The Difference Between Real & Fake Plane Crashes

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

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



Remember folks, steel and concrete skyscrapers can only swallow aluminum jet airliners IN CARTOONS.

[Thurston Howell III]

1. This is just ridiculous!

The two barriers are not the same. One is solid concrete and the other is aluminum.

The footage in the CNN tape shows a much heavier plane. Oh Jesus nevermind.


Yes I am a member of the conspiracy to suppress all information about 911. Just in case you were going to say that.

[nebula]

2. The towers made of aluminum?

hahaha, that's a good one.

Seriously though, it would be more accurate to say the plane was made of aluminum. Aluminum is the ideal material for aircraft because aluminum is lightweight. The towers were steel and concrete, much denser and stronger than aluminum.

[hack89]

3. What do you think the skin of the WTC was made of?

The WTC was a steel framed building clad with aluminum.

[nebula]

6. Aluminum

That's like saying a house is made of aluminum because it has aluminum siding, lol.

[sabbat hunter]

19. The only concrete

in the WTC in in the footings/foundation of the buildings.

The rest was steel, aluminum.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

7. Aluminum? Let me guess...

...the towers were constructed by stacking thousands upon thousands of empty Mountain Dew soda cans atop one another, all stuck together with Play-Doh and then plastered over with a skim coat of Velveeta cheese? Maybe you should have a look at how the towers were constructed:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=__gUjUv1vvw

From 2:02 - 2:07 you can see workers postioning a section of the load bearing outer walls -- do you seriously believe an aluminum commercial jetliner was able to just slice right through this (steel not aluminum) structure without any discernible bending, crumpling, shearing, or deceleration?

ONLY in a cartoon, Thurston.

[Thurston Howell III]

8. You'reonly imagining what I said.

[Sweet Pea]

13. Trust a No-Planer...

to claim there was no bending, crumpling, shearing or deceleration in the impact.

All those things did happen, but the concept of them happening in a nanosecond (how fast will 150 tons at 750 feet per second go through 14" of 3/4" steel?) somehow escapes the vast unwashed masses.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

14. "I'm on board"...

...exclaimed Sweet Pea in post #5 of a recent proposal to not respond to no planes threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x195747#195761es

That sure didn't last long.

Do you have any idea how small a time interval a nanosecond is? I don't think you do. It's one billionth of a second.

It takes light over 3 nanoseconds just to travel 1 meter. The notion that the bending, crumpling, shearing, and deceleration crash physics, all of which would have been frame-by-frame observable if any planes had actually been videoed crashing into the towers, is among the most mind numbingly ignorant suggestions I've ever read in this forum -- and that's saying a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanosecond

Would it kill you to actually do a little reading/research once in a while BEFORE you post? ? But I suppose that would be asking too much of an OCTer -- Long live the fairytale, 19 Arabs with box cutters, right?

[Sweet Pea]

15. I'm Still On Board

as a general principle. I am occasionally reminded of this adaptation to an old saying, though:

‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of stupidity is for smart men to do nothing.’

Sometimes you simply *cant* say nothing.

And as far as "nanosecond" being used in the context it was used in, I'm not surprised that hyperbole as an expression of literary prose is something you would not understand. I can understand, however, how much your brain must be hurting now that you have had to do the math and realizing that yes, a "nanosecond" is not the time frame that a 150 ton body traveling at 750 feet per second (or 9000 inches per second) will take to traverse a distance of 14 and 3/8" inches, (not counting the aluminum cladding on the outside and whatever internal finishing treatments on the inside, which would add an unknown but insignificant further amount of distance and material to pass through) which is the distance the aircraft would have go to penetrate the outer wall of the building.

Just for you, I'll make sure to use nothing but exact and precise verbiage in the future when I feel the need to correct any of your statements of false pronouncements.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

16. What kind of convoluted BS is that?...

...You just go from lame to lamer to lamest.

[Sweet Pea]

17. LOL...

You're a keeper, Jeff!

Get back with us when you finish your English as a Second Language course.

[sabbat hunter]

27. yeah because

Ay-rabs with box cutters could never hijack a plane! :sarcasm:

You realize that a box cutter is a deadly weapon and can easily cut a juggler or carotid artery right?

[sabbat hunter]

18. have you ever

seen pictures of straw driven thru trees, or a board driven thru a concrete wall after a hurricane. They seem to pass right on thru dont the?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

20. Those are not valid analogies...

...the aluminum jetliner would break apart as it crashed AGAINST a steel and concrete skyscraper -- not disappear into it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. Straw? Meet Potato. Potato? Straw.

It's really a neat experiment. Quickly pushing a hollow plastic tube through the skin, then the meat of the potato. When done right, the straw doesn't even wrinkle, much less bend, split, or break.

Could a tube-like airplane fuselage be in the slightest way analagous to the straw in the potato demonstration??

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

22. Best. Strawman. Evar.

Straw Through Potato

The secret is inside the straw: it's air! Placing your thumb over the end of the straw traps the air inside. When you trap the air inside the straw, the air molecules compress and give the straw strength; which in turn keeps the sides from bending as you jam the straw through the potato. The trapped, compressed air makes the straw strong enough to cut through the skin, pass through the potato, and out the other side. Without your thumb covering the hole, the air is simply pushed out of the straw and it crumples and breaks as it hits the hard potato surface.

http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/00000170

Care to explain how the front of the 'plane' was still hermetically sealed once it impacted the building?

You see the potato is a relatively 'solid' object, the WTC towers were not. Also the potato is filled with water, which helps to keep the air compressed in the straw. Try stabbing your straw through a dry, stale kaiser bun and let us know what happens and why.

