The Roadrunner
The Roadrunner
Has anyone been successful yet of recreating an airplane crashing into a concrete/steel building? Don't you think this would disprove what happened? Like shooting a beercan through a ????????. What material would give you the same resistance as the concrete/steel framework using a beercan as the airplane? I know it's a stupid question but I would like to see it tried. Another thing is the speed at sea level. Can we get a speed from the videos that the planes were supposed to be traveling? Were the perps thinking "in a tornado I've seen a piece of straw embedded in a tree!" This is something that's been on my mind for awhile.
-
- Member
- Posts: 853
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm
Re: The Roadrunner
An empty aluminium object cannot penetrate steel , let alone 2 layers of it like The Peremeter Walls and The Core . Plus it would have to cut through the floors . Its like experimenting stopping a Humvey going 100 km/h jumping in fornt of it. Can it happen? Maybe
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7341
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Re: The Roadrunner
Well, I did at least try recreating the idiotic Evan Fairbanks shot. I know, it's only a silly video montage ... but that's exactly what just about ALL of 9/11 was about : silly image montages! (and, of course, a controlled demolition of the entire WTC complex).jlsumme wrote:Has anyone been successful yet of recreating an airplane crashing into a concrete/steel building? Don't you think this would disprove what happened? Like shooting a beercan through a ????????. What material would give you the same resistance as the concrete/steel framework using a beercan as the airplane? I know it's a stupid question but I would like to see it tried. Another thing is the speed at sea level. Can we get a speed from the videos that the planes were supposed to be traveling? Were the perps thinking "in a tornado I've seen a piece of straw embedded in a tree!" This is something that's been on my mind for awhile.
By the way, just today a guy named 'Anthony C' sent me via e-mail me this good analysis of his:
-----------1-------------------------------2-----------------------------------3---------
(NOTE: Now, if the discrepancy between 1 and 2 (355ft versus 279) could be explained away with video aspect-ratio issues or/and vantage point perspectives, the discrepancy between 1 and 3 (355ft versus 520ft) is only explainable as a monstrous cock up on the part of the 9/11 goons.
As you see - we really shouldn't waste more time and money trying to crash a real 767 into a steel building to see what it looks like. All we need to do is compare the available videos released by the media and show that they mutually invalidate each other. Much, much cheaper - and disarmingly undisputable !
Re: The Roadrunner
The shipbuilding industry has successfully recreated various ship collisions (to improve collision protection into the designs); small ship/tanker hitting big ship/tankers and big ship/tanker hitting small ship/tankers; perpendicular or at angles, at various speeds, etc, etc. Just google on e.g. oil tanker collisions at sea damages and you'll find interesting stuff.jlsumme wrote:Has anyone been successful yet of recreating an airplane crashing into a concrete/steel building?
You will not find a small oil tanker hitting a mega 5000 passengers cruise ship where the small tanker disappears into the cruise ship; whereafter there is a big fire ball and the cruise ship is on fire for 60 minutes and then suddenly sinks in 15 seconds. It only happens in Hollywood animations.
Re: The Roadrunner
Until someone proves that any of the 9/11 images/videos is 'real', there is no reason to waste time 'proving' that any plane-hugger strawman theory is either valid or invalid, since they are all intended solely to attract attention away from the faked videos.jlsumme wrote:Has anyone been successful yet of recreating an airplane crashing into a concrete/steel building? Don't you think this would disprove what happened?
...
Another thing is the speed at sea level. Can we get a speed from the videos that the planes were supposed to be traveling
Re: The Roadrunner
Can I get credit for the straw-man part?plane-hugger strawman theory
The wings must have been heavier that the fuselage since they carried the fuel so there must be a difference in the impact of the two. Fire should have started upon impact, fuselage should have deflected to some degree.
B-52 hits Empire State building:
http://www.damninteresting.com/the-b-25 ... e-building
Re: The Roadrunner
Wouldn't you rather waste your time watching these B-52s - from Athens, GA!jlsumme wrote:B-52 hits Empire State building
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGdkDuL_fgU
Ricky Wilson's last performance.
Re: The Roadrunner
Just looking at this, it was a B-25 that hit the Empire State building. B-52 wasn't made until a bit later.
Re: The Roadrunner
A litre of milk in a carton is quite heavy - throw it at at a wall. Same physics!jlsumme wrote:Can I get credit for the straw-man part?plane-hugger strawman theory
The wings must have been heavier that the fuselage since they carried the fuel so there must be a difference in the impact of the two. Fire should have started upon impact, fuselage should have deflected to some degree.
B-52 hits Empire State building:
http://www.damninteresting.com/the-b-25 ... e-building
Re: The Roadrunner
Just a basic drapht I'am currently working on below...
NO entry hole!!
Source- Jennifer Spell
Almost the entire Fuselage, wings, and engines. Have pierced the nth tower, yet not a single sign of an entry hole!
Source- Michael Hezarkhani (CNN)
(In between the fuselage and left engine the plane has pierced the building yet has not yet made the hole.
This is of course reprehensive of a pixel crash.)
Look no hole.. The plane has entered the WTC...and the fuselage has not made any hole!
Source- Luc Courchesne
No the videos don’t “Match” up!!
(NOTE: Now, if the discrepancy between 1 and 2 (355ft versus 279) could be explained away with video aspect-ratio issues or/and vantage point perspectives, the discrepancy between 1 and 3 (355ft versus 520ft) is only explainable as a monstrous cock up on the part of the 9/11 goons.)
NO entry hole!!
Source- Jennifer Spell
Almost the entire Fuselage, wings, and engines. Have pierced the nth tower, yet not a single sign of an entry hole!
Source- Michael Hezarkhani (CNN)
(In between the fuselage and left engine the plane has pierced the building yet has not yet made the hole.
This is of course reprehensive of a pixel crash.)
Look no hole.. The plane has entered the WTC...and the fuselage has not made any hole!
Source- Luc Courchesne
No the videos don’t “Match” up!!
(NOTE: Now, if the discrepancy between 1 and 2 (355ft versus 279) could be explained away with video aspect-ratio issues or/and vantage point perspectives, the discrepancy between 1 and 3 (355ft versus 520ft) is only explainable as a monstrous cock up on the part of the 9/11 goons.)