Physic conflicts the 9/11 goverment fairytale

[trodas]

At first, even that I should be between open minded people, a serious word of warning. Anyone who dare to read futher from this point, please don't read/view, if you are not eased and prepared to questing the seemingly impossible. This one will be hard. Almost as questioning the Moon landings (sorry, that did not happen either) or holocaust (not to worry, this happend, just on quite different scale and no gas chambers are used).

So, unless you can let me present my case, then please did not read any futher. Thank you.

 

I, for very long time, firmly believe, that 9/11 attack was inside job of US govt, much like the first WTC bombing. I was focused on the benefits for US govt from it (antiteror laws, destroying Iraq and reverting the sales of oil from euro back to dolars, massive war on terror, spying everyone, etc.) as other individuals (Silverstein insurance money, his son get to be ambassador) and even governments (hint: search "five dancing israelis" on YouTube).

 

But about year ago I tried to listen to seeimingly outrageous argument, that alleged that there are no planes that hit the WTC towers (there are also no plane that hit Pentagon and no plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, but that was obvious from start). And when investigating the problem futher I come to conclusion, that we all saw impossible lie.

 

I was believed, that they used remote controlled planes before.

 

Now I firmly believe, that there are no planes that stuck WTC towers.

 

What changed my mind? Well, at first, there are THIS video:

...where you can jump right to the important second half part:

 

So if you survived this, then let me lay my own case and arguments:

 

1) Aluminium cannot cut steel

As we know, WTC towers are composed mostly of steel and concrete. The steel beams are very solid "boxes" of 2 inches (50mm) thick quality construction steel, forming pretty formidable box:

That means that the plane have to cut thru 100mm thick steel, not to mention being reinforced each 3 meters by concrete floor. That 100mm of steel is equivalent to frontal armor of older tanks. So, what the military use to cut thru the steel of tank? Well, they use rods of very dense materials, such as Wolfram, Tungsten or the Depleted Uranium. Why they use such metals, when aluminium works that well?

Secondly, the "damn innfective military" for some reasons insist on very high shell velocity. Typical armor piercing velocity is around 6000 km/h (3750mph), where the speed of "planes" impacts are calculated to be 933km/h (580mph). That seems to be grossly underrated speed to cut the steel like butter, when "people that know how to punch thru steel" insist on at least 6x higher speeds and more dense materials, that the steel is.

Even with these insane advantages the army call "penetration", when they get 25% (or 33%) weight of the shell behind the steel plate (WW2 tables, first German, second Russian rating). On modern shells, where there is just a small rod that go in, it is just like 10% or so by my quess.

...and that bring us into second huge problem...

 

2) Buildings are not known to eat planes

This is almost as funny, as it is serious, but bear with me, please. The first problem I have with the planes story is, that even the very fragile ends of the wings get inside of the buildings w/o any signs of crash. The planes just slide in and that was it.

Well, this is just not possible at all. For starters, based on many images are quite visible, that altrought many culums seems to be deformed (like pushed from sides by shapecharges) and mostly the fireproofing are off, pay attention that many columns are not even cut, where the videos showed us that wings just "slide in" the buildings:

If the culums are not even entierly cut, then how the planes can get into the buildings? This is not possible at all. I know that this is very disturbing and unconfromtable, but just look at the damaged columns 145. The steel frame is intact, the exterior covering form nice, but NOT cut anywhere curve over it and that it is. And that is not the only one, see them all! This is simply not consistent of the videos we all saw:

 

     

 

And ignoring the laughable story of heat that "melted" the steel (the woman in the picture is clearly holding the steel, so unless she is fireproof, then the temperatures cannot account for the demolition of the buildings) for sake of "no planes" argument, there is another problem with the planes...

 

3) You cannot simply fly into building

Well, technically, you can, provided you master the plane. Ignoring for the moment that many of the alleged pilots are found to be alive and well and that the piloting abilities of other alleged hijackers was insufficient to fly a simple propeler plane used to learn flying, there is the cartoon physic we see.

At first, the planes did not even slow down their speed, when "sliding in" the buildings. This is not possible at all, because the buildings are made from solid materials, witch would resist such "fly in." You simply cannot fake the physic there. There must be slow-down, as the plane push thru the materials, yet there is not.

