The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


For Kikapu

Feel free to talk about anything that you want.

Re: For Kikapu

Postby Sotos » Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:46 pm

Maximus wrote:
Sotos wrote:This conspiracy theory doesn't make any sense. First of all the planes were recorded crashing in the towers by many different cameras and tons of other people saw the planes crashing... that incident happened in Manhattan, one of the most densely populated places on earth. Even if for arguments sake I accept that faking such thing is even possible, to fake it successfully would require A LOT of super smart and super skilled people working together for many months. The idea that a great number of scientists and highly skilled people would be working for months to perfect the murder of 1000s of their compatriots knowing that if caught they would face the death penalty is plain stupid! WHY would they do such thing? If they wanted same false flag operations they could simply make up some "suicide" bombings of certain places of great importance... WAY easier, cheaper and it would have the same result.



The guy in the video says that there was no second plane seen in the air when the footage was being taken of the second impact while the camera was zoomed out. However, after the camera man zooms in, a few seconds later a plane appears and crashes in to the second tower.


Which camera? Here are 43 cameras... and there are 1000s of people around looking while the second plane crashes on the 2nd tower.

User avatar
Sotos
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 10651
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:50 am

Re: For Kikapu

Postby Maximus » Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:49 pm

look at the crash on one of the clips starting at 1:30 Sotos

The plane just seems to disappear right before impact.
Last edited by Maximus on Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Maximus
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4274
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: For Kikapu

Postby Get Real! » Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:50 pm

Maximus wrote:its not a satisfactory explaination GR. Just to go back to the crash test of the fighter jet in to the concrete wall.

The towers were not just made of steel beams as a structure. There was also a lot of concrete filling the spaces between those beems. There were lots of walls inside the building to partition rooms. Lets take a single floor from the tower for example, that represents a lot of dense concrete. if the plane hits any floor perpendicular to its flight path I believe it would simulate a thicker concrete wall than what was used in the crash test for the fighter jet. And we saw what happened to that plane.

To say that the plane can go all the way through with its nose still intact is not physically possible.

Look, if you think that the experiment with solid concrete you posted is relevant to 9/11 then this conversation is over. :lol:
User avatar
Get Real!
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 40401
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:25 am
Location: Nicosia

Re: For Kikapu

Postby Maximus » Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:55 pm

I am saying that the towers were not just made up of steel beams. There is a lot of dense concrete filling all the spaces between the beams too. The plane hit the building to its side. How many floors of dense concrete would it hit 4, 5 or 6?

still no explaination about the nose GR?
Maximus
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4274
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: For Kikapu

Postby Kikapu » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:47 am

Maximus wrote:look at the crash on one of the clips starting at 1:30 Sotos

The plane just seems to disappear right before impact.


The plane at 1:30 clip disappears behind the dome of another building before impacting the tower, and not that the plane disappeared before the impact with the tower. There is a difference.
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 13540
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Re: For Kikapu

Postby B25 » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:03 am

I would like to see the missing 89 pages of the official report.

I wonder if it mentions CIA/Saudis and other???

Just a question.

The 9/11 was an inside job no doubt irrespective of what is said here. GR is talking BS if he thinks an aluminium plane is stronger that high tensile steel and reinforced concrete.

Just stick to programming mate.
User avatar
B25
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6068
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:03 pm
Location: ** Classified **

Re: For Kikapu

Postby Sotos » Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:56 am

GR is talking BS if he thinks an aluminium plane is stronger that high tensile steel and reinforced concrete.


What you are not considering is the speed and the mass of the plane. Even water at high speed (pressure) can be very penetrating. It doesn't mean that the aluminium was not deformed as well, it just means that all the deformed material from both the outside of the building and the plane was pushed to the inside of the building because that was the direction of the momentum. The strong part of the WTC Towers was the central core, not its outside walls. Let me put it another way: what is stronger, metal or meat? Your answer will obviously be metal. Now take a fat woman and drop her from a tall building on a car. Look what happens to the car! A big mass of meat at a great speed can total smash a metallic contraction, especially when it is relatively thin, like the outside walls of the twin towers which were mostly glass and relatively thin layers of steel whose job was merely too keep the shell of the building and they were not load-bearing.
User avatar
Sotos
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 10651
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:50 am

Re: For Kikapu

Postby Jerry » Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:01 am

Rather than argue about the planes consider the people who were on the plane and whose deaths were reported to their next of kin, were they "disappeared" by a vast conspiracy?

What a load of bollocks :lol: :lol: :lol:
Jerry
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 12:29 pm
Location: UK

Re: For Kikapu

Postby Sotos » Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:07 am

Jerry wrote:Rather than argue about the planes consider the people who were on the plane and whose deaths were reported to their next of kin, were they "disappeared" by a vast conspiracy?

What a load of bollocks :lol: :lol: :lol:


Those people, the airlines, all radar operators and 1000s more people were all part of this... A grant conspiracy to kill thousands and achieve nothing that couldn't be achieved way way easier by other means! :?
User avatar
Sotos
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 10651
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:50 am

Re: For Kikapu

Postby Robin Hood » Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:41 am

This could be interesting ................

What we saw on TV did happen. The first impact was only recorded on one camera. The second was covered by dozens. The aircraft were there and they hit the buildings ..... the rest comes down to putting the facts together and comparing it with what we saw on TV.

As for the other incidents on the same day, there are no pictures available, so it is all speculation. However WTC7 was filmed and it managed to collapse in exactly (well almost) the same way as WTC1 and WTC2 ..... and yet it was not hit by an aeroplane.

In the previous posts in this thread there are a lot of misconceptions that are in complete conflict with engineering evidence and Newton’s accepted Laws of gravity and motion. When what we saw defies Universal laws then someone is not telling the truth and somehow I don’t think it was Newton!!!!!

Lets stick to known and provable fact? This is a comprehensive engineering site. It is background facts and are all substantiated with irrefutable engineering evidence and according to design drawings of both towers. It makes no accusations but questions what happened and asks for explanation. Not something that could be called a conspiracy theory ..... just a route to the full facts of what happened ..... not who was behind it.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

The way each floor was constructed is shown in these original drawings and there was no reinforced concrete floors! It was light concrete poured onto a light corrugated metal deck. I believe there were only three floors that had reinforced concrete and they were the three floors containing the buildings machinery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center#/media/File:Wtc_floor_truss_system.png

The centre core comprised 47 fabricated steel columns down to bed rock. The columns ranged from 54” x 22” from the base up to the 66th floor. These were fabricated from 4” thick steel plate. Above that level they gradually reduced in dimension and were made from 2“ steel plate.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... fig2-4.png

The outer walls were similar to a curtain wall. They were a relatively light weight light steel matrix pre-fabricated sections that spread the load and supported primarily the weight of the outer skin above. This was in effect a steel box section tube held to the centre columns by the lattice floor beams. Most of the structural weight was taken through the centre core columns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center#/media/File:World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_Elevator_Arrangement.svg

The building was designed (1964) to take the impact of a fully fuelled Boeing 707 travelling at a speed of around 600 mph.(23,000 US gallons of Jet A1). The largest passenger jet aircraft made at the time of building design, but very little difference between the 707 and the 767.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html

Any one want to start a sensible and reasoned discussion? :roll: :?:
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

PreviousNext

Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests