WTC Collapse, It's not adding up (1 Viewer)

[zyzygy]

The notion that one could see a subsonic ball of x-rays belies a lack of knowledge of physics that is astounding in it's level of ignorance.

He's a truther. What else did you expect?

 

[Deuce]

The notion that one could see a subsonic ball of x-rays belies a lack of knowledge of physics that is astounding in it's level of ignorance.

Oh, and that "Hani maneuver," a less-than-standard turn rate and then straight line dive. Totally impossible, Deuce doesn't know anything about aerodynamics! Diving in a straight line is an incredible feat of aviating! Hitting a target several times the size of a normal runway crossing requires immense skill!

Deuce, who literally taught aerodynamics classes, wouldn't know anything about that.

For the layman: crashing is easy. Any idiot can mash a plane nose-first into a runway. Doing it softly is precision work.

 

[Quag]

Oh, and that "Hani maneuver," a less-than-standard turn rate and then straight line dive. Totally impossible, Deuce doesn't know anything about aerodynamics! Diving in a straight line is an incredible feat of aviating! Hitting a target several times the size of a normal runway crossing requires immense skill!

Deuce, who literally taught aerodynamics classes, wouldn't know anything about that.

For the layman: crashing is easy. Any idiot can mash a plane nose-first into a runway. Doing it softly is precision work.

But but but Ground Effect!!!!!

 

[Thoreau72]

The notion that one could see a subsonic ball of x-rays belies a lack of knowledge of physics that is astounding in it's level of ignorance.

Yes, just like in 1400 the notion that the earth is the center of the universe was also astounding in its ignorance, or that the earth was actually a globe. Astounding. :lamo

 

[zyzygy]

Yes, just like in 1400 the notion that the earth is the center of the universe was also astounding in its ignorance, or that the earth was actually a globe. Astounding. :lamo

That has nothing to do with your ignorance of physics and aviation. Now, about your alternative explanation of the events of 911......

 

[Deuce]

Yes, just like in 1400 the notion that the earth is the center of the universe was also astounding in its ignorance, or that the earth was actually a globe. Astounding. :lamo

A comparison that is both hysterical and utterly confounding in its arrogance. You're going to compare yourself to the pioneers of science? Ok, Copernicus. Show us this evidence you've gathered that will upend virtually all of physics. This could win you, like, all the nobel prizes. Disprove everything about light.

Geocentricism wasn't a scientific concept. People hadn't gathered evidence to test the idea. They hadn't made any hypotheses or predictions based on it. They just assumed it to be true. The flat earth model is a religious idea, observations had disproved that notion since... like, Plato?

To compare those situations to the electromagnetic spectrum is just desperate. The speed of light isn't some gut feeling people went with because they'd never critically assessed it. The visible spectrum isn't based on anyone's religion.

Look at a rainbow and tell me where the x-rays are. Inner or outer edge? In the middle?

You've gone with some whoppers in the past, Thoreau, but this here I think creates a new conspiracy theory. Is Thoreau72 really a truther at all, or is this some elaborate hoax?

 

[Quag]

A comparison that is both hysterical and utterly confounding in its arrogance. You're going to compare yourself to the pioneers of science? Ok, Copernicus. Show us this evidence you've gathered that will upend virtually all of physics. This could win you, like, all the nobel prizes. Disprove everything about light.

Geocentricism wasn't a scientific concept. People hadn't gathered evidence to test the idea. They hadn't made any hypotheses or predictions based on it. They just assumed it to be true. The flat earth model is a religious idea, observations had disproved that notion since... like, Plato?

To compare those situations to the electromagnetic spectrum is just desperate. The speed of light isn't some gut feeling people went with because they'd never critically assessed it. The visible spectrum isn't based on anyone's religion.

Look at a rainbow and tell me where the x-rays are. Inner or outer edge? In the middle?

You've gone with some whoppers in the past, Thoreau, but this here I think creates a new conspiracy theory. Is Thoreau72 really a truther at all, or is this some elaborate hoax?

No hes a true believer. Left all logic and common sense behind to live in his fantasy world where all the problems in his life are the fault of the ebil US govt.
He probably even believes he's an actual pilot

 

[zyzygy]

That has nothing to do with your ignorance of physics and aviation. Now, about your alternative explanation of the events of 911......

And answer came there none.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes, just like in 1400 the notion that the earth is the center of the universe was also astounding in its ignorance, or that the earth was actually a globe. Astounding. :lamo

If you prefer the science of 1400 then that would explain your utter nonsense concerning modern phtsics.

 

[Thoreau72]

If you prefer the science of 1400 then that would explain your utter nonsense concerning modern phtsics.

Should I take seriously the comments of one unable to spell the word? I think not. eace

 

[mike2810]

Should I take seriously the comments of one unable to spell the word? I think not. eace

Are you saying you have never made a spelling error on this forum? eace

Why don't you challenge Tony on the details of the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. Tony has stated he does not believe "nukes" were used. You believe nukes were used.
It would be interesting to see what each of you have to say.

It is interesting that after 16+ years there is no one concise controlled demolition explanation. Maybe someday the CD people will be able to prove what they believe, but I doubt it.

 

[zyzygy]

Are you saying you have never made a spelling error on this forum? eace

Why don't you challenge Tony on the details of the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. Tony has stated he does not believe "nukes" were used. You believe nukes were used.
It would be interesting to see what each of you have to say.

It is interesting that after 16+ years there is no one concise controlled demolition explanation. Maybe someday the CD people will be able to prove what they believe, but I doubt it.

It didn't happen so how can they prove the different its?

 

[Deuce]

Should I take seriously the comments of one unable to spell the word? I think not. eace

I'm still waiting for your evidence that overturns virtually all of physics by suggesting x-rays in the atmosphere can be visible, and subsonic.