As second, the planes are build very lightly. While technically speaking, there is not "just" aluminium, but more aluminium alloys and even steel and titan (in the landing gear and engines), then still the wings and mainly the end tail section are completely made from very light materials. And there come the video, that at first brought my trodas account on YouTube down:

 

This pretty well show, how fragile are these commercional airplanes. They are - basicaly - very light build aluminium tubes, that does not have any solid structures to speak off. The "losing the tail" is very common in many crashes. I present for your consideration few images of planes, that do hard crashes to bedrock and similar catastrophic failures:

 

 

The point I trying to stress there is, that when plane even land harshly, then it lose the tail completely. And based on the videos and lack of any debris of plane into the impact zones (!!!) we can see, that the tail was not even as much, as twisted, when the plane allegedly hit the building. And this is again just and simply not possible. If we see crash of airplane to building, then the fragile parts of the aircraft will immediatelly snap off the plane.

 

Even poor bird can seriously damage propeler plane, what is flying hardly 1/3 of the alleged impact speed:

 

But as the plane not even slow down, much less shown and signs of impact, then only possible explaination is, that the collision simply does not happen. Period.

 

4) Punchy engines

Let's go back to 7.28.1945. At this date, an unfortunate B-25 bomber was lost in fog and crashed at 320km/h into the Empire State Building:

 

Killing 14, the ESB did not collapsed, nor sustained any significant damage. What is even worser, majority of the plane ended up (as I argued above) outside the building. The fuel set huge fire:

 

What is important for us is, what happen with the engines. Despite the speed are somewhat low (nearly only 1/3 of the WTC impact speed), the engines burried into ESB. One ending up in elevator shaft, starting fire in basement, another punch thru 7 walls and nearly poke on the other end of the building.

Now what happen with much more heavy and almost 3x faster moving engines? At WTC 1, there are no engines flying thru the poor building at all. In case of WTC 2, there was one engine, that allegedly could pass thru the building (but can be also stored there and pushed out by explosives as well), yet it was later discovered, that since the 767 Boeings in posession of American Airlines use only Pratt&Whitney engines, then it cannot be engine from the alleged flight.

Still there is no evidence about the thre remaining engines and given the fact, that they weight over 6 tonns and travel at 933km/h - they should punch thru the buildings neatly, unless they hit some of the steel columns...

Also the titanium and steel engines are constructed to withstand the fuel burning temperatures. There should be mentioned that the temperature at witch the Jet A-1 fuel burn under normal conditions is only 260 - 315°C....! (a little known, but very significant fact)

However in the turbine, when compressed and pre-mixed with air, it can get at high, as 980°C:

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

This is the absolutely maximal temperature. The steel of witch WTC was constructed was certified to withstand far more that is the maximal temperature, that cannot be achieved in non-pressured-air-injection enviroment.

The point is, that there is no way, how the other there engines (if we accept the one as really "the" engine, witch is not true) disappear. If they can find bone fragments size of the nail clip and cannot find over 6 tonns of titan and steel, then there was simply no planes to begin with.

 

5) Impact speeds impossible

What is wastly overlooked is, that from the videos and radar data, the speed of impact into WTC buildings are around 580 mph, hence 933km/h.

However even the Boeing 767 can almost teoretically reach this speed (567mph) 10km above the ground, it cannot reach it at sea level. The reasons are quite simple - planes fly at high altitudes, because there is the air 4x less dense, hence the airplane drag is 4x smaller.

Boeing itself say, that maximum speed at sea level is 414mph, witch is 666km/h. Not 933km/h. At such speed (even if someone give the plane *much* better engines - expert claim you need 6x more power!) will the plane desintegrate.

Even near the maximal speed limit the plane experience significant vibrations, people will literally be thrown out of their seats unless bucked and there will be impossible to precise controll the plane at it heading on target, that is not much wider that the plane wings are.

So the speed is simply not possible for Boeing 767 and even near the alleged speed will the plane become uncontrolable. Again, this are not theories, but proven and tested facts.

 

6) No wake vortex

The final nail to the coffin of "planes hiting the towers" are phenomen called wake vortex. At the tips of wings of any flying airplane are formed rotating vortexes. These are invisible, unless there are smoke in the area:

 

Now since this wake vortex is persistent for at least a minute, then the explosions and smoke have to form the wake vortex and curve to it, as the napalm did, when USA bombarded Vietnam, as shown there:

http://youtu.be/8Pax8aMggfI?t=15m45s

 

Yet since we did not see even the slightest hint of wake vortex, then it should be concluded with almost 100% certainty, that there was not any plane at all, that fly into these WTC buildings.

 

...

 

 

I must say that I did not have all the answers. I cannot prove, what was done and how. There are many witneses that claim there are no planes, there are many that claim they saw planes...

