NPT Discussion

[Tamborine man]

im suprised you think resistence did'nt play a part,.....

??? What??? I obviously think the opposite!!!
Perhaps you could follow up with a quote or something, which indicate
what it was that gave you this idea? I'm curious to know!

if enough speed is applied to something it will take longer to slow down when resistence is applied, a five hundred mph collision is very unlikely going to be slowed down instantly unless it hit a cliffside or a very thick wall. im pretty sure you have seen the photo of the towers with the sun shining through them, can you say the towers had a very thick outer wall?
did you expect it to slow the craft down instantly? if it did'nt slow the craft down instantly what would you expect to happen to the outer wall? nothing?

You'll notice on a second glance, that I especially refer to the wings and
the tail sections!
Do you think we should just ignore these parts?

Cheers

[marky 54]

Perhaps you could follow up with a quote or something, which indicate
what it was that gave you this idea? I'm curious to know!

sure, here you go:

the plane/wings/tail section did not pass completly through the building, therefore the building provided resistence and stopped the debris in their tracks apart from a few small bits that escaped through windows etc.

for some reason you snipped it off as though it never exsisted yet here IS your answer.

if there was no resistence like you claim what stopped the debris passing through the building?

no more snipping please answer the whole point not selective bits.

You'll notice on a second glance, that I especially refer to the wings and
the tail sections!
Do you think we should just ignore these parts?

not at all, do you think we should ignore the thickness of the outerwall and speed of the impact?

maybe now you can adress this? if you expect me to run around answering all your questions whilst you ignore mine you are mistaken.

QUESTION LEFT UNADDRESSED:
there is simply no way 'nothing' could of caused that damage to both towers prior to collapse, maybe you can explain what force can cause two plane shaped holes appear from 'nothing' and provide evidence for you claims? as i find believing the plane holes appeared from 'nothing' is more ludicrous than thinking it possible the plane did enter the towers when it had enough force to breech the outer wall and was witnessed by many people who did see it with their naked eyes.

[Tamborine man]

Which part of "No" confused you?

But to save you floundering about chapters 5-8 might enlighten you.
A bit.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2B_Chaps1-8.pdf

Your two contradictory "No's" are rather confusing, to say the least.

Not really, the 'no' was in answer to this:

are you telling me that in your opinion the 5 concrete floors offered the same resistance as the empty spaces between them??
Cheers.

There's nothing confusing about a 'no' there that I can detect.

No. The confusion comes in with your second "no" to my other question
about whether you then are agreeing with me, that there nescessary
must be a difference in resistance etc, etc..

As far as I can gather from what you now write is, that you actually do
agree with me that there must be a difference in resistance between the
floors versus the empty spaces behind the steel columns, but as far as
you are concerned, this difference is imperceptible!!

Have I got this right?

Or can I expect a third "no" on its way now, just to make the
confusion total!

"Logic dictates that far greater resistance should be present where the concrete floors meet the vertical steel columns, than where only empty space are behind these columns. This large difference in resistance should therefore have been translated to the plane upon impact, and that goes especially for the wings and the tail sections.
But no such difference of resistance is visible on any video that shows the
collision of the planes against the towers.

But to all intents and purposes, as in the Sandia Phantom test impact on a concrete reactor wall, the deceleration is imperceptible.

cheers

[chek]

No. The confusion comes in with your second "no" to my other question
about whether you then are agreeing with me, that there nescessary
must be a difference in resistance etc, etc..

As far as I can gather from what you now write is, that you actually do
agree with me that there must be a difference in resistance between the
floors versus the empty spaces behind the steel columns, but as far as
you are concerned, this difference is imperceptible!!

Have I got this right?
cheers

Which, cutting the nonsense away, basically boils down to - yet again - the event not being what you 'expect' to see, in spite of there being few precedents.

One of the few precedents for impact at that speed is the Sandia reactor wall test, which clearly shows the tail end not decelerating despite the progressive disintegration of the structure forward of it.

Why you 'expect' a different result against a less massive, separated grid structure is a mystery to me.

[Tamborine man]

Perhaps you could follow up with a quote or something, which indicate
what it was that gave you this idea? I'm curious to know!

sure, here you go:

the plane/wings/tail section did not pass completly through the building, therefore the building provided resistence and stopped the debris in their tracks apart from a few small bits that escaped through windows etc.

for some reason you snipped it off as though it never exsisted yet here IS your answer.

if there was no resistence like you claim what stopped the debris passing through the building?

no more snipping please answer the whole point not selective bits.

But in heavens name, you're just quoting yourself here!
Obviously you are asked to come up with a quote where I claim there
was no resistance!!
Has it completely escaped you that the talk here is about the difference
of resistance between the 5 floors versus the empty space behind the
perimeter steel columns!!

Try your best to stick to the topic at hand, please!

Cheers

[catfish]

Someone got a link for the Scandia reactor wall test please?

Thanks in advance,
David

[Tamborine man]

No. The confusion comes in with your second "no" to my other question
about whether you then are agreeing with me, that there nescessary
must be a difference in resistance etc, etc..

As far as I can gather from what you now write is, that you actually do
agree with me that there must be a difference in resistance between the
floors versus the empty spaces behind the steel columns, but as far as
you are concerned, this difference is imperceptible!!

Have I got this right?
cheers

Which, cutting the nonsense away, basically boils down to - yet again - the event not being what you 'expect' to see, in spite of there being few precedents.

One of the few precedents for impact at that speed is the Sandia reactor wall test, which clearly shows the tail end not decelerating despite the progressive disintegration of the structure forward of it.

Why you 'expect' a different result against a less massive, separated grid structure is a mystery to me.

It has been a real pleasure talking to you chek

Thanks

Cheers

[marky 54]

Perhaps you could follow up with a quote or something, which indicate
what it was that gave you this idea? I'm curious to know!

sure, here you go:

the plane/wings/tail section did not pass completly through the building, therefore the building provided resistence and stopped the debris in their tracks apart from a few small bits that escaped through windows etc.

for some reason you snipped it off as though it never exsisted yet here IS your answer.

if there was no resistence like you claim what stopped the debris passing through the building?

no more snipping please answer the whole point not selective bits.

But in heavens name, you're just quoting yourself here!
Obviously you are asked to come up with a quote where I claim there
was no resistance!!
Has it completely escaped you that the talk here is about the difference
of resistance between the 5 floors versus the empty space behind the
perimeter steel columns!!

Try your best to stick to the topic at hand, please!

Cheers

my mistake i must of hand previous posts by illogical thinkers in mind, sorry my mistake.

do you think you can actually answer a question somebody asks you now?

QUESTION LEFT UNADDRESSED:
there is simply no way 'nothing' could of caused that damage to both towers prior to collapse, maybe you can explain what force can cause two plane shaped holes appear from 'nothing' and provide evidence for you claims? as i find believing the plane holes appeared from 'nothing' is more ludicrous than thinking it possible the plane did enter the towers when it had enough force to breech the outer wall and was witnessed by many people who did see it with their naked eyes.

or car'nt you answer it?

[chek]

Someone got a link for the Sandia reactor wall test please?

Thanks in advance,
David

Here ya go, down near the bottom of the page.

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/vi ... index.html

[Tamborine man]

But in heavens name, you're just quoting yourself here!
Obviously you are asked to come up with a quote where I claim there
was no resistance!!
Has it completely escaped you that the talk here is about the difference
of resistance between the 5 floors versus the empty space behind the
perimeter steel columns!!

Try your best to stick to the topic at hand, please!

Cheers

my mistake i must of hand previous posts by illogical thinkers in mind, sorry my mistake.

do you think you can actually answer a question somebody asks you now?

QUESTION LEFT UNADDRESSED:
there is simply no way 'nothing' could of caused that damage to both towers prior to collapse, maybe you can explain what force can cause two plane shaped holes appear from 'nothing' and provide evidence for you claims? as i find believing the plane holes appeared from 'nothing' is more ludicrous than thinking it possible the plane did enter the towers when it had enough force to breech the outer wall and was witnessed by many people who did see it with their naked eyes.

or car'nt you answer it?

I think you must be confusing me with somebody else!

Can't recall ever discussing this 'nothing' business with you!!

Cheers

[catfish]

One of the few precedents for impact at that speed is the Sandia reactor wall test, which clearly shows the tail end not decelerating despite the progressive disintegration of the structure forward of it.

But:

the wall was not attached to the ground and was displaced nearly six feet

and

the wall was not anchored in the ground (as containment domes are) but suspended on a cushion of compressed air so that it would be pushed back and would not suffer structural damage. The reason: the test was not intended to test the strength of the wall, but rather to measure the impact forces of the jet crashing into it. That is why Sandia devised a "frictionless" way for the wall to move, upon impact.

http://www.nci.org/02NCI/01/back-27.htm

[chek]

One of the few precedents for impact at that speed is the Sandia reactor wall test, which clearly shows the tail end not decelerating despite the progressive disintegration of the structure forward of it.

But:

the wall was not attached to the ground and was displaced nearly six feet

and

the wall was not anchored in the ground (as containment domes are) but suspended on a cushion of compressed air so that it would be pushed back and would not suffer structural damage. The reason: the test was not intended to test the strength of the wall, but rather to measure the impact forces of the jet crashing into it. That is why Sandia devised a "frictionless" way for the wall to move, upon impact.

http://www.nci.org/02NCI/01/back-27.htm

Well that takes care of NCI's objections to the validity of the wall test on reactor containment structures, but given that the 6 ft 'wall float distance' is the approx radome length (the black area of the nose), I don't see how that very much affects the progressive and continuous destruction of the rest of the airframe back to the tail and the noticeable lack of 'expected' deceleration that we're more interested in, in this context.

But please correct me if I'm missing something.

[catfish]

I honestly don't know chek.

I would think however that the frictionless compressed air wall malarky would prevent us from seeing any of the expected characteristics had the wall been solid and fixed to the ground.

i.e. the deceleration of the tail is not visible because the floating wall absorbs a great deal of the impact.

NCI seem to think that had the wall not moved then the sled would have penetrated the wall, however in this test it did not. The wings are sheered off nicely though!

Cool video chek thanks for the link.

Peace

David

[marky 54]

my mistake i must of hand previous posts by illogical thinkers in mind, sorry my mistake.

do you think you can actually answer a question somebody asks you now?

QUESTION LEFT UNADDRESSED:
there is simply no way 'nothing' could of caused that damage to both towers prior to collapse, maybe you can explain what force can cause two plane shaped holes appear from 'nothing' and provide evidence for you claims? as i find believing the plane holes appeared from 'nothing' is more ludicrous than thinking it possible the plane did enter the towers when it had enough force to breech the outer wall and was witnessed by many people who did see it with their naked eyes.

or car'nt you answer it?

I think you must be confusing me with somebody else!

Can't recall ever discussing this 'nothing' business with you!!

Cheers

what an arrogant * you sound like.

so you think this is all about you? you think we are all here to answer your questions and demands?

the point of my question was simple, if it is such a big deal that a plane could not of done what they did then what the hell caused the holes in the towers?

you are expecting people to believe the planes could'nt do what we saw but instead believe the plane holes appeared from nothing as nobody as yet has offered an explaination with proof which is what im asking you to do.

you however seem to think that you can probe people for answers whilst totally ignoring anything they ask because you have not even got the compacity to answer.

therefore you have proved the number one reason why it is more likely planes entered the towers, as you have no other alternative you can prove to explain the plane holes, and currently actual planes causing this damage is far more sensible and logical than thinking they just appeared with no proof and no explaination.

so either answer the question i originally asked, or drop your bogus arguement of planes not being able to enter towers, as the current options are:

a: no plane no explaination or proof of how plane holes were caused.

b: planes with explaination and proof of plane holes.

b: is more likely a: is impossible.

and just so you understand im asking you the question as you seem to think everything only revolves around your questions, which i find very arrogant, but maybe you are, you may not of bought up the plane holes appearing from nothing but i DID, as it is needed as an explaination if you expect people to move away from thinking planes caused plane holes, do you get it yet? or are you still having trouble understanding? or maybe you just don't have the answers as you are just a repeater repeating information and you are unable to think about it as you only give information somebody else has gave you.

i mean please forgive people for thinking planes caused planes holes, how dumb of them. they should obviously of seen it a long time ago, the plane holes were caused by nothing.

[arthur two sheds jackson]

I think you must be confusing me with somebody else!

Can't recall ever discussing this 'nothing' business with you!!

Cheers

what an arrogant * you sound like.

so you think this is all about you? you think we are all here to answer your questions and demands?

the point of my question was simple, if it is such a big deal that a plane could not of done what they did then what the hell caused the holes in the towers?

you are expecting people to believe the planes could'nt do what we saw but instead believe the plane holes appeared from nothing as nobody as yet has offered an explaination with proof which is what im asking you to do.

you however seem to think that you can probe people for answers whilst totally ignoring anything they ask because you have not even got the compacity to answer.

therefore you have proved the number one reason why it is more likely planes entered the towers, as you have no other alternative you can prove to explain the plane holes, and currently actual planes causing this damage is far more sensible and logical than thinking they just appeared with no proof and no explaination.

so either answer the question i originally asked, or drop your bogus arguement of planes not being able to enter towers, as the current options are:

a: no plane no explaination or proof of how plane holes were caused.

b: planes with explaination and proof of plane holes.

b: is more likely a: is impossible.

and just so you understand im asking you the question as you seem to think everything only revolves around your questions, which i find very arrogant, but maybe you are, you may not of bought up the plane holes appearing from nothing but i DID, as it is needed as an explaination if you expect people to move away from thinking planes caused plane holes, do you get it yet? or are you still having trouble understanding? or maybe you just don't have the answers as you are just a repeater repeating information and you are unable to think about it as you only give information somebody else has gave you.

i mean please forgive people for thinking planes caused planes holes, how dumb of them. they should obviously of seen it a long time ago, the plane holes were caused by nothing.

There were no plane holes because there were no planes.

What you saw was video fakery that made it look like a hole.

[marky 54]

what an arrogant * you sound like.

so you think this is all about you? you think we are all here to answer your questions and demands?

the point of my question was simple, if it is such a big deal that a plane could not of done what they did then what the hell caused the holes in the towers?

you are expecting people to believe the planes could'nt do what we saw but instead believe the plane holes appeared from nothing as nobody as yet has offered an explaination with proof which is what im asking you to do.

you however seem to think that you can probe people for answers whilst totally ignoring anything they ask because you have not even got the compacity to answer.

therefore you have proved the number one reason why it is more likely planes entered the towers, as you have no other alternative you can prove to explain the plane holes, and currently actual planes causing this damage is far more sensible and logical than thinking they just appeared with no proof and no explaination.

so either answer the question i originally asked, or drop your bogus arguement of planes not being able to enter towers, as the current options are:

a: no plane no explaination or proof of how plane holes were caused.

b: planes with explaination and proof of plane holes.

b: is more likely a: is impossible.

and just so you understand im asking you the question as you seem to think everything only revolves around your questions, which i find very arrogant, but maybe you are, you may not of bought up the plane holes appearing from nothing but i DID, as it is needed as an explaination if you expect people to move away from thinking planes caused plane holes, do you get it yet? or are you still having trouble understanding? or maybe you just don't have the answers as you are just a repeater repeating information and you are unable to think about it as you only give information somebody else has gave you.

i mean please forgive people for thinking planes caused planes holes, how dumb of them. they should obviously of seen it a long time ago, the plane holes were caused by nothing.

There were no plane holes because there were no planes.

What you saw was video fakery that made it look like a hole.

so what were the people at ground zero seeing???? mind implants?????

[arthur two sheds jackson]

There were no plane holes because there were no planes.

What you saw was video fakery that made it look like a hole.

so what were the people at ground zero seeing???? mind implants?????

