Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
911 explained in simple terms. Newtonian physics vs Lying pre scripted witnesses (Original Post) wildbilln864 Mar 2015 OP
"Trust us. We wouldn't LIE to you." blkmusclmachine Mar 2015 #1
Simple BS terms. superbeachnut Mar 2015 #2
The title is a lie William Seger Mar 2015 #3
Planes are fragile Politicalboi Mar 2015 #7
Planes are fragile, water is liquid William Seger Mar 2015 #8
Schlock Holmes and the Case of the Missing Jetliner Parts William Seger Mar 2015 #4
Here's what really pisses me off about 9/11 conspiracists, BTW William Seger Mar 2015 #5
yawn.... wildbilln864 Mar 2015 #6

superbeachnut

(381 posts)
2. Simple BS terms.
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 03:48 AM
Mar 2015

Jets going 483.5 knots at impact to knock holes in buildings, it is called physics. The video has no physics, only BS; and physics proves it.
A perfect video of crackpot claims for Creative Speculation (Group).

William Seger

(11,031 posts)
3. The title is a lie
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 08:10 AM
Mar 2015

He doesn't even attempt to explain his misconceptions about Newtonian physics and strength of materials. If he did so, it would be a lot easier to point out where he went wrong, but waterjet cutting tools prove that steel and even titanium will yield when the applied forces reach a critical level, regardless of what material is applying the "F=ma" force. His "logic" reminds me of the grade-school riddle about which weighs more, a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks, but that one stumps some people, too.



Nonetheless, this test project is a great idea, and I strongly encourage all DU "no-planers" to donate as much as you can and (truthfully!) report here how much you pledged. Here's you opportunity to put your money where your imaginary physics are, wildbill!
 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
7. Planes are fragile
Thu Mar 26, 2015, 10:05 PM
Mar 2015

Planes break away at impact, but yet no plane debris at impact at towers. The debris at Pentagon is a joke. Plane engines are 9 feet tall not knee high to a fireman. The "planes" were traveling at sea level speeds. The planes would of had resistance upon impact. And why plan for years only to be told no box cutters on board so you choose to fly over military bases to get to NY instead of flying out of JFK. Breaking necks is just as horrific as slicing them.

This video here shows the second attack on the towers. Notice how fast it penetrates with no resistance, no debris. Now go back to the 18 second mark and watch frame by frame till impact. No plane could slice through those towers without breaking up. And out of 4 "planes" there should be a shit load of seats. Where are they? Where are the charred frames and the untouched ones? Where are the pictures of seats. And why no try at reconstruction. It's what the FAA does.

William Seger

(11,031 posts)
8. Planes are fragile, water is liquid
Fri Mar 27, 2015, 03:15 AM
Mar 2015

... but given enough velocity, both will cut through steel. That fact doesn't disappear because you don't understand it.

> Planes break away at impact, but yet no plane debris at impact at towers

Before I waste time refuting that bullshit (for the second time tonight), I'll give you another opportunity to look for yourself. If you really can't find any evidence of plane debris at impact, come back and say so, and I'll be happy to demonstrate how poor your Google skills are.

> The debris at Pentagon is a joke. Plane engines are 9 feet tall not knee high to a fireman.

Your assertion is a joke. The engines on a 757 are about 7 feet in diameter, but that's before being smashed to bits. If you want to know the sizes of the bits, you'd need something like this to know what's inside:



Then it becomes possible to identify the parts seen in the Pentagon photos:



> The "planes" were traveling at sea level speeds. The planes would of had resistance upon impact. And why plan for years only to be told no box cutters on board so you choose to fly over military bases to get to NY instead of flying out of JFK. Breaking necks is just as horrific as slicing them.

I'm sorry, but that isn't coherent enough to respond to. What exactly are you trying to say?

> This video here shows the second attack on the towers. Notice how fast it penetrates with no resistance, no debris.

And another joke. That video doesn't have good enough resolution to even show the columns and windows, which were 30" on center. Why would you expect it to show the small debris produced by a high-speed collision? As for "how fast it penetrates," did you happen to notice how fast it was moving?

> No plane could slice through those towers without breaking up.

Agreed, and I think it's quite safe to say that none did slice through those towers without breaking up. But why almost all of it ended up inside the building is really not a mystery: it's called momentum.

By the way, are you aware that many thousands of people actually saw what that video shows, in real time with there own two eyes? "No planers" seem to come exclusively from a generation that grew up with their noses buried in video games, to the extent that they seem to have not developed much of a sense of what "reality" means to normal people.