There are even conflicting videos (eg. the one that show the plane approaching in perfectly level flight to WTC 2 ( http://postimg.org/image/mdcuphrup/ - http://postimg.org/image/n1vserquv/ ) - versus the shoot from behing the WTC 2 that show the plane descending and turning rapidly, witch is not consistent at all), so I cannot and will not speculate what was done.

We all know, that the complete 9/11 myth was first put on by some punk at street interviewed, so I cannot rule out that the choosed interviews to be aired are just the guys that are agents. There is possible that all submited videos are doctored (I saw some proofs ( http://youtu.be/IL8cJWyOxWQ ), but nothing really definitive) and there is also possible that there could be some kind of holographic projection to cover much smaller jet/missile that was incomming... I don't know. All I say is, that:

- aluminium cannot cut steel

- buildings did not eat planes

- there was no impact

- there are missing engines or any parts from the 3.1 milions of them of Boeing 767

- the impact speed was impossible for Boeing 767

- there are was wake vortex at all

 

I hope that I presented my case as well, as I can and I can only hope that people try to understand, that I was not trying to put forward something crazy and unfounded, but rather a consistently researched question that might have some significance, since some planes obviously tend to disappear

[Devon Gibbons]

9/11 was a majorly influential factor behind our modern governmental war laws. 

 

I understand evaluating the attacks, but the bigger picture really gets me interested, so here's a gentler and less information-packed, concise report to really question the official government position on 9/11. I did the captions

 

Classified Woman, a book by Sibel Edmonds of boilingfrogspost.com who skillfully evaded imprisonment whistle-blowing her translation department's suppression of her documents, makes clear the government's real role.

[Bastii]

Why is this so important to you? You've put quite some time and work into that post.

 

[trodas]

marginalist - Heh, good work, nice captions. I know this "fast crash course" into 9/11 Similar and quite old one was made in flash about the Pentagon alleged crash: http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/swf/pentagon_en.swf

 

No one is denying (I quess?) that the US govt has gained massive advantages and pushed towards total control hard by 9/11 event. Never let good crysis to get wasted is their motto.

 

Never read the Classified Woman, but it might be worth checking out. I was just astonished, how glaring holes are in the official version of the event. Even in just the one simple fact about planes hitting the steel... errr, buildings I'm aware that this part of the story is the key part, because if there was no planes, then they cannot blame this on some terrorists, so that "selling point" was major and crucial and it is just false. I still wonder, how they pull it out, but I quess that the public massage over years and years counted up...

 

 

Bastii - well, I believe that questioning 9/11 is important, because:

- "war on terror" is still going strong, sometimes even by directly supporting the terrorists (Syria)

- the only way to prevent such false flag attacks in the future are to brought these accountable to justice, not "letting it be"

- I still feel fascinated, how did I miss that for years and years I never questioned the actuall existence of planes hitting WTC

 

So part is my astonishment (how the hell they did it) and part is to show something really out of the box for most people. As work, well, you did not seen anything yet from me. Just on this first page about 9/11 are some posts from deleted old forum, where I was come public with my findings around 2004/2005:

http://trodas.wz.cz/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=287

See? So that was nothing yet.

[MrCapitalism]

The flight profile was not conductive to the formation of noticeable wake vortices. The aircraft was "clean" (landing gear and flaps retracted), at a low angle of attack (low lift), and a high speed (elongated the vortex cones substantially). This phenomenon would cease to occur as soon as the wings stop creating lift.

 

The 414mph value you stated is most likely the maximum certified speed for the aircraft at sea level, which is set for control ability and structural limits. 580mph is 140% of the maximum... not a terribly high exceedance in the grand scheme of things. A doubling of airspeed results in a quadrupling of drag/ thrust required. So this 40% increase needs...what... double the thrust for the max certified sea-level speed? That doesn't seem out of the question.  My guess is you are assuming these aircraft are achieving these speeds with engine thrust alone? This assumes level flight. Maybe the thrust was augmented by a shallow descent?

 

Regarding your the "planes must slow on impact and pieces left behind" here's a plane disintegrating at full speed.

 

 

I understand the sides of the WTC are not solid blocks of concrete, but considering they gave as well as the aircraft structure I can see the aircraft "disappearing" into the side of the building. Any parts which separate from the plane are still going to end up in the building.