Should I take you seriously if you can't do that? I think not. eace

 

[mike2810]

It didn't happen so how can they prove the different its?

That is for them to explain. :mrgreen:

Might as well say the buildings were destroyed by a zombie apocalypse.

 

[ecofarm]

A few counter-CT posts were good.

So now the guy who thinks hitting the world's largest office building is an amazing feat of aviation thinks specific floors were targeted by aircraft.

The target being planned, an area was presumably aimed for with regard to structural integrity. Perhaps as low as the plane could get or something more specific. As far as who rented on those floors (I don't believe any Truth claim), I think structural concerns would trump such subtle jabs.

 

[Thoreau72]

I'm still waiting for your evidence that overturns virtually all of physics by suggesting x-rays in the atmosphere can be visible, and subsonic.

Should I take you seriously if you can't do that? I think not. eace

I'm still waiting for you to ask an intelligent question. Happy Holidays. Thankfully I'm not holding my breath.

 

[zyzygy]

I'm still waiting for you to ask an intelligent question. Happy Holidays. Thankfully I'm not holding my breath.

You brought up the hilarious X ray subsonic balls. Run away yet again.

 

[Deuce]

I'm still waiting for you to ask an intelligent question. Happy Holidays. Thankfully I'm not holding my breath.

"How can someone possibly see x-rays, and how can light travel at subsonic speeds" are unintelligent questions? Really? Pointing out basic laws of physics that the entire world rests upon is an unintelligent argument?

Ok, professor. I'm so unintelligent, you're so wise. Tell me how x-rays can be seen with the human eye, and tell me how they would travel at subsonic speeds.

 

[Thoreau72]

"How can someone possibly see x-rays, and how can light travel at subsonic speeds" are unintelligent questions? Really? Pointing out basic laws of physics that the entire world rests upon is an unintelligent argument?

Ok, professor. I'm so unintelligent, you're so wise. Tell me how x-rays can be seen with the human eye, and tell me how they would travel at subsonic speeds.

Neither you nor I were involved in the Star Wars Initiative under Reagan. I was not, and I assume you were not.

Therefore, neither of us are privy to what was learned there.

On this issue, I made it clear from my first post on that I was offering speculation and theory, as were the more informed writers at VT.

You misrepresent my position by posting that I was certain about this. That misrepresentation is typical for you Deuce, and your brave posts against torture do not quite compensate for your dishonest style of posting here.

Maybe it was an xray laser, maybe it was not. Is that too subtle for you to understand?

More importantly, are you honest enough to admit your mischaracterization? Likely not.

 

[Deuce]

Neither you nor I were involved in the Star Wars Initiative under Reagan. I was not, and I assume you were not.

Therefore, neither of us are privy to what was learned there.

On this issue, I made it clear from my first post on that I was offering speculation and theory, as were the more informed writers at VT.

You misrepresent my position by posting that I was certain about this. That misrepresentation is typical for you Deuce, and your brave posts against torture do not quite compensate for your dishonest style of posting here.

Maybe it was an xray laser, maybe it was not. Is that too subtle for you to understand?

More importantly, are you honest enough to admit your mischaracterization? Likely not.

So, your suggestion is that it's possible for literally all of physics to be wrong and because I'm not involved in one specific research program, I can't categorically claim your theory to be impossible.

It was definitely not an xray laser because xrays do not remotely behave in this fashion. You have absolutely no reason to expect it was an xray laser. None of the observable evidence is consistent with an xray laser. The observable evidence even contradicts the xray laser concept. Your basis for saying it might have been an xray laser is "all of physics can be wrong."

In that case, it might have been an invisible godzilla. Sure, there's video of something clearly visible, which might lead one away from "invisible anything" ideas, but maybe invisible things are actually visible now because **** it physics doesn't matter. You might even object on the basis that Godzilla doesn't fly, and the object in the video was clearly airborne. But you don't really know how invisible Godzilla moves, you haven't been involved in that research.

Was that too subtle? Maybe it was a freeze-ray! Sure, the response was clearly a fire, but maybe freezing causes fire. Who cares if the observable evidence contradicts my theories?

 

[Thoreau72]

No Deuce, it wasn't too subtle, but it was typical of your wandering mind and nonsensical posts.

 

[Deuce]

No Deuce, it wasn't too subtle, but it was typical of your wandering mind and nonsensical posts.

"You can't see something outside the visible spectrum" isn't nonsense.

Xrays, by definition, aren't visible. Don't speculate on photon weapons when you aren't even familiar with the electromagnetic spectrum.

 

[zyzygy]

"You can't see something outside the visible spectrum" isn't nonsense.

Xrays, by definition, aren't visible. Don't speculate on photon weapons when you aren't even familiar with the electromagnetic spectrum.

He's trolling you. Ignore him.

 

[Mr Person]

I'm not sure what you mean, and I never memorized all the places it's happened over the world, even here in the US. In several, the buildings were fully or substantially in flame, and one of them burned for almost 24 hours I think.

None of them were struck by airplanes, but all were very engaged in fire. None collapsed. Many were put back into service.

The notion that the fires alone at WTC would cause what was finally observed, is preposterous.

Buildings that were not the WTC and were not damaged in the way that the WTC was damaged (necessarily so, being different) did not collapse, therefore the damage that uniquely happened to the unique WTC towers did not cause them to fall?

 

[Quag]

No Deuce, it wasn't too subtle, but it was typical of your wandering mind and nonsensical posts.

More nonsense from the fake pilot who believes in non exploding non radioactive mini-nukes that explode and emit radiation that are ignited by visible x ray cannon balls.
Is it possible for HD to come up with more absurd ideas?