Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
MysteryX

If you were under 15 on 9/11 click here

1,212 posts in this topic

Way to knitpick. You really prove your point. :rolleyes:

You're obviously correct. It should be fairly easy for someone who has never flown before to exactly hit a relativley small target while under extremely stressfull circumstances. How silly of me.

But on the serious side I recomend you give it a try yourself. Go download microsofts flight simulator and give it a try. Otherwise you can just stick with correcting my verbage because that's the important part, right?

Again, just because you cant do it in a simulator does not mean it cant be done. What part of that do you not understand?

You responding to my quote with your snide remarks and obvious sarcasm does not help your position.

Only reason why I am correcting your verbage is because you claim it is "nearly impossible".

So tell me. Who was flying the planes? Where they remote controlled? Where they drones?

If a human cannot accomplish this feat, then what is your theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it hasn't taken long for this to turn into Yet Another Generic 9/11 Thread (version 122.0).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, just because you cant do it in a simulator does not mean it cant be done. What part of that do you not understand?

You responding to my quote with your snide remarks and obvious sarcasm does not help your position.

Only reason why I am correcting your verbage is because you claim it is "nearly impossible".

So tell me. Who was flying the planes? Where they remote controlled? Where they drones?

If a human cannot accomplish this feat, then what is your theory?

I don't have a theory, I'm just stating my own experience with flight simulations makes it seem unlikely that the official story is fact. I've seen several programs that propose that the pentagon was hit with a missile and not a plane.

But again I urge anybody who is interested in this subject to give my flight simulator experiment a try. Point of interest, my attemp to hit a building in the simulator was before 9/11 ever took place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it hasn't taken long for this to turn into Yet Another Generic 9/11 Thread (version 122.0).

completely agreed.

Why bother posting a new topic on the same old babble instead of joining the ones already available.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it hasn't taken long for this to turn into Yet Another Generic 9/11 Thread (version 122.0).

suprised?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, yeah, just make a claim and don't back it up. In every picture the centre is washed out white, but the thermite is still near-white at the far end of each flow, while the WTC flow rapidly becomes reddish.

Yeah yeah, people will look at the pictures and make up their own minds whether the WTC2 flow matches thermite.

The two top proposals for alternatives are a mixture of aluminium and other building debris or lead from the battery room which was right where the flow originates. Both match the colour and lack of damage to the building much better than thermite.

The first suggestion has been proven through experiment not to reproduce the observation: -

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

(see “Molten Material Pouring out of the South Tower” on pg. 15)

The second suggestion has never been shown to reproduce the observation in any case, at any time, anywhere, ever. In fact the information you provided previously showed that a battery short circuit may cause very focused vaporization of a few lead molecules (with a bang)… not a large volume of 1,000oC+ molten lead.

As usual, there is zero evidence or comparative example that your “alternatives” could produce the WTC2 molten flow. You are clinging to belief that is entirely without merit because you can’t face the obvious best fit (indeed the only possible) answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a theory, I'm just stating my own experience with flight simulations makes it seem unlikely that the official story is fact.

That really doesn't mean much i'm afraid. I couldn't stay afloat on an iceberg for weeks on end, row some 800 miles across the roughest seas on the planet in a boat not much bigger then a bath tub, and then scale mountain peaks to get from one side of an island to another....yet it's been done (shackelton)....remarkable things happen by determined people all the time, just because 'joe public' doesn't deem it possible doesn't mean anything. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what? As soon a someone turns 15 the secret government brainwashing kicks in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That really doesn't mean much i'm afraid. I couldn't stay afloat on an iceberg for weeks on end, row some 800 miles across the roughest seas on the planet in a boat not much bigger then a bath tub, and then scale mountain peaks to get from one side of an island to another....yet it's been done (shackelton)....remarkable things happen by determined people all the time, just because 'joe public' doesn't deem it possible doesn't mean anything. :)

Then go download the simulator and hit a building the first time, and remember, be eXtra determined. Itried 4 or 5 times, I'm generally really good at video games, and I didn't hit it once. If you're not willing to find out for yourself then you don't really have room to comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then go download the simulator and hit a building the first time, and remember, be eXtra determined. Itried 4 or 5 times, I'm generally really good at video games, and I didn't hit it once. If you're not willing to find out for yourself then you don't really have room to comment.