 

Perhaps the aircraft structure didn't so much 'tear through' the steel so much as it 'overstressed it' with sheer brute force.. I have no idea.. that part makes me very suspicious. Helicopter pilots are very aware of the dangers posed by 2-3" diameter steel power lines. They cut  through a helicopter like "a hot knife through butter."

 

I don't really care if 9/11 was real or not. But I am interested in aviation.

 

EDIT: I forgot to add.. flying little propeller planes is no easy feat! :-)

[st434u]

I think the AE911Truth guys did a superb good job at showing how all 3 of the WTC buildings didn't collapse accidentally, but were demolished in a controlled demolition which had to be carefully set up weeks if not months in advance of September 11th, 2001, in order to minimize damage to adjacent buildings.

 

 

I don't know anything about there being no planes, but that seems a bit far out.

[Daniel Unplugged]

A couple of points:

 

Yes, aluminum is not hard enough to cut steel, but the beams were not cut, they were torn. It is a different thing. Note that bird flesh and bone is not hard enough to cut aluminum, buy the bird clearly tore the wing of that plane. Where the steel beams are still intact, the aluminum wings would have torn and passed in between the beams, they were traveling pretty quick remember. Also steel does not need to melt for its structural integrity to be compromised. As steel heats up, it becomes very soft, even if it doesn't melt completely.

Lead is softer than steel, but a lead bullet will shear through a steel plate, if traveling fast enough.

The maximum speed of the plane at sea level may be 414 mph, but the Boeing specs would be cruising speed. If a plane dives, it could travel much faster than its cruising speed.

[papatree84]

If we ignore all the evidence and just accept this as truth for arguments sake then whats the consequence? Is anyone surprised? Does it change anyone's minds on this board to be less supportive of government? The fact is it doesn't really matter. 9/11 is no different from the the Lusitania sinking or the Gulf of Tonkin or the fact the the US government added poison to alcohol during prohibition. Shouldn't it be enough to be unsupportive of government based solely on the fact that they Actually have the power to do these things? just my thoughts

[Devon Gibbons]

If we ignore all the evidence and just accept this as truth for arguments sake then whats the consequence? Is anyone surprised? Does it change anyone's minds on this board to be less supportive of government? The fact is it doesn't really matter. 9/11 is no different from the the Lusitania sinking or the Gulf of Tonkin or the fact the the US government added poison to alcohol during prohibition. Shouldn't it be enough to be unsupportive of government based solely on the fact that they Actually have the power to do these things? just my thoughts

It helps to convince someone about false-flags with an explanation of how they did it. Otherwise you can say, "9/11 was an inside job", and be perceived as a brainless nutjob who makes shit up because you don't back up such a frightening claim, thus strengthening their false preconceptions and solidifying their ignorance. Besides, the people involved need to have a light shined on them, otherwise it is ignoring the millions killed with the idea that all those people's lives weren't worth it.

 

The 414mph value you stated is most likely the maximum certified speed for the aircraft at sea level, which is set for control ability and structural limits. 580mph is 140% of the maximum... not a terribly high exceedance in the grand scheme of things. A doubling of airspeed results in a quadrupling of drag/ thrust required. So this 40% increase needs...what... double the thrust for the max certified sea-level speed? That doesn't seem out of the question.  My guess is you are assuming these aircraft are achieving these speeds with engine thrust alone? This assumes level flight. Maybe the thrust was augmented by a shallow descent?

I'm not a pilot, but according to air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien herself and all other experienced air traffic controllers in the radar room of Dulles International Airport, flight 77 was a military plane which could explain the discrepancies.

[MrCapitalism]

I'm not a pilot, but according to air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien herself and all other experienced air traffic controllers in the radar room of Dulles International Airport, flight 77 was a military plane which could explain the discrepancies.

I think you read a little too much into this article. She says the radar contact was 'unidentified' and was maneuvering like a military aircraft, not that it was, in fact, a military aircraft.

[Devon Gibbons]

I think you read a little too much into this article. She says the radar contact was 'unidentified' and was maneuvering like a military aircraft, not that it was, in fact, a military aircraft.

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

 

 

I don't know why you think I read too much into this. She came to that conclusion.

[MrCapitalism]

This is her conclusion: "Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed … I had literally a blip and nothing more."

 

I can understand that this seems like a description of what she saw, but this is her conclusion. Your posted comment is a speculation. She has an unidentified aircraft which is flying in a manner consistent with a military aircraft. She is not concluding that it is in fact military; she has no way of knowing that. Her conclusion is that the aircraft is unidentified because she doesn't have enough data. Passenger carrying aircraft don't fly in the same manner as military aircraft, because they don't have the same goals. However that doesn't mean it's impossible to fly like the military with a passenger aircraft. Considering that the supposed hijackers have the intent to use a passenger aircraft for tactical purposes, they will operate it in a consistent manner. They're not going to care about it's limitations, normal maneuvers, or passenger safety. It will look like a military flight because it is a military flight for all intents and purposes.

[Devon Gibbons]

Passenger carrying aircraft don't fly in the same manner as military aircraft, because they don't have the same goals. However that doesn't mean it's impossible to fly like the military with a passenger aircraft. 

 "Flight 77 was supposedly piloted by Hani Hanjour, a flight school dropout who could not handle a Cessna 172, but somehow managed to steer a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn at 500 mph to come exactly level with the ground. Neither experienced pilots nor aviation officials could believe that such a move could be pulled off with such precision at such high speeds by any but the most experienced pilot."

 

I think an amateur would find this hard to do with any plane whatsoever. Do you have anything to support your claims that passenger planes can fly like military ones? If you find anything, I am genuinely curious so let me know.

 

-Excerpt from How to Steal an Airplane: From 9/11 to MH370

[st434u]

If someone has the time to watch the full 1h:45m presentation that I linked to, I don't think any of the stuff about whether it was military or commercial planes or whether it was missiles and holographs matter much. The evidence for controlled demolition is just too vast, the hypothesis has been validated well beyond reasonable doubt.

 

My default position is that all the speculation about there being no planes is too far out there, and possibly initiated as a rumor by the people responsible, but I admit I haven't delved deep into the evidence for that in particular.

[Daniel Unplugged]

With regards to the theory the entirety of 9/11 was orchestrated by the government, I consider it highly implausible. Think of how many people would have needed to be in on it. Generals, pilots, engineers, pilots, CIA, air traffic controllers, media, clean up workers, courts, politicians etc. It's just too large a conspiracy to keep quiet. Convincing that many people to participate in such an evil act, and having them keep quiet about it, is just so far out there, I can't consider it credible. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe a word the government says, but even I have my limits.

[st434u]

Well it's not the entirety of the government. Just a few people in key places, and everybody else following orders. The way the chain of command works is that only a handful of people know the whole script, and everybody else knows only what they must, and fear keeps them from talking too much. Also, it wasn't kept quiet. Many people talked about seeing things that shouldn't have happened.

 

In either case, once the controlled demolition hypothesis has been corroborated, you're left with the question: who else but the government would have the ability, access, and incentives to carry it out, and especially carry it out in this particular way?

[cobra2411]

On the topic of the moon landing not happening, the technology needed to fake it would have been much more impressive in 1969 than the technology needed to actually go to the moon. In other words, we actually went to the moon.

 

As for 9/11, I firmly believe that the government had at least some involvement in it. I also believe at least one of the buildings was demolished. 

 

So what? 

 

I'm not surprised that the state would kill it's subjects to further it's agenda. As long as there is a state, there will be those who will do anything to expand their power. It's just more proof that the state is immoral and should be ended.

[Devon Gibbons]

 

On the topic of the moon landing not happening, the technology needed to fake it would have been much more impressive in 1969 than the technology needed to actually go to the moon. In other words, we actually went to the moon.

Jay Weidner has a thrillingly insightful theory that the very particular and peculiar film director Stanley Kubrick known for the 1964 movie, "2001: A Space Odyssey", was responsible for the directing of the "film of the moon landing", and there are hints he sprinkles about this cover-up in his later films. I learned about his argument in this video which, to me, appears visually and conceptually plausible. [(Length 25 minutes) 11:11 - 36:39]

[Brentb]

A conspiracy of this magnitude would require a level of competence that is well beyond those in the government sector. 

 

It's also completely unnecessary. All that blood thirsty government officials would have to do to get a successful attack on the US and get a war going is to let down their guard and look the other direction for a while.

[Sal9000]

On the topic of the moon landing not happening, the technology needed to fake it would have been much more impressive in 1969 than the technology needed to actually go to the moon. In other words, we actually went to the moon.

 

 

As a guilty pleasure I entertain the theory that Kubrick shot the moon landing to get cameras and lenses for making Barry Lyndon.See the nice mockumentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCQTYxTj5sE for more infos

[steadyb]

For people who say, "the government is too incompetent to run this sort of thing." If some rag tags can do it, why not a bunch of much better funded, better connected people do it?

Also, I don't buy the "so what" argument. Most people don't think the government is corrupt and proving that this was a government conspiracy would be a massive piece of digestible evidence of government brutality for people to remember. I can't help but feel that because it is Stef's view, It has become other people's view. I would just like to add that my view is compromised since I am a raving, moon barking, tin foil wearing CONSPIRACY THEORIST!  

[Brentb]

For people who say, "the government is too incompetent to run this sort of thing." If some rag tags can do it, why not a bunch of much better funded, better connected people do it?

 

It is far easier to murder a bunch of people and get caught, than it is to frame someone else for murdering a bunch of people and not get caught.

[A4E]

I have spent thousands of hours researching 911, osama, apollo, AIDS/HIV, climate change, sandy hook, boston bombings, gas chambers, no cure for cancer myth, and the notion that torture works, and I have determined that they are indeed all lies/hoaxes. And I can vouch for everything that OP said. Saves me the trouble of making a thread about 911. If I cannot find any thread about the other topics I am unsure if I want to make new threads for that. (I am new here)

 

I can quickly add that:

-The number of people who died on september 11 is also up to debate and could be very low.

-There is evidence that something else than demolitions might have been used. Directed energy weapons were available at the time. See "Judy Wood" for information on that.

-WTC plaza empty on 911 atleast in this moment.

-Both towers were largely unoccupied. Even to the point of floors 'missing'. More info here. 

 

To those asking why OP did this, like whats the point? Does it matter? To that I can ask you why should we point out stuff that does not make sense in religions? Whats the point, does it matter? It matters because alot of people believe in it, and rationality has no place in a religious society. The same is true for people who believe we already went to the moon or thinks there is no cure for cancer (there is many), or who think we already are on our way to our doom because of man made climate change, or are perpetually afraid of terrorists. And maybe the worst, people in western countries think their governments are good when they bomb other countries like Libya and Iraq. This means people who believe such things are also sort of religious, and so these beliefs should also be treated as enemies of rationality in my opinion.

 

Warning. Quote from wiki:

Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 16 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Switzerland, and Romania

 

So you should remember that it might be illegal to say that there is no evidence for gas chambers in your country.

 

A bit more about me:

I have also spent alot of time getting information about being healthy because the modern healthcare mafia running in most western countries cannot be trusted to be able to improve your health. I managed to cure my low metabolism and arthritis on my own using the best tool in the world, internet. And stopping consumption of artificial chemicals got rid of my slight retardation 6 years ago that the people in white coats told me I had to eat for the rest of my life.

[surfingthoughts]

@a4e I see you are a silver donator so you have access to:

Conspiracy Theorists - premium podcast

Out of interest have you listened to it? If you haven't it might be quite interesting.

[trodas]

 

On the topic of the moon landing not happening, the technology needed to fake it would have been much more impressive in 1969 than the technology needed to actually go to the moon. In other words, we actually went to the moon.

 

This is ridiculous claim. I seen one guy making it already long time ago... but he get pwned badly by evidence:

 

 

For everyone who believe in Moonlanding happen, check this video about very interesting proof in camera framerate that it was faked:

 

 

I could provide many examples of how the record is clearly fake using original NASA pictures (from their own webpage) like this:

 

AS15-82-11140 - time 165:39:51 - http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11140HR.jpg

AS15-82-11141 - time 165:44:46 - http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11141HR.jpg

times: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/images15.html (time: hours of mission:minutes:seconds)

 

Etc. But this is quite OT there.

 

Who want some calculations, why Saturn V cannot do it, then please check Pokrovsky Saturn V investigation: http://www.mediafire.com/?h82zfeuacdtpdf1

...and Hadley a study in fakery about Apollo 15 fake mountains: http://msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/hadley.pdf

 

...

 

 

As for the allegedly possible 140% over the maximum Boeing 767 speed - well, I would call THIS a level flight, don't you?

 

 

...

 

But the point you are making is mute. You cannot cut / torn / break / break into heavy steel outside support culums with fragile aluminium wings. In fact, not all of these steel beams, that must be "cuted" to the wings can hide inside of the buildings, are even "cut."

Therefore plane is by physic ruled out.

 

I don't know how they did it. And I would very much like to know... there are many people that says that they never seen a plane, just explosion. However we have the flight 11 caught by the firefighters documentary camera. There is sound and picture of something, that just "dive in" into building. This is not possible in real life. The building would have fiercelly resisted that and being much, much stronger that the plane, we would seen some impact... not just "glide-in."

 

This point to the projection, but no idea if that could be done. I fear that it will be too hard to achieve in 2001...

 

 

As for the "this would be too big conspiracy to keep it quiet" - I disagree. First at all, people are dying all the time. Second - what is "blown wide open" in mainstream media, that is determined by the govt. Or they revoke the license and that it is...

And there is a great example of how Russia made their Moonlanding project (they planed 12 unmanned lunches and then maned missions... so imagine the scale of that project - building 12 N1 rockets...!) secret for 30 years: http://youtu.be/mPh079lMhI8?t=4m54s

 

So anything can be done.

[st434u]

I don't know enough about the moon landing to make a comment on it, but I love how they claim that they found an intact passport in the WTC rubble from one of the terrorists who was supposedly aboard one of the planes.

 

I also love how BBC reported that WTC 7 had collapsed 10-60 minutes before it actually did, and there were only a couple of tiny fires in it and no sign that it would collapse at all.

 

Like your example from the moon landing shots, stuff like this is what you would expect to find in the "goofs" section of a movie at imdb.com. It shouldn't happen in real life. To me things like this tell me that not only the people in power are doing all this, but that they are laughing in the face of the public. It must be really amusing for them to see how the masses keep making excuses to justify (or ignore) things that cannot be justified, due to fear and conformity.

[MrCapitalism]

As for the allegedly possible 140% over the maximum Boeing 767 speed - well, I would call THIS a level flight, don't you?

 

Yep.

 

That's about the best example of level flight available, especially when the altitude of the impact is known. Looks like a Boeing 767, and I think this image proves that the engines produce enough thrust to overspeed the aircraft by 150mph in level flight.

[FriendlyHacker]

To me it's quite clear that you don't have to wait steel to become liquid for it to lose strength, so the whole argument that the fire could have not melted steel is irrelevant.

[A4E]

@a4e I see you are a silver donator so you have access to:

Conspiracy Theorists - premium podcast

Out of interest have you listened to it? If you haven't it might be quite interesting.

Yes it caught my attention since I wanna know what Stefan think about people who are put in a multitude of categories because they ask questions and point out a lack of evidence, and counter evidence and such.

 

I wrote a review on it before posting in this thread. You can find it on the second review page.

[A4E]

To me it's quite clear that you don't have to wait steel to become liquid for it to lose strength, so the whole argument that the fire could have not melted steel is irrelevant.

There are plenty of examples of highrise buildings on fire that did not collapse.

 

But lets say that the steel in the area around the fires in the WTC towers were enough to make every support structure lose its strength enough so that the upper part fell down on the lower part. What would happen? Has the steel and concrete in the entire building been weakened so much so that the entire buildings fall down into themselves and are transformed into dust and prevalent smoke in a high speed downwards?

 

What I try to focus on when talking to other people about this is that whatever happened to the towers, have not been scientifically explained or proven to be the result from plane crash and fire. Sure NIST and other sources have tried, but they all fail and also contradict eachother.

 

There are also contradictions among those who are critical of the official conspiracy theory (which was ready on the same day), that is why I try to put the ball back to those who think the official story is true, to actually prove it. And noone has been able to.

[FriendlyHacker]

The impressive thing to me about the Moon landing Hoax, is that people somehow think it was not technologically possible, when the technology being used was made possible by Newton 300 years earlier. And if you don't understand what I mean here, maybe you should not be talking about how rockets can't reach the Moon and back, if you don't understand the physics of it.

[A4E]

Neil Armstrong is offered 5000 dollars to swear on the bible that he walked on the moon.

 

Edit: better quality video. Probably wrong forum to post something about religion though

I could post a whole book on the moon landing hoax, but I wanna stay lighthearted for now.

[shirgall]

Speaking of the physics of high temperature fires weakening concrete and steel...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/us/29cnd-collapse.html?hp

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Tanker-fire-destroys-part-of-MacArthur-Maze-2-2575285.php

[TheBen]

Thank you trodas and A4E and others.  I think that the majority of your points are right on and have not been addressed/refuted in this thread.  It was finding out the truths/untruths about 9/11 that brought me over to the good side and I'm sure that this paradigm shift continues to open the eyes of many throughout the world.  And don't be discouraged by the naysayers as I'm sure there are some passive readers of threads like this which will have a seed planted in their subconscious that will grow in time.  I also agree with some of the others that independent of 9/11 truth and the moon landing hoax, one can logically conclude that government is evil and also unnecessary.  Though for me it increased my "escape velocity" out of the statist mindset to a high degree.

[trodas]

/OT

 

The impressive thing to me about the Moon landing Hoax, is that people somehow think it was not technologically possible, when the technology being used was made possible by Newton 300 years earlier.

 

Fine. Why then NASA cannot now even lunch people into space?

And why there was no-one but allegedly Americans that are walking the Moon?

And why - in the devils name - ESA was detected DIFFERENT materials on the Moon that was allegedly brought back by Apollo? http://youtu.be/wHah89QCxVg?t=1m46s

 

OT/

 

But plese, don't go into off topic battles. We can start a Moon hoax thread and you can present your arguments and I will presend mine.

 

...wait, actually, there is one: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/41061-wtf-nasa/

 

So please go there.

 

 

And as I proven the level flight of flight 175 - then I have five questions for "plane defenders":

 

1 - why this photo is not consistent with the video record, showing the dive of the incomming flight 175?

 

2 - are you aware, that resistance go up by square and therefore you need extra engine power up, witch is just not there? Aeronautic expert Ben Eadie claim you need 6x the power for such speed:

http://youtu.be/8Pax8aMggfI?t=10m24s

I quess that when he say "under all circumstances", then he is pretty sure about it. And given a little cals, so I'm sure about it. It cannot be Boeing 767, period.

 

3 - are you aware, that plane getting close to his maximum speed vibrate and oscilate wildly? And it become harder and harder to control, so precise aiming at high speed into buildings is just not possible. Not by any pilot, not even a great one can reproduce that feat.

Overdoing the speed to 140% would result in plane desintegration in air. Same happen in nearly every airplane crash - at certain speed the plane just torn itself into pieces in air. Same recently happen in Ukraine, when Su-25 shoot the pilots of Boeing 777 flight MH17 - BBC report:

if on yewtube it won't work, try vimeo:

https://vimeo.com/105190194

 

4 - don't you guys bother the fact, that there is no impact? There is absolutely nothing that can be described as impact of the plane into the building. Can you point me to any distortions or even as much, as slow-down of the "glide-in" the building.

Don't this cartoon physic bother you? Or you pretend not to see?

 

5 - don't bother you deeply, that a very fragile empty aluminium tube, called a commercial airliner, can penetrate chunk of about 30 steel beams with the thickness of front tank armor? You really refuse to see how fragile these planes are, compared to just a truck? So if truck can go thru airplane like hot knife thru butter:

...then how can you explain your deep seated belief, that planes hit the buildings?

 

 

...

 

 

TheBen - thank you very much. It waked me up too. And yet I don't really have all the answers. I don't know how it was done. It bothers me. I would much rather discuss the Moonlandings, where I think I hold my ground pretty well and I have a good deal of strong arguments and fantastic breathtaking evidence why it had to be fake, how it was done, etc.

We have even a video of careless stagehand "on the Mooon" )) Yet I have no idea about how the planes on 9/11 was simulated, sadly. And that is a huge credibility problem. However I'm quite certain, that you cannot cut / clip / damage such strong steel culums with fragile aluminium plane. No way to aliminium cut steel. You need damn strong materials like Wolfram or Uranium to punch thru steel by mostly burning just a small hole into it and soldiers need speeds around Mach 4 to 6 to even achieve that. 580mph and aluminium do it? Call your favorite weapons manufacturer that you have a great cheap antitank round in the making! ))

Never seen your plane wings wiggle?

The "Mooned America" was necessary after the Vietnam fiasco, the space race fiasco, China going termonuclear in just few years, etc. I do understand the need for this "achievment." And this lie is similary big as 9/11 and have a profound impact on all people.

For example - even wonder, why Hubble was never used to look at the Moon? Sure, it might not be able to look for the "artefacts" that are simply not there, but it can show how the Moon is like. There are 10km high mountains as well, as deep "seas." The landscape there is very rough and sharp, because there is no water or air erosion to smooth the surfaces. If you just use good amateur telescope, then you see how sharp these mountains are.

Yet all Apollo hills are smooth as slick. How that can be? :-) If you are villing to use your eyes, you can destroy the whole hoax with just one picture:

http://s923.photobucket.com/user/ax2cz/media/NASA%20hoax/36335main_image3_lg_zps074879e5.jpg.html?sort=3&o=248

 

But people like to pretend not to see the obvious in fear of rejection of others. Herd mentality. Cannot blame them. Back in prehistoric times, being rejected by your "herd" means death sentence. Yet that is the fundamential drawback that we, as people, have to overcome in order to move on. Or there is no way that we go to the holidays on the Moon - ever.