report scams here at scam.com dont get scammed Scams and Scammers - Expose hypocrisy and spread respect ! Don't get ripped off! REGISTER
Go Back   scams > Scam Message Board > Conspiracy Theories
Register FAQ Register To Post Member List Promote Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #505  
Old 10-29-2011, 12:15 PM
yyy123 yyy123 is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,071
Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosi

I still say the Klingons did it!



Reply With Quote

  #506  
Old 10-29-2011, 03:45 PM
o0Nighthawk0o o0Nighthawk0o is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 120
Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosi

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7forever View Post
You won't answer facts and reality because you're defeated troll who can do nothing but change the subject. I made a claim and proved it beyond refute.
Funny that you call others trolls when you do nothing but post the same old poor quality pictures over and over, ignore questions posed, ignore evidence that proves you wrong and you continue to claim victory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7forever View Post
My work is irrefutable because it's all visual, therefore, no judge, jury, or defense attorney would ever claim the orb was anything other than a ufo. Only simple minded anonymous tools would make that falsehood. You have no accountability, just lies behind a computer. There is no magical truth, just a simple fact that an orb caused the south tower's explosion.
Your so called 'work' has been refuted time and again. You simply choose to ignore it. Reminds me of a three year old with their fingers in their ears saying "Na Na Na Na!! I can't hear you"

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7forever View Post
You and few trolls have ignored the evidence proving that no plane impacted T2. You've all looked at it and simply ignored conclusive proof without any challenge. The people in denial here are a few trolls who vehemently ignore what the films prove, the live footage showed no plane. This man and woman reporter initially said there was no plane in the area because they didn't even see the orb and then started saying the orb was the plane. That's just how twilight zone crazy 911 was for many in the media.
Again you go on with the troll bullshit. None of us has ignored your pics or vids and they have been addressed and explained numerous times. It is YOU who vehemently ignore the facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7forever View Post
((BS Bandwidth wasting images snip))
So mister great researcher, are you ever going to explain how this magical 'orb' of yours can bend steel beams towards it's explosion rather than away from it?

My guess is that you will continue to ignore this and keep on posting your low res, blurry images and claim victory.

Reply With Quote

  #507  
Old 10-29-2011, 08:25 PM
eugene66's Avatar
eugene66 eugene66 is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,389
Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
So you mean they replicated the impact of a plane too good?

Well, maybe it's because it was an impact of a plane? Have you ever considered that options?
Well I though about it and then I remembered.

I thought MAYBE a soft wintip can make such a neat Ninja Katana blade cut BUT

Oh Wait!! At the Pentagon the planes wings AND engines never even touched the walls because they folded back like Donald duck to wiggle through a little hole smaller than a plane.

So if a brick wall can causer the wings not to touch what makes you think a steel building would?

Reply With Quote

  #508  
Old 10-29-2011, 10:52 PM
Kelderek's Avatar
Kelderek Kelderek is offline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,156
Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosi

Quote:
Originally Posted by eugene66 View Post
Well I though about it and then I remembered.

I thought MAYBE a soft wintip can make such a neat Ninja Katana blade cut BUT

Oh Wait!! At the Pentagon the planes wings AND engines never even touched the walls because they folded back like Donald duck to wiggle through a little hole smaller than a plane.

So if a brick wall can causer the wings not to touch what makes you think a steel building would?
But Eugene... you can't use evidence you claim doesn't exist as evidence...

What you are saying is that the plane that didn't hit Pentagon (a plane you claim doesn't exist) must behave in exactly the same way as another plane (that also doesn't exist) must have behaved when it didn't hit WTC... but would have if it did.

Leaving such complicated logical impossibilities aside, let's look at facts:

Pentagon is a low-rise military concrete building, designed to withstand attacks.
WTC were skyscrapers with a steel structure, primarily designed just to support their own weight.

You don't think that might have something to do with why the results of the impacts were somewhat different?

In the real world, it does, but in Eugene's increasingly complicated web of conspiracies, the first building (which wasn't hit) must behave exactly like the second building doesn't. But would have if it was hit. Which it wasn't, according to Eugene.

