they got jesus
ALTERNATIVE THEORIES V: The Build-a-bear Workshop
- Thread starter MyFinalRest
- Start date
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
The density of a 767 can increase in a crash.
MrGrunge
Bluelighter
Actually, if you get enough views on your videos Youtube will pay you money to become a partner. Considering Ace Baker's channel has over 2 million views, I think it's very likely he has benefited from people watching his videos. And even if he hasn't received money, attention alone is enough positive reinforcement to convince someone to continue posting conspiracy videos because there is clearly a market for it. You might as well get your scientific information from Facebook.
MyFinalRest
Bluelighter
Yes, the fusilage can compress. There's some material in there, but still not a great deal when compared to all the steel and concrete in the area it would have come in contact with. The compression of the airplane at impact would also absorb some of the impact energy, even if it increased density it means a loss of velocity at that point.
But, that's what's interesting about the video of it crashing into the tower - it shows zero compression when it supposedly "crashed" into the exterior of the building.
The give away is really those damn wings and the tail fin. The aluminum used to cover these lightly framed strucures in addition to the frame just lacks any density, and there's not a lot to compress under stress in those parts, but yet they cut right through the building with ease. I could fathom some busted and broken steel where the fusilage hit, but a full cookie cutter cutout of the enitre plane? No way.
We will watch it in slo-mo again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg
Just straight through...in this video, one of the elements - the plane or the building - was not corporeal. I'd say it was the plane. Nothing collides into a massive building and looks like that.
Here's a couple more views in slo-mo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLvoTuR2opg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNhyGjdlAU8
Last edited:
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
He could also benefit from it by promoting himself and his shit music.. Ace Baker is a musician.. he's not a physicist, engineer or even digital effect pro.. he's a musician.. surely that says something about him and his claims.
MFR.. The planes, no matter how light weight or seemingly weak (or whatever) they are.. they are still solid.
Wanna read something you might find interesting?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/question553.htm
NSFW:
I don't know why you're finding it so hard to believe that a plane could cut through (or break through) steel? I mean.. seriously? Why not? Instead of typing aluminium cut through steel in google (as you will just get a load of bs conspiracy shit) try typing in another seemingly weak material.. I mean.. Check out the link.. Water can cut through steel.. why couldn't a plane?
"Shows zero compression blahblahblah".. How many planes have you seen crash into the side of a *mostly* glass sky scraper? Please.. tell me why you think you think you know what it should look like..
Full cookie cutter cut out? What are you looking at? It looks EXACTLY like a plane hit a *mostly* glass sky scraper and exploded.. I mean.. I'm watching that slow mo vid and I'm seeing it crumple while smashing through into the building.. But I've never seen a plane fly straight into a *mostly* glass sky scraper.. so I could be wrong.. but I think it's more likely that YOU are.. seeing as loads of computer imaging experts would have heard this stupid theory and checked it ouy.. there's only ONE MUSICIAN saying that it's clearly a fake.. Mental.
MyFinalRest
Bluelighter
Some parts on them are solid, but dense things don't fly well. The frames used in the airliners are no match for the steel used in skyscrapers, and the aluminum skin is measured in gauges, i.e. it's thin.
It is not a wrecking ball with wings.
You wanna read something interesting from the link you posted?
So it's not water alone, but also fine grit abrasives cutting the harder materials. The jet stream is also providing constant pressure that does not let up. It only works because it's able to focus the maximum force of the water jets at a single point. If you widened the cutting width, you would lose PSI.
If the airplane magically compressed into a dense solid cylinder before it impact with the building, then it could have used the total sum of it's velocity and weight on one piece of steel and probably cut right through it, but that's not the case is it? Hundreds of pieces of thick steel vertical columns, wide horizontal steel spandrels, and steel reinforced concrete were impacted over a large area. The sum of the bulding strength at the impact was too great vs. the airplane force.
The glass used for the windows is irrelevant. Glass was not used as a structural element in the buildings.
Also this:
So Yamasaki didn't even choose to have large windows...let alone you can try to ignore that the steel exterior columns were spaced about only 3 feet apart with wide horizontal steel spandrels at every steel reinforced concrete floor. When you add up the total amount of building materials the 767 would have come in contact with, that plane doesn't seem like all that, and it would have had to been "all that" to slide right through steel like those videos show.
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
When i said solid i meant solid.. as in opposed to gas, liquid, plasma, etc..
The crappy little amounts of material could have possibly (if it even had to) compressed into a solid chunk.. all along the planes impact site..
My point in that link was something as soft as water could cut through something as solid as metal when enough force is applied.. I mean.. you can't sit there and claim to KNOW that the plane COULDN'T have cut through the steel without being a liar.. But, again, thousands of people study that day and find nothing out of the ordinary..
You talk about it as if you've done some undeniable mathematical equation.. how the fuck do you know is the "The sum of the bulding strength at the impact was too great vs. the airplane force".. i mean.. prove it? You're regurgitating somebodies claims and you (im guessing) are assuming them to be true..
I was saying mostly glass because the plane, mostly, crashed through glass windows into empty office space.
Going back to that computer animation i posed a few pages back.. That programme was build to model the physics aspect of the crash.. they then flew the plane into the building and it did what it did.. they didn't just make a random animation of what could have happened.. they didn't animate the steel breaking.. they programmed in the laws of physics required and then flew the plane into the side of the building.. it broke the steel supports.
Do you even realise how hard it would have been to place the bombs to exactly look like a Boeing had flown into the building? Why wouldn't they just fly a plane into the building? Why didn't they just plant fuck loads of bombs at the base of the towers, blow them up and blame the terrorists? Why the fuck would they go through all the unnecessary bullshit.. the planes, the passengers, the phone calls, the missing people, the video footage, etc etc when they could have just planted bombs and blamed the arabs? Hundreds if not thousands of people saw that second plane hit.. just because you can't find them doesn't mean they aren't there..
What do you think the recordings of phone calls are? Voice actors? Robots?.. Where do you think the missing people are? In on it? Where are the planes? Still making their rounds.. just in a "glasses, moustache and funny nose" disguise? Why is there fuck all evidence of nuclear explosions? Why has nobody come out and spoke about their knowledge? (A LOT of people would have been involved in your scooby doo fantasy plot)..
The crappy little amounts of material could have possibly (if it even had to) compressed into a solid chunk.. all along the planes impact site..
My point in that link was something as soft as water could cut through something as solid as metal when enough force is applied.. I mean.. you can't sit there and claim to KNOW that the plane COULDN'T have cut through the steel without being a liar.. But, again, thousands of people study that day and find nothing out of the ordinary..
You talk about it as if you've done some undeniable mathematical equation.. how the fuck do you know is the "The sum of the bulding strength at the impact was too great vs. the airplane force".. i mean.. prove it? You're regurgitating somebodies claims and you (im guessing) are assuming them to be true..
I was saying mostly glass because the plane, mostly, crashed through glass windows into empty office space.
Going back to that computer animation i posed a few pages back.. That programme was build to model the physics aspect of the crash.. they then flew the plane into the building and it did what it did.. they didn't just make a random animation of what could have happened.. they didn't animate the steel breaking.. they programmed in the laws of physics required and then flew the plane into the side of the building.. it broke the steel supports.
Do you even realise how hard it would have been to place the bombs to exactly look like a Boeing had flown into the building? Why wouldn't they just fly a plane into the building? Why didn't they just plant fuck loads of bombs at the base of the towers, blow them up and blame the terrorists? Why the fuck would they go through all the unnecessary bullshit.. the planes, the passengers, the phone calls, the missing people, the video footage, etc etc when they could have just planted bombs and blamed the arabs? Hundreds if not thousands of people saw that second plane hit.. just because you can't find them doesn't mean they aren't there..
What do you think the recordings of phone calls are? Voice actors? Robots?.. Where do you think the missing people are? In on it? Where are the planes? Still making their rounds.. just in a "glasses, moustache and funny nose" disguise? Why is there fuck all evidence of nuclear explosions? Why has nobody come out and spoke about their knowledge? (A LOT of people would have been involved in your scooby doo fantasy plot)..
MyFinalRest
Bluelighter
You seem to not be able to realize that the water jets are constantly moving against the object it is cutting, hence the "cutting" that is somewhat akin to the sawing motion of a sawblade. You don't cut a piece of wood by smacking it real hard with a saw blade. It's the repetitive motion that makes it cut through. With the water jet and the abrasives, it's very many repetitive attacks of abrasives propelled by the water per second that do the "cutting."
Now, if hundreds of planes were lined up directly behind each other and crashing into the building one after another there would be some serious damage!
The water jets don't cut by splashing a few high speed ounces of water at something.
You want some numbers? I'll give you some numbers.
The density of steel is approximately 7850kg/m3 and the Young's modulus is 210GPa or 30,000,000psi.
The density of steel reinforced concrete is approximately 2400kg/m3 and the Young's modulus is 26GPa or 3,770,981psi
The density of aluminum is approximately 2,700kg/m3 and the Young's modulus is 69GPa or 10,000,000psi.
Yeah, nevermind those...let's say it again...vertical steel columns spaced about 3' apart, the horizontal steel spandral plates, the steel-reinforced concrete floors, and the steel floor trusses it also ran into.
Doesn't seem so hard to me as long as you had the green light from Larry Silverstein.
Something could have gone wrong. The planes could have missed their targets and crashed somewhere else. Remember, only 14% of Japanese WWII kamikazes hit their marks. The large 767 airliners are not agile planes either. Remote control might not be that good and I doubt they could sign up skilled airline pilots to be suicide bombers.