You might be able to try to use your 'strawman' argument as the mechanism that allowed 'Flight 93' to burrow into the ground, as the ground is more akin to the 'solid' potato, but that scenario does not apply at the WTC.

Thanks for playing.

[sabbat hunter]

23. once again

there was no concrete in the WTC except for its footing near the bottom.


Are you saying that a plane should have smashed against it and fell to the ground, crumpled up, like a stepped on soda can?

[SDuderstadt]

24. That you would even have to ask this question...

is evidence of how pointless it is to try to reason with "truthers". For the most part, their bizarre (and frankly goofy) theories proceed from a fundamental lack of understanding about how physics and science work.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

25. So tell me what is it...

...you think these workers are doing from 2:20 to 2:45 in this video on construction of the towers? Finishing off the footing perhaps?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KCbu3CvD3h8&feature=related

Here's part 1 of this video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=__gUjUv1vvw&feature=related

You really should watch ALL of 1 and 2. It's pretty interesting and if you can come away from that still thinking a large commercial jetliner made of aluminum is going to slam into the side one of these structures and just disappear into it leaving a cartoon cutout of itself -- well, then maybe you ought to have look at Wiki's treatment of the term "denial."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

I'm saying there would have been observable crumpling and deformation, wings, tail section, and stabilizer would have sheared off, and most of the plane would not have made it into the building. I'm saying the videos are fake.

Here's what happened when birds met the nose cone of a jet in midair:



Your common sense alone should be more than enough to tell you the 9-11 plane videos aired by mainstream media are fake.

[sabbat hunter]

26. let me repeat

there is no structural concrete above the footings in the WTC. the only concrete was lightweight forms for hte floor. Not meant to as part of the structure.


And I will ask you this again. What about the people on the site that saw the second plane and it smash into the building? there are hundreds if not thousands that saw this.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

28. Let me repeat?

You didn't repeat, you altered your first statement from this:

sabbat hunter: "there was no concrete in the WTC except for its footing near the bottom."

to this:

sabbat hunter: "there is no structural concrete above the footings in the WTC. the only concrete was lightweight forms for hte floor. Not meant to as part of the structure."

First Sweet Pea tries to explain why we're unable to observe any crumpling, bending, or deceleration in the 9-11 fake plane videos with the astounding claim that it all took place over the course of a single nanosecond (post 13), and now you're grudgingly conceding, in the face of irrefutable evidence, that they did in fact use concrete but only the "lightweight" kind, and apparently not for any structural purpose.

:rofl:

Reading OCTer BS is like listening to the kind of tale you get from a kid standing next to a broken vase with the basketball he'd been bouncing still in his hands -- "Ummm, who me? Oh no, what happened was...well, first of all, I wasn't even in here, and then...I was, ummm, and then the cat came in and jumped up into the vase, and I was way over there... and that's how it broke."

[sabbat hunter]

31. the concrete used

in the floors was not structural concrete. it is why it pulverized to dust when the building collapsed.

Learn the difference between structural concrete and lightweight concrete.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

32. First you say no concrete except for the footings...

...then when you're shown proof to the contrary, rather than acknowledge your inaccurate claim you simply modify it, all the while providing no supporting source links or reference of any kind -- not very credible.

[sabbat hunter]

34. how about this

that you put up proof that there was structural concrete used (ie steel reinforced columns, etc)

[sabbat hunter]

30. the empire state building

is an example of a steel and concrete tower, and even then, when hit by a small plane, the plane didnt crumple and hit the ground but entered it.

But in the WTC unlike the empire state building does not have structural concrete except for its footings.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

33. Not so fast...

A piece of straw can penetrate all the way through a palm tree if propelled by hurricane-force winds.

Busted

Propelling a piece of straw at a palm tree at a distance of 50cm at 320mph (the world record for recorded wind speed at ground level), the straw only managed to penetrate the tree a quarter of an inch. Even firing at the tree while it was bent (to increase the size of the pores in the surface of the tree) at point blank range added no additional distance into the tree. A piece of reed was tested as the sturdiest organic object that might be mistaken for a piece of straw. At both ranges, the reed only managed to go about two inches into the tree. Additionally, Jamie tried a piece of piano wire, and at 50 cm, it flew not only through the tree but through a sheet of plywood on the wall behind it, partially embedding itself into the cement wall.
http://mythbustersresults.com/episode61

As to a board being driven through concrete, that is a disingenuous comparison, as a board is relatively 'solid' object and airliners are not.

Where would were you put the passengers, cargo, electronics, pilots, etc if the body of the plane was not hollow?

[angstlessk]

9. BUT are you a paying member or a paid member?

we know who you are and we know what you did..never forget that!










































BOO!

[Thurston Howell III]

11. They pay me a HUGH!!11!! amount.

[angstlessk]

12. OMFG...that 'Benny Lava' film is totally outrageous..I could hear it

without subtitles and still hear those words now! That is hilarious!!11!!

[BadgerLaw2010]

5. The Twin Towers had several foot thick reinforced concrete barriers as exterior walls?

And that fighter is going 500 mph and masses as much as a jumbo jet?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

29. No and no -- and therefore what?

[angstlessk]

10. Hell, the building almost did not stop it..thought it was going to come out the other

side and land at Laguardia Airport..OOPS JFK

[jedphoenix]

35. Oh, I get it!

What you are trying to say is that if the Bush Administration had not removed the meter-thick reinforced concrete walls that surrounded the entire exterior of the WTC buildings the planes could never have penetrated the buildings and thousands would have been saved.

Man, was I a dope! And to think that I actually believed that Bush was innocent.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

36. I don't think you do get it, Jed...

...but thanks for dropping by just the same, and welcome to DU.

:hi: