Best of Luck

uh, what?

Register

http://www.myspace.com/khanverse

But then you have "We'll laugh at you if you blame" & 'TV fakery' listed as one of the things. TV fakery is real bro, I've posted on here about it. It's not a coincidence that every person on TV that said they saw the plane were high-up network employees or literal professional actors such as Tony Rigo & Gary Welz. & the 'filmers' all computer graphic arts & video experts. Look it up rather than being dismissive. Yeah it 'seems far fetched' on face value but there's a logical reason why they faked the planes & that's that if they used real ones the things would have burst on impact & barely punctured the buildings rather than slice all the way through 'like a hot knife through butter'.

the official collapse story as a result.

There's a logical reason why people promote hoaxes such as the "no planes" canard. The official conspiracy theory based on 19 Arabs, although false, is eminently sensible compared to the straw man of "no planes", and "cleverly placed charges" that were so cleverly placed that the resulting entry holes resembled the outline of a Boeing 767.

The planes didn't slice through "like a hot knife through butter"; they went through like aircraft colliding with a building.

Source

That peer-reviewed paper is based on a finite element analysis that took about four hours to run on a Pentium IV 2.78 GHz PC. They assume 240 m/s (537 mph) impact velocity - which is too high for the AA11 impact with WTC 1 - and also take as much as 25,370 kg as the mass of fuel in a single wing, so they have overestimated the energy just prior to impact.

Allowing for the overestimated mass, the true minimum speed required for penetration would be a little higher than 130 m/s or 291 mph. However, the aircraft were still travelling at sufficient velocity to penetrate the exterior. The official story states 466 mph for AA11 and 545 mph for UA175.

The exterior columns used steel ranging from 1/4 inch to more than two inches in thickness. At the upper floors, the columns were only 1/4 inch (about 6 mm) thick, hence the steel was incapable of stopping the incoming 133 tons of metal and fuel. But the aircraft would not have penetrated the thick steel towards the bottom of the buildings.

The remaining kinetic energy available for damaging core columns and fireproofing would have been less than implied by that study.

And given sufficient kinetic energy, mere fluids such as kerosene or water are quite capable of damaging solid structures such as buildings, as in the Asian tsunami, for example.

It's not a coincidence that every person on TV that said they saw the plane were high-up network employees or literal professional actors such as Tony Rigo & Gary Welz. & the 'filmers' all computer graphic arts & video experts.

I used to debate a 9/11 researcher from myspace that claimed to work for Anthony Hilder on this issue, and she made the same point: 'Show me one credible person that actually saw the planes hit the towers. I've been researching this for years and I can't find one.' Since then I've met two people that have friends or relatives that actually saw the collision(s), and they're people that have no ulterior motives or interest in the issue one way or the other. A third person contacted me by email, but isn't as credible a witness, being that he was just text on a screen and may have had an agenda.

I know the no-planes theory can be tantalising, and I understand the confusion, but there were planes, and they did hit the towers.

This is all anyone who cares about the truth needs to know:

"Oh my god, the plane crashed into the building I can-not believe it" Give me a break. & then it's in another version at a different time & the guy now won't even talk about it. & this isn't even getting into the matter of Gary Welz or Tony Rigo yet.

C.O.Z. I have to say I'm even skeptical that you ever did used to debate this issue b/c that's a really convincing sounding premise for your comment that a lot of people would just accept & not question. When were you a 'no-planer' & did you ever post about it here?

how is it arrogant of me to call disinfo, disinfo?

anyway, i responded to your post on my page.

http://www.khanverse.com/phorum

C.O.Z. I have to say I'm even skeptical that you ever did used to debate this issue b/c that's a really convincing sounding premise for your comment that a lot of people would just accept & not question.

I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not sure the above even makes sense.

When were you a 'no-planer' & did you ever post about it here?

I was never a no-planer. She was the no-planer, hence the debate.

Meanwhile your arch-enemies are laughing at you for believing in their obvious frauds & attacking potential allies over them. Here's another plane witness who just happened to be yet another PROFESSIONAL ACTOR:

This guy is not Gary Welz, his real name is Tony Rigo & he appeared in an episode of The Sopranos called "Do Not Resuscitate" in season 2. You can google it & download it if you want. Here's his profile: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0726797/ His family members admit that it's him.

I misread & thought you said that you were the no-planer & not her. Any supposed witnesses to the plane crashes should come forward & give interviews about what they saw. Most no-planers agree that something hit the buildings but what it was is up for debate b/c there has to be a reason why all the eyewitnesses that day were actors, graphic animation experts & network employees & why there are versions of the same impact videos from the same supposed sources with different audio tracks.

Pre-recorded video passed off as live on 9/11. Why? What's the motive?:

Most people agree about the Pentagon but this still gives more insight about the complexity of the op.

The no-planers postulate that a Boeing 767 carrying 10,000 gallons of fuel and travelling at 466 to 545 mph is not capable of smashing through 1/4 inch thick steel perimeter columns. However, they provide no evidence to support this claim. Perhaps the no-planers could tell us what, in their view, would be the minimum velocity required for a Boeing 767 to penetrate the Towers' exterior - e.g. 700 mph? 800 mph? - and how they arrive at their conclusion.

I don't doubt that the disinformation artists would have inserted some fake 'witnesses' of planes. Straw men 'witnesses' for a straw man conspiracy theory.

I'll concede that this Tony guy sounds like he's sensationalizing but even if he's an actor does that mean he cannot tell the truth? Lots of actors probably live in NYC-manhattan area, and maybe they are given easier access to media outlets.

Anyway this is a moot point about the first plane we're talking about.

The 2nd plane has HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of witnesses because they were all fixated on the building when the second explosion took place.

http://www.khanverse.com/phorum

I'll concede that this Tony guy sounds like he's sensationalizing but even if he's an actor does that mean he cannot tell the truth? Lots of actors probably live in NYC-manhattan area, and maybe they are given easier access to media outlets.

Anyway this is a moot point about the first plane we're talking about.

The 2nd plane has HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of witnesses because they were all fixated on the building when the second explosion took place.

http://www.khanverse.com/phorum

or network employees, look into it. The videos shown of the planes hitting the buildings were fake, whatever did hit the buildings is up or debate. Some eyewitnesses on TV who were not actors said they saw a missle, before being instructed by the reporters that actually they witnessed a plane. If anyone knows someone that witnessed either of the impacts bring them forward & have them do an interview & discuss what they saw.