Oh I do have room to comment, for the reasons I just explained that you clearly didn't read.

So if I can't do it 1st time it can't be done then? Is that what you're saying?

What about if I tried it 4 or 5 times and succeeded on the 5th time? so what, that proves nothing either since the pilot on 9/11 didn't try 4 or 5 times, so your logic fails there too. What about if I did it on the 7th time, does that then mean it can be done then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then don't give it a try. I agree that my experience with the sim doesn't mean anything except it has coloured my perception of the whole thing. What you don't get is I'm not trying to argue about it. Just posted what to me is an interesting anecdote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Then don't give it a try. I agree that my experience with the sim doesn't mean anything except it has coloured my perception of the whole thing. What you don't get is I'm not trying to argue about it. Just posted what to me is an interesting anecdote.

I won the F1 championship first time on the new game so i wrote to Ron Dennis asking him when i could expect my F1 overalls through the post - they still have not got back to me but any day soon....maybe?

Edited by Dis Pater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Then go download the simulator and hit a building the first time, and remember, be eXtra determined. Itried 4 or 5 times, I'm generally really good at video games, and I didn't hit it once. If you're not willing to find out for yourself then you don't really have room to comment.

But can you fly an X-Wing into it?

Is this seriously being offered as evidence against the official version of 9/11?

Man, the conspiracy types are getting desperate.

Edited by Rafterman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But can you fly an X-Wing into it?

Is this seriously being offered as evidence against the official version of 9/11?

Man, the conspiracy types are getting desperate.

Maybe you should read the post at the top of this page and stop being a douche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won the F1 championship first time on the new game so i wrote to Ron Dennis asking him when i could expect my F1 overalls through the post - they still have not got back to me but any day soon....maybe?

Probably not, try the NASCAR game instead. Maybe they'll take you up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not, try the NASCAR game instead. Maybe they'll take you up.

:cry: ..you've ruined my dream but you're fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But can you fly an X-Wing into it?

Is this seriously being offered as evidence against the official version of 9/11?

Man, the conspiracy types are getting desperate.

See my point now OverSword?

Just because you cannot do it in a flight simulator does not mean it cannot be done in real life. So using your argument about the flight sim is a weak piece of evidence to support your view on 9/11.

Again, I will state, you are entitled to your opinion, but that does not make your opinion correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

See my point now OverSword?

Just because you cannot do it in a flight simulator does not mean it cannot be done in real life. So using your argument about the flight sim is a weak piece of evidence to support your view on 9/11.

Again, I will state, you are entitled to your opinion, but that does not make your opinion correct.

And again, perhaps you should read my post at the top of this page. (5)

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Here is something to consider. I used to have one of the versions of microsofts flight simulator. The physics were supposed to be very realistic. One of the "missions" on that simulator was landing at o'hare in chicago. I decided to hit a building instead. I tried multiple times and even came close on a couple of attempts. To hit that vector perfectly at the speeds it takes to keep a plane airborne for someone with no flight experience is nearly impossible. so to hit not just one tower but both? Unlikely. and then a third plane manages to exactly run into a five story building without overshooting or hitting the ground beforehand? Laughable. I don't have the answers but the official version is definetly not true.

Mind explaining the statement in bold then?

To me your statement was not an anecdote but an explanation on why the official story story is not true.

Edited by RaptorBites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is one other explanation which I favour… that the molten flow is not from the building materials but a product of the thermite reaction itself, i.e. molten iron. I say this because there was not any particular external steel column at location of the flow that needed to be cut. It was the core columns that needed to fail and I suggest the thermite charge which caused the flow was dislodged by the plane impact from a central location in the building.

Anyhow, as experiments have proven, it is certainly not aluminium, lead or any other metal with a lower melting point.

The sporadic flow is unnatural also - the bursts ejected at intervals – with the initial flow beginning only in the minutes prior collapse.

What we are seeing is a thermite charge used to bring the building down.

Whilst that is the obvious and fitting answer by all observation and experimentation, Official Conspiracy Theorists will imagine any alternative scenario no matter how impossible to hold onto their pre-set worldview.

I agree, it was a dislodged cutter charge. However the need for a few charges on the outer beams were needed in my opinion. I offer the video below to others here, not you Q24. I'm pretty sure you have seen this footage before, but if not as you have time take a look anyways. It starts a little slow and is not the best resolution but it does discuss the corner explosions. However I agree with you completely that it was a dislodged cutter charge and most of the charges were set for the center core of the tower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMLUgVV0hT8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwXucF1gNGY

Edited by MysteryX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair you have now kinda spammed the thread with six posts, none of which discuss evidence in the video. MysteryX has attempted to discuss the evidence. The closest you have come is to label it “conspiracy crap”, “conspiracy theorist claptrap” and “juvenile conspiracy garbage” with no explanation. This ain’t JREF (thank God). Perhaps you can see why MysteryX might be frustrated and request you discuss the evidence or “get the hell out”?

You know I don’t support the full content of the video in post #1 but the points MysteryX has raised about the WTC2 molten metal flow are correct. Do you have any response to that?

Hey MysteryX, keep cool, the OCTs don’t have anywhere to run on this one ;)

Thanks for that Q24,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Boo

Yes, I've seen the alternatives you and others have offered regarding which metal was molten. The trouble is sir, that neither you nor the other 'debunkers' have managed to put forth any sort of persuasive argument to support those alternatives.

Your claim that plenty of other metals might have been involved is fine, IF ONLY you could make a case. You cannot.

Sulfur and Barium were detected in the dust, as sampled by the lady in her apartment, and at other locations in Manhattan gathered by ordinary citizens who DO NOT WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

Possession of common sense is not miraculous sir. Study the etiology of the term. It is "common" sense, not "miraculous" sense. :yes:

You know the obvious facts are usally the correct answer. The reason most people have a problem with 9/11 truth even after seeing the facts is because it destroys their faith in the government. They realize that their life is not worth squat to these criminals called government, it brings it home front and center.

What I don't understand is why people ever thought they could trust their government in the first place. The corruption and history prove that out over and over again.

Edited by MysteryX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The first suggestion has been proven through experiment not to reproduce the observation: -

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

(see “Molten Material Pouring out of the South Tower” on pg. 15)

Not that pathetic attempt at science again? Just because Jones didn't try mixing anything other than wood shavings(!) with aluminium doesn't mean that there are no common building materials of similar density and much higher emissivity that would mix well with aluminium to give the observed appearance.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Not that pathetic attempt at science again? Just because Jones didn't try mixing anything other than wood shavings(!) with aluminium doesn't men that there are no common materials of similar density and much higher emissivity that would mix well with aluminium to give the observed appearance.

Not a chance, tell any certified nuclear power plant or offshore welder that, he would laugh you off the planet. Other materials would have not the ability to maintain the heat of the molten flow. It would be like water and oil, they will separate in seconds or be consumed and dischanged from the flow. They cannot carry that amount of heat and survive. Only steel can do that or iron can do that or the thermite charge itself. This is why it is so cut and dry once you understand those facts..

Edited by MysteryX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know the obvious facts are usally the correct answer. The reason most people have a problem with 9/11 truth even after seeing the facts is because it destroys their faith in the government. They realize that their life is not worth squat to these criminals called government, it brings it home front and center.

It's nothing to do with faith in government. My problem with "9/11 truth" is all about the way the movement plays fast and loose with the facts of engineering and the laws of physics. Your new hero Q24, for example, accuses an engineering professor of ignoring Newton's laws, but Q24 can't point out exactly where he does this (Hint: because he doesn't) and in his own posts shows a complete lack of ability to understand those same laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.