The only people at ground zero who said they saw planes were either lying or mistaken ...........PERIOD

[marky 54]

The only people at ground zero who said they saw planes were either lying or mistaken ...........PERIOD

do you have any proof they are all lieing? by the way how do you mistake a big boeing jet crashing into buildings? im just curious how you can even say "or mistaken" i fail to see how they can mistake nothing happening as a big boeing jet hitting a building.

and of course its entirely impossible you could be lieing or mistaken is'nt it?

[arthur two sheds jackson]

The only people at ground zero who said they saw planes were either lying or mistaken ...........PERIOD

do you have any proof they are all lieing? by the way how do you mistake a big boeing jet crashing into buildings? im just curious how you can even say "or mistaken" i fail to see how they can mistake nothing happening as a big boeing jet hitting a building.

and of course its entirely impossible you could be lieing or mistaken is'nt it?

We have had so called eye witnesses saying they saw the official planes, commuter planes, small jets, missiles, big grey planes and planes with no windows. They cannot all be correct, in fact with the possible exception of missiles they are all lying.

Tell you what Marky, you prove they are not lying, you provide some real evidence of plane parts, you provide some real video footage that shows real planes hitting the WTC.

You know you can't because you can NEVER PROVE A LIE

[marky 54]

if theres one thing i have learnt and that is npt theorists are never satisfied with any evidence, its so easy to say "hes lieing" or "it was planted" or "its fake".

so why not tell me what you would accept as 'real' evidence, then i will have a search.

i cannot see npt'ers acknowleging things that would say the opposite to their religon.

[gruts]

There were no plane holes because there were no planes.

What you saw was video fakery that made it look like a hole.

lol - new year, new id but I see you're still repeating the same old sh!te....

which previously banned numpty are you?

[jfk]

no plane witness round table

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSIgctg3dgA[/youtube]

[marky 54]

i heard the noise but I did'nt see the plane. it dos'nt sound like hes disputing wether or not there was a plane, it sounds more like he is saying he did'nt see it.

i heard two references to other people around them saying they saw a plane.

if its all psy-ops then its still open to debate about what the psy-op is, there was a plane or was not a plane.

if people think it is possible for all witnesses in NY to lie and all photos and video footage is fake, then it is also possible that those who claim no plane and make out all footage is fake etc could be lieing to.

both would need the same level of liars to pull of the deception, and someone obviously are as both cannot be right.

however as with all evidence its about finding something solid to know who the liars are.

for example: was the guy in this clip lieing who said he saw no plane?

the only one who knows for sure if those who actually witnessed it, the rest of us have to try and weight it up without that knowledge. so we have to look at 'other evidence' as well as listen to what witnesses say.

somebody saying it was a plane on its own dos'nt prove it, nor does somebody saying their was no plane on their own.

10 people saying plane and 10 people saying no plane proves nothing either.

and on pysical evidence npt is left flapping around with alot of false claims which do the theory no favours at all.

[jfk]

marky, this is the sound of the object that hit the 2nd tower

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZtuAuYf-Duc[/youtube]

does that sound like a jumbo jet?

[jfk]

this is a real jumbo jet

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=hFdIP0UGRwE[/youtube]

[jfk]

"it's a tough call"

missile or jet?

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=QAjuK3O7xwY[/youtube]

[chek]

this is a real jumbo jet

Jfk, don't you get just a little disheartened that the quality of your "evidence" relies on the equivalent of "if you close one eye and squint with the other you can almost fool yourself....etc."

Your first clip demonstrates a twin engined B767 slamming into a building from at least 600ft in front of it's noise footprint at 500+mph before it comes to an abrupt halt, whereas your second shows a four engined jet at an airshow passing overhead at less that 250mph (flaps extended, landing gear down). Where is the commonality and who do you think you're kidding, I ask myself?

Still, as long as you realise it's only yourself you're fooling, no harm done.

[chek]

"it's a tough call"

missile or jet?

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=QAjuK3O7xwY[/youtube]

You forgot ..."or more inconsequential irrelevance".