It's an unlikely story that foreign Arabs could rig up tons of explosives in plain sight of securtiy officers or have access needed to the towers, it would have looked like an "inside job." Also, The drive up truck bomb thing didn't work before.
Also, where are they going to buy such powerful explosives? You can't go to Home Depot and buy RDX.
Just because I can't find them doesn't mean they ARE there either! hahahaha!
Last edited:
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
Those numbers mean fuck all..
Really? You think nobody would notice somebody rigging up a load of explosives?
Something could have gone wrong? That the only reason you can think of as to why they wouldn't just fly the plane into the building? You don't think there's a 1001 more things that could go wrong with your version of events? Come on..
Why is that unlikely? 1 or more got jobs in security.. the rest writes itself.
I've spoken to people that saw it.. I KNOW they are there.
And you seem to have missed out some of my questions?
Really? You think nobody would notice somebody rigging up a load of explosives?
Something could have gone wrong? That the only reason you can think of as to why they wouldn't just fly the plane into the building? You don't think there's a 1001 more things that could go wrong with your version of events? Come on..
Why is that unlikely? 1 or more got jobs in security.. the rest writes itself.
I've spoken to people that saw it.. I KNOW they are there.
And you seem to have missed out some of my questions?
MyFinalRest
Bluelighter
Hmmm...you are obviously from the UK and based on the times when you are on here, It seems like you operate on GMT.
We don't spell program like that.
Who did you talk to that was in New York on 9/11?
I'm sure they've been answered before.
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
... and?
Woop woop it's the grammar police -_-
Friends. Friends of friends. Friends family. Complete strangers.
Woop woop it's the grammar police -_-
Friends. Friends of friends. Friends family. Complete strangers.
MyFinalRest
Bluelighter
It's the grammer police? Haha, I'm the nationality police!
Had you actually mispelled program/programme it would be a spelling error, not a grammatical error. Besides...Escher is the grammar police around here, and you do definitely need your ass busted for all that terrible grammar too!
I live fairly close to NYC and have spoken to many people who live or lived in Manhatten during that time and I haven't had the pleasure of engaging any eyewitnesses to the event.
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
lol have you seen your indestructible steel columns?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrirlTw8c&feature=email
Shit son.. tbh I didn't even know they were hollow.. turns out the impact area pretty much EXACTLY resembles the pattern in which each section of the columns were installed.. they simply broke away from the bolts.
Irrelevant.. I've spoken to people that did see it.. A handful of people that didn't see it means nothing.. Thousands of people DID see it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrirlTw8c&feature=email
Shit son.. tbh I didn't even know they were hollow.. turns out the impact area pretty much EXACTLY resembles the pattern in which each section of the columns were installed.. they simply broke away from the bolts.
Irrelevant.. I've spoken to people that did see it.. A handful of people that didn't see it means nothing.. Thousands of people DID see it.
Last edited:
MyFinalRest
Bluelighter
That video is a fail. I've seen it before.
Even had they forced columns apart, how did it slip through the floors and odd shaped hole?
The slo-mo videos do not show a plane atomizing and exploding on the exterior of the building.
Look at this:
look at the nice diagonal cut where the left wing tip would have been!
Look, a perfect diagonal slice where the right wing tip would have been too! Not to mention that the tail fin knocked out as big of a chunk as the fusilage.
This animated image seems to ignore the damage on the right, but it indicated a wing stip cutting straight trough the steel on the left though. Impossible. It also seems to indicate the least area punched out by the heaviest, most directly propelled, and most dense structures on the aircraft - the engines. The greatest areas of damage should be around the engine's impact, not the fusilage.
Explosives in the building would make most of the columns fail at their weakest points too.
Even had they forced columns apart, how did it slip through the floors and odd shaped hole?
The slo-mo videos do not show a plane atomizing and exploding on the exterior of the building.
Look at this:
look at the nice diagonal cut where the left wing tip would have been!
Look, a perfect diagonal slice where the right wing tip would have been too! Not to mention that the tail fin knocked out as big of a chunk as the fusilage.
This animated image seems to ignore the damage on the right, but it indicated a wing stip cutting straight trough the steel on the left though. Impossible. It also seems to indicate the least area punched out by the heaviest, most directly propelled, and most dense structures on the aircraft - the engines. The greatest areas of damage should be around the engine's impact, not the fusilage.
Explosives in the building would make most of the columns fail at their weakest points too.
Last edited:
MyFinalRest
Bluelighter
Things don't really fit right now that I look at some more. It's a vaguely airplane shaped hole, but not consistent with a 767 crash.
Here's a another drawing and it's not consistent with the previous one or the vid link.
If this one is accurate, then why are there columns broken at parts where wings didn't impact? Why didn't we see the tail fin atomize or break off on the slo-mo vids if it didn't break through?
