [should be x2 for BOTH]: " = 3404.5113" sq. (23.6424' sq.), [2.1964545103 m^2], Perimeter = 47'-8 3/4" "

approx. vertical stabilizer area [1 only]: "Area = 5899.1968" sq. (40.9666' sq.), [3.8059258075 m^2], Perimeter = 58'-9 5/8" "

NOTE: These were all approximate values taken fairly quickly from the frontal "cross sectional" view of the B767-200 CAD drawing obtained from Boeing's public website. "Cross sectional" area is but one value needed for rather complex "penetration" and/or "shear" calculations that should probably be done on Finite Element Analysis software if reasonable values were known. The specific material properties of the alleged AA11 and UA175 are not known, as no conclusive aircraft identification has ever been made, and these are likely Boeing-proprietary information. "Standard" values for various aluminum alloys are publicly available though.
----------------
Some information on WTC perimeter columns has been posted at #42 (with addendum at #45):
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10750078

Related thread is at:
Wtc 1,2, & 7 Building Descriptions
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13091
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 8 2008, 03:26 PM
Post #59



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



On the perimeter columns, it appears that there might be a discrepancy in the 1.02 meter "center" versus "adjacent flange" spacing interval at post#41:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10750076

I'll let the reader determine which value is "accurate," as this isn't the first discrepancy found in NIST values by several persons.

"NIST NCSTAR1-3 Section 2.3.1 covers Perimeter Columns of the 9th through 107th floors [55 of 184 in PDF, p.7]
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

Paraphrasing (since it won't copy/paste from the PDF):

14 different grades of steel were used, ranging from 36ksi to 100ksi in yield strength (F_y). [54 of 184, p. 6]

Flange spacing = 40.0 inch [1.02 m] between adjacent perimeter flange plates.

Spandrel thickness ranged from 0.375 to 1.375 inch, with spandrels 52 inches high [1.32 m], and the inner web was not present in the spandrel area (see Figs 2-3 and 2-4).

Perimeter flanges varied from 0.250 to 3.00 inch thick [57 of 184, p. 9]"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 11 2008, 05:07 PM
Post #60





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



So is it safe to say that the vertical windows in the towers were 2 feet wide?

I was in the buildings several times just as a tourist and remember only the windows being very narrow.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th October 2014 - 01:35 AM