FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Report/Minutes of Falkirk Get-together
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> UK 9/11 Truth - Scotland group
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Keith Mothersson
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 303
Location: Perth

PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:02 am    Post subject: Responding to the Invading Frat of Plane-Huggers Reply with quote

Why did it feel, reading several recent posts on this thread - all from down South - that a frat had turned up at someone else's party but were making themsleves feel cool and less anxious by swapping boorish jeering with each other instead of soberly dealing with the main problems to which no-planers refer?

Anyway I asked a friend for his reply: and he replied:

Quote:
It's Newton's 3rd law.

1) Steel girder is thicker/harder than aluminium wing strut - obvious fact
2) Newton's 3rd Law (over 300 years old) - to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
3) Aluminium strut experiences same force a steel girder during collision
4) Aluminium snaps, steel does not

End of story - those telling you otherwise are pushing a bogus fake reality. No science qualifications needed - it's a basic rule of our 3d reality. Those that want to change this reality are not seeing it correctly or are working to persuade people into a new reality - created by dictators.


Let us imagine three cases: a) a soft and a hard object collide each travelling at 275 mph or b ) one object (soft) hitting another (hard) object at 530 mph or c) a hard object hitting a soft object at 530 mph. [some doubts expressed by pilots about how fast one can fly a Boeing at 1000 feet, but let that pass]

What I hear from the Scholars for Truth seminar is that all three cases are identical, the soft object will come off worst and you can't rope speed/momentum in on one side of the argument because at the point of meeting they are meeting at 530 mph (supposedly!).

This seems to be an area of fundamental physics which it should be possible to clear up definitively. Has anyone a credible argument or good reference which says the opposite?

[One counter example, that of straw embedded in trees after hurricanes , isn't strong IMO: a) because the wind around the straw makes it less likely to splatter outwards and b) because if the tree is shaken by the winds, small gaps could easily manifest in the side of the tree).

SnowyGrouch'es example of hitting oneself on the head with a soft plastic bottle and then doing the same when it is full of Tizer doesn't count either IMO: The fuel tanks only go to near the end of the wings, not all the way, making it even harder to imagine why the less massy wings didn't break off if the images we 'saw' are veridical. That is to say, the outer ?12/15 feet of the plane's wings have no heavy mass (fluid/kerosine) within a second internal skin (both the wing suface and the internal sheath where there is fuel tank would be about 'sixty thou of an inch', according to a very experienced retired aircraft engineer I recently spoke with on a National Express coach) ) .

Can anyone seriously claim these wings cut through steel and didn't fall off even if the other bits supposedly cut through the outer layers? And that the Tizer/kerosene would be coherent enough not to break up and mostly flow around and outside the exterior steel columns?

Then behind the exterior grill of thinner steel beams, there is the issue of the inner very strong core being only 30 foot into the building, and yet none of the Boeing should supposedly be visible in nor after the ensuing fire and friction holocaust. But quite soon come secretaries to wave for rescue .... (nobody had told them about any plane-crash nor plane-consuming inferno, I guess).

Another issue relates to the sudden turn=banking of the second supposed plane, as it means that there is no way that the wings can just happen to slide in on the one floor, but would have to cut all the way into/through more than one steel-pan concrete floors. And several other bits of this flying 'beer can' (Morgan Reynolds phrase) would also be likely to have had to plough through this horizontal concrete and steel medium.

Of course one can always point to the huge and very heavy Titanium engines, which have a VERY high melting level, they would surely be harder than even steel and concrete floors and steel columns - but
a) pointing to them only makes it even weirder that the other bits didn't do something different i.e. break off when they encountered the building' and b) that's my point - one CAN'T POINT to any such thing, all consumed in the immediate entry-friction(-fiction) or the subsequent fires which even NIST admit never got hot enough to melt even the steel.

Enter Stephen (Los Alanos) Jones'es Thermate hypothesis and the dodgy photos of molten aluminium flowing out of one window then switching to another. Not only are the photos/video-sequence dodgy and the light-emissivity of the supposed molten aluminium in question [which maybe cost Michael Zebuhr his life] but the story of the subsequent pools of molten metal in the basement are highly improbable - given the extensive hosing-down carried out from day one [to control the alternative physics dissociative reaction problems] which would have caused huge Steam Flash-explosions - such as were never seen on any of the fabled 99 days. Remember the stories all come second-hand from people allowed by FEMA to enter the site and talk to 'clean-up workers'.

The NIST report also tells enough truth to refute the controlled demoltion theory when it reports the 'collapse' of the South Tower as happening in 9 seconds - which is certainly tons faster than if the top floor has to clunk its way down through 109 other steel and concrete floors. But this doesn't support Controlled demolition hypothesis as it is also faster than falling except in a vacuum (the conditions for which explosions destroy by definition) and it is also a lot faster than falling through air at sea level (13 secs?).

[IMO this faster than falling conundrum can only be solved if one reperceives the video evidence as being of a wave of destruction passing down in 9 secs, but the actual building was nearly all turned into a tower of very fine dust and went upwards.]

Perhaps the invading frat would like to take their feet off the chairs and either f**k off home or else kindly deal with the above points. Thank you.

_________________
For the defence of our one worldwide civilian Motherland, against whatever ruling or informal fraternities.

May all beings be happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

back in the real world - how an object will behave in a collision depends on a lot more than what it is made of or whether it is "harder" than what it is colliding with. for example, if what you say is true, how could a "soft" tennis ball - made up entirely of air wrapped in light flimsy material - smash through your "hard" window?

impossible right?

there are many physics forums on the internet - have you ever thought of discussing your "theories" on one of those? maybe you could get back to us with the results....

in the meantime try reading this: http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15767

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 11:48 am    Post subject: Re: Responding to the Invading Frat of Plane-Huggers Reply with quote

keith Mothersson wrote:
Anyway I asked a friend for his reply: and he replied:

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Such ignorance...what have we done to deserve this tosh?

_________________
Summary of 9/11 scepticism: http://tinyurl.com/27ngaw6 and www.911summary.com
Off the TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4szU19bQVE
Those who do not think that employment is systemic slavery are either blind or employed. (Nassim Taleb)
www.moneyasdebt.net
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stefan
Banned
Banned


Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219

PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So in your mind TV Fakery was going on in 1945? Bit of a drawn out over shadowing?



Empire States Building - Steel framed with stone cladding

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

_________________


Peace and Truth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Responding to the Invading Frat of Plane-Huggers Reply with quote

acrobat74 wrote:
keith Mothersson wrote:
Anyway I asked a friend for his reply: and he replied:

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Such ignorance...what have we done to deserve this tosh?

a friend of my grandfather once told me that the moon was made out of cheese. please don't tell me it's not true! Laughing

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Keith Mothersson
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 303
Location: Perth

PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 11:56 pm    Post subject: More frat jeering and two unhelpful analogies Reply with quote

Gruts (whoever you are),
A tennis ball is made of more or less whole cloth glued across its entire area onto two rubber domes which are held together by glue and the surface cloth. Which is very different from a plane made of bits of soft metal bolted at some points onto an (also assembled) framework onto which are also bolted two very hard big engines - all of which would behave differently if hurled at strong steel bars or concrete floors/steel casings if these were hurled at the composite soft/hard/very tough and light/heavy plane.

Glass is hard but brittle, at least in that dimension, not strong, as were the steel-panned concrete floors and wide steel bars reinforced every 11 feet or so.

So your analogy is misleading on both counts.

Try again without the jeering please.

Stefan,
It is hard to see how deep is the impact hole from the 1945 Empire State Building crash. Is anyone alleging that no bits of the plane flew off, and that from being 100 percent invulnerable as it flew through the outer facade it then became 100 percent vulnerable so that no bits were ever found inside either?

_________________
For the defence of our one worldwide civilian Motherland, against whatever ruling or informal fraternities.

May all beings be happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Stefan
Banned
Banned


Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Keith,
No one is claiming that is what happened, the plane was pretty much destroyed by the impact, the acumulative damage broke some of the connections and even broke some steel.

Why am I even bothering?

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

_________________


Peace and Truth


Last edited by Stefan on Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 10:06 am    Post subject: Re: More frat jeering and two unhelpful analogies Reply with quote

keith Mothersson wrote:
Gruts (whoever you are),
A tennis ball is made of more or less whole cloth glued across its entire area onto two rubber domes which are held together by glue and the surface cloth. Which is very different from a plane made of bits of soft metal bolted at some points onto an (also assembled) framework onto which are also bolted two very hard big engines - all of which would behave differently if hurled at strong steel bars or concrete floors/steel casings if these were hurled at the composite soft/hard/very tough and light/heavy plane.

well keith (whoever you are) - excuse me for applying your own "understanding" to a real situation in order to demonstrate that what you're saying is bs - and I'm not sure what to make of the resulting confusion it has caused you, but your mental gymnastics did make me laugh!

as I said above there are any number of forums on the internet where you could test the veracity of your fantasy-based beliefs with people who are experts in the sciences you claim to understand, so I'm surprised that you've decided to avoid such an approach in favour of swallowing and regurgitating the claims of fellow npt/tvf/dew believers whose grasp on reality also seems to be rather tenuous. but maybe I'm just getting cynical in my old age.... Smile

but for example, if you really are interested in finding out if your claims hold any water, you could try googling on "physics forums", which would take you to lots of sites like this:

http://www.physicsforums.com/

in the meantime, let's try again shall we?

ok - so if I lightly threw a tennis ball at your window from 10 yards away it would bounce back. but if I picked up a tennis racket and hit the ball as hard as I could it would smash through your window despite the fact that it's completely hollow and made of flimsy material.

why does the ball bounce back the first time but smash the window the second time?

if you pour a glass of water onto some steel it will do nothing to the steel, but if you take the same water and shoot it at the steel at high pressure, it is capable of cutting steel.

does this break the laws of physics or do you just not understand them?

the external facade of the wtc was made up of many steel sections joined together by a combination of bolts and welding (in the upper parts of the buildings the steel in these sections was hollow and only a 1/4 inch thick).

what you really need to prove is that the points at which these individual sections were joined together were capable of withstanding the force of a 150 ton object travelling at approximately 500mph.

should be easy for a self-appointed expert like yourself, so I await your proof with interest....

incidently - there are no doubts among those of us who live in the real world that a big boeing can fly at low altitude at the speed observed on 9/11, especially one that's levelling out after descending from a much higher altitude.

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Keith Mothersson
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 303
Location: Perth

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 6:16 pm    Post subject: Aluminium versus 30 foot of concrete Reply with quote

Quick reply to gruts:

I haven't heard of high-pressure water cutting through steel before. Have you a reference?

I dispute your version of how flimsy the steel was at that height and how much structural overlap and redundancy there was in its assembly. The steel uprights were long and the designer of the buildings said they could have taken two or three Boeings going into them, so well were they over-designed, with the Wheatchex system to compensate for weakenesses at the joins.

But for now I will observe that you didn't dispute my assertion that the inner core steel beams were much thicker than the exterior walls. Yet supposedly several (not just two = one per plane engine) were destroyed by the Boeings.

Nor did you dispute that many parts of a banked plane would inevitably have to have ploughed through 30 feet of two steel-panned concrete floors. Even if I grant you that a heavy titanium engine could plough through that - if it was the bit which encountered one of the floors - the other bits of a Boeing couldn't plough through what is effectively a 30 foot deep concrete bar/wall. (never mind the 'quarter of an inch').

The maintenance crew aren't even supposed to stand on the wings. Yet somehow they made a cartoon cut out - like the shape of Bugs Bunny's ears still visible in the hedge.

Surely a real Boeing would break up with different bits flying all over the place - or ploughing on through for a while - depending on composition and what they were encountering?

Have you an explanation for why we didn't see that (unlike lots of other plane crash videos) ?

And for why phoney landing wheels from the wrong make had to be 'found' in impossible places (bearing in mind the location of the supposed crashes) - just next to screened off scaffolding - and with a stone roman fasces column next to them?

_________________
For the defence of our one worldwide civilian Motherland, against whatever ruling or informal fraternities.

May all beings be happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

keithm (who ever you are),

Scotland has been the birthplace for hundreds of years to some of the finest scientists and engineers the world has ever known. From James Watt (the steam engine) to James Doohan (Scotty) on the bridge of the Starship Enterprise, there is a proud Scots tradition in understanding and using knowledge of the Laws of the Universe to the betterment of mankind, in theory if not always in practice.

Unfortunately, you aren't anywhere near being in the running.
Indeed, what in the name of Satan's Portion are you even doing besmirching their name by residing in the same country?
Have you heard of a show called 'Everything You Know is Wrong?'
Well, that's you, that is.