Reply With Quote

  #509  
Old 10-30-2011, 12:48 AM
eugene66's Avatar
eugene66 eugene66 is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,389
Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
But Eugene... you can't use evidence you claim doesn't exist as evidence...

What you are saying is that the plane that didn't hit Pentagon (a plane you claim doesn't exist) must behave in exactly the same way as another plane (that also doesn't exist) must have behaved when it didn't hit WTC... but would have if it did.

Leaving such complicated logical impossibilities aside, let's look at facts:

Pentagon is a low-rise military concrete building, designed to withstand attacks.
WTC were skyscrapers with a steel structure, primarily designed just to support their own weight.

You don't think that might have something to do with why the results of the impacts were somewhat different?

In the real world, it does, but in Eugene's increasingly complicated web of conspiracies, the first building (which wasn't hit) must behave exactly like the second building doesn't. But would have if it was hit. Which it wasn't, according to Eugene.
How very sceintific of you.

Quote:
But Eugene... you can't use evidence you claim doesn't exist as evidence...
What I claim or not in this case is not relevant to what I believe. What IS relevant is what the mainstream news networks that you seem to stand for, are spinning.

In the one instance they would have us believe that plane flying at 500 miles and hour hits a brick wall and then:Defying physics the two six thousand Kilogram titanium steel Rolls Royce engines along with the rest of the wings fold up behind the cockpit before it could touch the wall and follows the cockpit through a hole smaller than the fuselage itself.

In another instance it goes through steal but somehow this time the wings are strong enough to cut neatly through it as if the plane was a flying Kattana blade. Oh and then disappears except for an old air plane engine that was lying on a scrap metal heap a year before to "appear" on later (much later) under the debris in the street below.

This is just as plausable and sceintific as you just telling everyone what I am thinking based on your speculation.

You call this facts?????
Quote:
Pentagon is a low-rise military concrete building, designed to withstand attacks.
WTC were skyscrapers with a steel structure, primarily designed just to support their own weight.
Those steel fortress towers had a hell of a lot more "support" than they needed. They were "over" built for showmanship and probably stronger than the Pentagon walls. They were literally steel cage structures with floors fitted in them.

If the building was built ONLY to support its own weight you would have had a lot less steel in them and especially at the top they would have had to taper those tremendous steel collumns off to make them lighter for the support below to maintain.

Reply With Quote

  #510  
Old 10-30-2011, 02:42 AM
Kelderek's Avatar
Kelderek Kelderek is offline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,156
Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosi

Quote:
Originally Posted by eugene66 View Post
In the one instance they would have us believe that plane flying at 500 miles and hour hits a brick wall and then:Defying physics the two six thousand Kilogram titanium steel Rolls Royce engines along with the rest of the wings fold up behind the cockpit before it could touch the wall and follows the cockpit through a hole smaller than the fuselage itself.
That's a story you use frequently to support your own theory. It doesn't mean that anyone thinks it happened that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eugene66 View Post
In another instance it goes through steal but somehow this time the wings are strong enough to cut neatly through it as if the plane was a flying Kattana blade. Oh and then disappears except for an old air plane engine that was lying on a scrap metal heap a year before to "appear" on later (much later) under the debris in the street below.
That's a story you use frequently to support your own theory. It doesn't mean that anyone thinks it happened that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eugene66 View Post
Those steel fortress towers had a hell of a lot more "support" than they needed. They were "over" built for showmanship and probably stronger than the Pentagon walls. They were literally steel cage structures with floors fitted in them.
Do you have any facts supporting that? Or are you once again making up your own version so that it fits your theory?

Quote:
Originally Posted by eugene66 View Post
If the building was built ONLY to support its own weight you would have had a lot less steel in them and especially at the top they would have had to taper those tremendous steel collumns off to make them lighter for the support below to maintain.
That's not the way they build skyscrapers, so why is that relevant?
What is relevant is that a concrete low rise building differs in construction from a steel skyscraper. Therefore, an impact from a plane will look different. Is that so hard to understand?

Reply With Quote

  #511  
Old 10-30-2011, 05:11 AM
eugene66's Avatar
eugene66 eugene66 is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,389
Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosi

Quote:
Originally Posted by eugene66
In the one instance they would have us believe that plane flying at 500 miles and hour hits a brick wall and then:Defying physics the two six thousand Kilogram titanium steel Rolls Royce engines along with the rest of the wings fold up behind the cockpit before it could touch the wall and follows the cockpit through a hole smaller than the fuselage itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
That's a story you use frequently to support your own theory. It doesn't mean that anyone thinks it happened that way.

Reply With Quote

  #512  
Old 10-30-2011, 06:51 AM
Kelderek's Avatar
Kelderek Kelderek is offline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,156
Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosi

Quote:
Originally Posted by eugene66 View Post
There you have it.
An eyewitness saying his words have been twisted.
An example of this twisting is you claiming that "the hole was smaller than the fuselage itself". He never said that, but still you use it in your story building.

Another eyewitness is a friend of mine.

She saw the airplane hit the Pentagon. I believe her. She was there.
What I don't believe is Internet conspiracy theorists like yourself who wasn't there, who didn't see what happened and now are trying to make up ridiculous theories out of thin air. All fuelled by other people on the Internet who wasn't there and didn't see what happened. The gullible feeding the gullible. I'm not part of that, but you are.

Reply With Quote

  #513  
Old 10-30-2011, 07:55 AM
eugene66's Avatar
eugene66 eugene66 is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,389
Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
There you have it.
An eyewitness saying his words have been twisted.
An example of this twisting is you claiming that "the hole was smaller than the fuselage itself". He never said that, but still you use it in your story building.

Another eyewitness is a friend of mine.

She saw the airplane hit the Pentagon. I believe her. She was there.
What I don't believe is Internet conspiracy theorists like yourself who wasn't there, who didn't see what happened and now are trying to make up ridiculous theories out of thin air. All fuelled by other people on the Internet who wasn't there and didn't see what happened. The gullible feeding the gullible. I'm not part of that, but you are.
If you want I can post all of his original statements too and then you and everyone else may witness who has twisted what words. He was backpedalling from his OWN ridiculous story.

Fact is that even the sheeples were questioning his words so he had to keep changing it himself with every broadcast.

Even so he STILL claims that the wings folded back and entered the same hole. HAHAHA there is no getting around that one.

I say the hole was smaller than a fuselage because I saw a picture of the face of the pentagon with a plane template overlap BEFORE the roof collapsed to show us that the hole in the front was smaller than the fuselage. I posted all of this before and I can post it again.

I just don't see the use of proving the obvious to you who have already closed your mind on the conclusion that it happened the way you choose to believe. For your closed mind it will always be set in stone the way you made up your mind about it.

Reply With Quote

  #514  
Old 10-30-2011, 07:57 AM
Kelderek's Avatar
Kelderek Kelderek is offline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,156
Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosi

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7forever View Post
This is what I got for the main part of each hole. There were 5 broken beams for tower 2 and 15 for 1. The width of these holes would approximately be 17 and 52 feet. I counted 57 beams, not including the corners. I rounded it to 60 beams. 15/60=0.25x208=52 feet. The point is simple; Whatever hit T2 was smaller or maybe more probable, T1 was rigged with more sophisticated explosives.
What are you talking about?

These are the real numbers:
The width of the tower was 63 m. Each side had 59 exterior columns.

In the pictures you posted, the hole it appears to span approximately 41 columns. That makes it 43.8 m wide.

The wingspan of a Boeing 676 is 47.6 m.

Given that the plane was not perfectly level at impact, I would say that the hole corresponds perfectly well with the size of a Boeing 767.

Reply With Quote

  #515  
Old 10-30-2011, 08:05 AM
Kelderek's Avatar
Kelderek Kelderek is offline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,156
Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosi

Quote:
Originally Posted by eugene66 View Post
I say the hole was smaller than a fuselage because I saw a picture of the face of the pentagon with a plane template overlap BEFORE the roof collapsed to show us that the hole in the front was smaller than the fuselage. I posted all of this before and I can post it again.