> And out of 4 "planes" there should be a shit load of seats. Where are they? Where are the charred frames and the untouched ones? Where are the pictures of seats.

You asked that question in another thread, but apparently you didn't read a prior post that described what was found in the Pentagon. There actually is at least one public photo of a charred body in a seat in the Pentagon, and I'm surprised that even that one got out, for reasons that should be obvious to most people. But here's an interesting fact: there were over a thousand people involved in cleaning up the mess at the Pentagon and a similar number at Shanksville. How many of those people don't believe that jetliners crashed at those sites? Apparently, the number is exactly zero. Perhaps they know considerably more about what was found at the crash sites than you?

> And why no try at reconstruction. It's what the FAA does.

It's what the FAA does in accident cases, to learn as much as possible about what caused the accidents, in hopes that such knowledge will improve air travel safety. Only a very small number of people don't know what caused the 9/11 plane crashes, but no reconstruction would be of any help to them.


William Seger

(11,031 posts)
4. Schlock Holmes and the Case of the Missing Jetliner Parts
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 08:59 AM
Mar 2015

@1:17: "in each case, no physical evidence of a large jetliner can be seen" said Schlock Holmes after examining a few web photos from outside the buildings and the Shanksville crater. "Elementary!" exclaimed Dr. Watson, "You have to look inside!" But Schlock wasn't listening; he had already moved on to the next mystery.

William Seger

(11,031 posts)
5. Here's what really pisses me off about 9/11 conspiracists, BTW
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 11:56 AM
Mar 2015

After putting up Newton's three laws in this video, this guy makes arguments that violate all three. As I said above, the Second Law formula does not include any term that says a mass of aluminum behaves differently from a mass of steel: In a collision, any object will exert a force proportional to its mass times its acceleration. (In a collision, we usually say deceleration, but both mean a change in velocity and F=ma still applies.) The Third Law tells us that when two objects collide, they both receive equal force, and to assert that aluminum can't cut steel in a high-speed collision is to assert that some mysterious violation of the Third Law prevents the aluminum from imparting enough force to cut through the steel. And of course, the First Law tells us why we should expect to find most of the planes inside the buildings, which apparently baffles this guy.

But nonetheless, this guy has the chutzpah to title his video, "911 explained in simple terms. Newtonian physics vs Lying pre scripted witnesses." In other words, after making a complete fool of himself over Newtonian physics, he is accusing ordinary citizens who happened to witness the plane crashes of being accessories to a mass murder. Some 9/11 conspiracists go so far as to accuse some members of victims' families of being accessories, but ALL "truthers" necessarily level such accusations of murder or complicity against someone, whether it's against the witnesses, the people who cleaned up the messes, the airline companies, the FAA, the military, FBI, CIA, FDNY, NYPD, FEMA, NIST, experts from academia and private industry, and the 9/11 Commission. I've even seen accusations that a Red Cross volunteer was counting down the WTC7 "controlled demolition!" Holy shit, how much does it take before you realize how crazy that sounds to rational people?

Someone in this thread would like us to believe that all the 9/11 "lies" originate from Bush and Cheney, who concocted an insanely complicated and risky plot and then apparently have some secret means of coercing this murderous complicity from hundreds or thousands of ordinary people (but not a one of the ones who were approached had the common decency to expose the plot), and then somehow Bush and Cheney prevented any one of them from confessing for 13 years so far.

And yet, time after time after time, we find that the basis for these accusations is willful ignorance and stupidity. And then, even people who simply point out the ignorance and stupidity are accused of being "shills," which would mean they are also accessories to murder, after the fact.

And then, people who make such accusations based on willful ignorance and stupidity expect their "truth" to be treated with respect. Please tell me why you think the debate over these unfounded accusations ought to be "civil."

No, your behavior is uncivil in the first place. Regardless of what you believe or suspect, when you publicly accuse thousands of people of murder and complicity, then calling unsubstantiated speculations "truth" is not nearly good enough. When you have something much better than that -- say, some credible evidence -- then I will give it the respect that actual evidence deserves. For sure, when I myself am accused of complicity in covering up a murder and being a thrall to Bush and Cheney (who in my opinion were the most disastrous administration in our history), that pisses me off. But the bigger issue is that conspiracism is a disease that causes such behavior on an ever-widening scale -- whatever it takes to keep the "theory" alive -- and it undermines our entire democracy and civil society.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»911 explained in simple t...