It is painfully and embarrassingly obvious from your previous posts that you must be one of the laziest-assed people on God's Earth, and that you've never researched anything for yourself, ever.

You've been quite content to kneel down before Andrew 'pseudo-science' Johnson and just suck it all in and lap it all up. After all, it's easier than thinking for yourself, innit?

I really wouldn't know where to even begin deconstructing your maniac view of reality and correcting your basic, fundamental Year 10 (that's for 15 year olds) errors.
All I know is, thank God I'm not in Scotland being represented by you.

But I guess some sort of congratulations are in order for successfully neutering 911 Scotland.

Way to go.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
if you pour a glass of water onto some steel it will do nothing to the steel, but if you take the same water and shoot it at the steel at high pressure, it is capable of cutting steel.

Hi Gruts. Do you have some evidence for this superficially extraordinary statement?

_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm

"How can water cut through steel?." 18 January 2001.

HowStuffWorks.com.
21 September 2008.

A waterjet is a tool used in machine shops to cut metal parts with a (very) high-pressure stream of water. As amazing as it sounds, if you get water flowing fast enough it can actually cut metal.

_________________
Summary of 9/11 scepticism: http://tinyurl.com/27ngaw6 and www.911summary.com
Off the TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4szU19bQVE
Those who do not think that employment is systemic slavery are either blind or employed. (Nassim Taleb)
www.moneyasdebt.net
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

paul wright wrote:
Quote:
if you pour a glass of water onto some steel it will do nothing to the steel, but if you take the same water and shoot it at the steel at high pressure, it is capable of cutting steel.

Hi Gruts. Do you have some evidence for this superficially extraordinary statement?

Hi Paul - although this would obviously be completely impossible using keith Mothersson's fantasy based view of the world, there is actually nothing extraordinary about it. water can be used to cut through all kinds of metals - in fact it's a well known industrial process that's been used for a long time.

so next time keith tells you that aluminium can't penetrate steel cos it's not hard enough, you can laugh at him too.... Smile

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:11 am    Post subject: Re: Aluminium versus 30 foot of concrete Reply with quote

keith Mothersson wrote:
Quick reply to gruts:

I haven't heard of high-pressure water cutting through steel before. Have you a reference?

I dispute your version of how flimsy the steel was at that height etc etc etc

keith - having now read through all your posts from the beginning of this thread - I have to say that I really can't be bothered to waste any more of my time trying to talk sense to you, as it's clearly akin to feeding ambrosia to a goat.

pretty much everything you say in your last post is wrong and if you want to find out why, either try following the advice I've already given you or have a good look through some old threads in the "controversies" section of the forum, where all the same mistakes have already been corrected multiple times.

suffice to say that if you are genuinely interested in the truth - I would seriously reflect on whether running around scotland making bs claims that are based on your staggering ignorance and inability to understand basic science, or the dishonest/incompetent interpretation of evidence, is helpful or actually counter-productive.

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PS with regard to the structure of the towers it seems that basic fact-checking is beyond you - and your misinterpretation of what the designer of the buildings said implies that you need to brush up your English language skills too.

if you start off with the wrong premise and incorrect data you're not very likely to reach the right conclusion.

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Aluminium versus 30 foot of concrete Reply with quote

keith Mothersson wrote:
Quick reply to gruts:

I haven't heard of high-pressure water cutting through steel before. Have you a reference?

http://www.tmcwaterjet.co.uk/
http://westcut-engineering.co.uk/waterjet_cutting.asp

_________________
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 819

PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Keith volunteered to draft and circulate one or more leaflets aimed at school pupils
[/quote]

I agree with this, Ive done this a few times when I got the chance. Its good to speak to young minds and give them a bit of truth cake after all they are brainwash at school. I gave out some dvds to a young lad who I spoke to in my local Library and his Mum complained to the Library assistant!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meanwhile, us dumbed down folk are still waiting for the videos of at least one of the, presumably, innumerable vehicles that crash into concrete and steel structures and then, with or without a flash, disappear....

Whilst you're all waiting for that to happen, you might be interested in StefanChekNI as the new, no planers . . .

I, for one, do not, knowingly, imbibe fluoride, so it must be something else.

_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> UK 9/11 Truth - Scotland group All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group