I just don't see the use of proving the obvious to you who have already closed your mind on the conclusion that it happened the way you choose to believe. For your closed mind it will always be set in stone the way you made up your mind about it.
OK, you saw someone overlap a plane template on a photo... on the Internet... wow...

How many eyewitnesses to the Pentagon crash do you personally know?

Should I chose to believe her? A person who was there and saw it?
Or should I believe you? A person who hasn't been able to successfully prove anything in this forum?

Not a very hard decision...

It has nothing to do with having a closed mind. It has everything to do with believing what is logical and plausible, as well as believing what people you trust saw with their own eyes.

Reply With Quote

  #516  
Old 10-30-2011, 08:06 AM
eugene66's Avatar
eugene66 eugene66 is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,389
Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
What are you talking about?

These are the real numbers:
The width of the tower was 63 m. Each side had 59 exterior columns.

In the pictures you posted, the hole it appears to span approximately 41 columns. That makes it 43.8 m wide.

The wingspan of a Boeing 676 is 47.6 m.

Given that the plane was not perfectly level at impact, I would say that the hole corresponds perfectly well with the size of a Boeing 767.
If the plane hit sideways like it did then it would leave a LONGER mark then its original size.

SO I am with 7 forever on this one. The Katana plane was smaller than a Boeing 767.

Why is it that with cover ups there are so many clues and so many explanations as to why things are different than in reality and sheeple believe them?

Reply With Quote

  #517  
Old 10-30-2011, 08:11 AM
Kelderek's Avatar
Kelderek Kelderek is offline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,156
Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosi

Quote:
Originally Posted by eugene66 View Post
If the plane hit sideways like it did then it would leave a LONGER mark then its original size.
That possibly ranks as the most stupid statement ever posted in this forum... and that's a tough competition to win!

You were not very good at math in school, were you?

Reply With Quote

  #518  
Old 10-30-2011, 08:15 AM
eugene66's Avatar
eugene66 eugene66 is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,389
Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
OK, you saw someone overlap a plane template on a photo... on the Internet... wow...

How many eyewitnesses to the Pentagon crash do you personally know?

Should I chose to believe her? A person who was there and saw it?
Or should I believe you? A person who hasn't been able to successfully prove anything in this forum?

Not a very hard decision...

It has nothing to do with having a closed mind. It has everything to do with believing what is logical and plausible, as well as believing what people you trust saw with their own eyes.
Well I choose to believe physics. 6000 KG moving forward and also accelerating as it was claimed pulling the whole plane into a wall with momentum and velocity at 500 miles and hour suddenly doing a full reverse?

HAHAHAHA

Yeah believe what you like. You may call me whatever makes you happy. I can happily take it in light of from whom it comes.

Reply With Quote

  #519  
Old 10-30-2011, 08:20 AM
eugene66's Avatar
eugene66 eugene66 is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,389
Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
That possibly ranks as the most stupid statement ever posted in this forum... and that's a tough competition to win!

You were not very good at math in school, were you?
Hey GENIUS!! Now you are really being stupid.

If you throw a piece of mud at the wall directly or from the side.?

Are you saying that the direct shot will make the biggest mark and the sideways one a smaller mark?

Either you are sleepy or you are losing it. That's the second time in the last hour you proved to be non compos mentis.

Reply With Quote

  #520  
Old 10-30-2011, 08:44 AM
Kelderek's Avatar
Kelderek Kelderek is offline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,156
Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosi

Quote:
Originally Posted by eugene66 View Post
Hey GENIUS!! Now you are really being stupid.

If you throw a piece of mud at the wall directly or from the side.?

Are you saying that the direct shot will make the biggest mark and the sideways one a smaller mark?

Either you are sleepy or you are losing it. That's the second time in the last hour you proved to be non compos mentis.
What are you babbling about? It was not a piece of mud hitting the tower, it was a plane.

Ever heard of trigonometry?

Take a look at this triangle:



The hypotenuse represents the airplane as well as the shape of the hole in the pictures 7forever posted.

The adjacent represents the width of the number of columns I counted in the very same picture.