There's no way a kerosene fireball blew the rest out. ignited petrofuels in open air do not create much pressure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg
Once again, you don't see the plane rip open a stairstep shaped hole in the building on impact. The explosion does that. The slo-mo is slow enough to see the shockwave from the explosives blow the hole out after the plane has almost "fully submerged" into the building. Ignited petrofuels don't cause shockwaves.
You can see how many floors it would have had to plow through too to instantly "submerge" itself into the building. No way.
Here's a another drawing and it's not consistent with the previous one or the vid link.
If this one is accurate, then why are there columns broken at parts where wings didn't impact? Why didn't we see the tail fin atomize or break off on the slo-mo vids if it didn't break through?
There's no way a kerosene fireball blew the rest out. ignited petrofuels in open air do not create much pressure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg
Once again, you don't see the plane rip open a stairstep shaped hole in the building on impact. The explosion does that. The slo-mo is slow enough to see the shockwave from the explosives blow the hole out after the plane has almost "fully submerged" into the building. Ignited petrofuels don't cause shockwaves.
You can see how many floors it would have had to plow through too to instantly "submerge" itself into the building. No way.
Last edited:
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
How did it slip through the floors? As soon as the support beams failed the floor would have started to collapse.. it definitely lost it's structural integrity.. It smashed through.
The perfect slice? I'm going to hazard a guess and say that the slice is not through the steel columns.. it's some kind of out layer / casing.. and you can't actually see what it did to the support columns.. on both wings.. and the wing tips probably weren't made of aluminium anyways.
The steel columns are hollow.. a plane.. even the wing.. could easily cut through them things.
Engines should have caused greatest damage? Well.. you can't really tell where the greatest damage was.. when whole panels of column have been blown apart it doesn't exactly leave a clear outline.. but i did notice that the floor has collapsed and if you look in to the hole.. it looks like something smashed into the building.. not a characteristic of an internal explosion.
Not consistent with a 767 crash? Again.. How many 767 have you seen crash into a similarly constructed sky scraper at full speeds? You got some secret plane crash test site you're not telling us about?
Where are the columns broken apart where the wings didn't impact? Bearing in mind there was a huge explosion after impact..
The perfect slice? I'm going to hazard a guess and say that the slice is not through the steel columns.. it's some kind of out layer / casing.. and you can't actually see what it did to the support columns.. on both wings.. and the wing tips probably weren't made of aluminium anyways.
The steel columns are hollow.. a plane.. even the wing.. could easily cut through them things.
Engines should have caused greatest damage? Well.. you can't really tell where the greatest damage was.. when whole panels of column have been blown apart it doesn't exactly leave a clear outline.. but i did notice that the floor has collapsed and if you look in to the hole.. it looks like something smashed into the building.. not a characteristic of an internal explosion.
Not consistent with a 767 crash? Again.. How many 767 have you seen crash into a similarly constructed sky scraper at full speeds? You got some secret plane crash test site you're not telling us about?
Where are the columns broken apart where the wings didn't impact? Bearing in mind there was a huge explosion after impact..
MyFinalRest
Bluelighter
Is this really consistent with the so called "airplane damage?"
This steel is not just forced apart at the splices and knocked inward.
You can see clearly that this diagonal slice is through the columns, not just the cladding too.
Just 'cause cladding is missing doesn't indicate that it came from the outside in. That cladding was joined to materials that spanned the gaps and encased Yamasaki's narrow windows. The cladding could have gone with that stuff as it was not created for strength, but for appearance.
Last edited:
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
Yah? That'd be the big BUDABOOM that happened..
Way to selectively pick a small piece of a big picture to fit you're claim..
Can I ask why they didn't make the plane hit it straight? Woulda be a lot easier for them?
That hole looks nothing like the damage you'd expect to see just from explosives / explosions..
Way to selectively pick a small piece of a big picture to fit you're claim..
Can I ask why they didn't make the plane hit it straight? Woulda be a lot easier for them?
That hole looks nothing like the damage you'd expect to see just from explosives / explosions..
MyFinalRest
Bluelighter
I'll say it again, ignited petrofuel in open air or large spaces lacks that kind of pressure. It's not interchangable with stuff like RDX.
I'm aware of the steel columns looking different than the cladding. I don't see many bent inwards - mostly straight, straight with broken chunks missing, missing altogether, and even a few pointing outward. Those "wheat chex" shaped pieces of steel weren't all "knocked out" at splice points. You can see some columns that only have a est. 4-6' piece missing. No columns that short were pieced together.
Also in my closeup pick, there is no way a plane knocked pieces of the columns inward while the cladding is somehow bowed outwards. If the plane smashed the steel in, it would have taken the cladding on top with it in as well.
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
It was hardly in an open space?
Not sure what you mean with the rest of your post..
Not sure what you mean with the rest of your post..