If you went to school, you should know that:

cos A = adjacent / hypotenuse

What you are trying to tell me is that the adjacent is longer than the hypotenuse. You're saying that cos A > 1.

Even the old Greeks knew that's impossible...

If the plane hit at an angle, as shown in 7forever's picture, the width of the hole becomes shorter than the wingspan of the plane. Can we agree on that?

Reply With Quote

  #521  
Old 10-30-2011, 08:47 AM
Kelderek's Avatar
Kelderek Kelderek is offline
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,156
Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosi

Quote:
Originally Posted by eugene66 View Post
Well I choose to believe physics. 6000 KG moving forward and also accelerating as it was claimed pulling the whole plane into a wall with momentum and velocity at 500 miles and hour suddenly doing a full reverse?

HAHAHAHA

Yeah believe what you like. You may call me whatever makes you happy. I can happily take it in light of from whom it comes.
Who says it happened that way? Now you are just being childish...

Reply With Quote

  #522  
Old 10-30-2011, 10:48 AM
eugene66's Avatar
eugene66 eugene66 is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,389
Re: A fake plane was added for south tower explosi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelderek View Post
What are you babbling about? It was not a piece of mud hitting the tower, it was a plane.

Ever heard of trigonometry?

Take a look at this triangle:



The hypotenuse represents the airplane as well as the shape of the hole in the pictures 7forever posted.

The adjacent represents the width of the number of columns I counted in the very same picture.

If you went to school, you should know that:

cos A = adjacent / hypotenuse

What you are trying to tell me is that the adjacent is longer than the hypotenuse. You're saying that cos A > 1.

Even the old Greeks knew that's impossible...

If the plane hit at an angle, as shown in 7forever's picture, the width of the hole becomes shorter than the wingspan of the plane. Can we agree on that?
Now you are getting technical about something simple. In your own words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelderek
What are you talking about?

These are the real numbers:
The width of the tower was 63 m. Each side had 59 exterior columns.

In the pictures you posted, the hole it appears to span approximately 41 columns. That makes it 43.8 m wide.

The wingspan of a Boeing 676 is 47.6 m.

Given that the plane was not perfectly level at impact, I would say that the hole corresponds perfectly well with the size of a Boeing 767.
Lets see 47.6 minus 43.8
You seem to be 3.8 Metres shy of a 767 wingspan even if the plane DID hit the building square head on which it didn't. That means the plane was even smaller than that.

You are confusing your own mind with too much thinking.

I see that you are contemplating the angle of the plane while I was talking about the plane not hitting the building square.

Your trigonometry argument has some validation but so has my angle argument.

I say that because the plane did not hit the building ninety degrees the wingspan damage (Assuming it was) would be longer than the actual wingspan.



Last edited by eugene66 : 10-30-2011 at 10:56 AM.
Reply With Quote

Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UA 175: Who created fake footage from south view? 7forever Conspiracy Theories 61 12-27-2011 01:29 AM
First teen added to Crime Stoppers 10 Most Wanted SnappyDan Political Chat 9 05-26-2011 12:54 PM
Plane crash kills 158 in south India Yeah Well Fine Then Political Chat 18 05-23-2010 03:24 AM
Oil rig explosion..what the media 3 didn't say. danrush1966 Political Chat 8 05-02-2010 06:19 PM
Albania protests over Belgrade embassy explosion sojustask Political Chat 0 01-03-2006 10:34 PM

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump




This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various information providers. Scam.com does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by any information provider, any User of this Site or any other person or entity. Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement, or other information shall also be at the Userís own risk. Neither Scam.com nor its affiliates, nor any of their respective agents, employees, information providers or content providers, shall be liable to any User or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, alteration of or use of any content herein, or for its timeliness or completeness, nor shall they be liable for any failure of performance, computer virus or communication line failure, regardless of cause, or for any damages resulting therefrom. Just because a business, person, or entity is listed on scam.com does not necessarily constitute they are scammers. This is a free open forum where people can debate the merits from the consumer's or business owner's perspective. Registration and participation is always FREE.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 PM.




Scam.com Is Proudly Hosted By Rackco and Protected By CloudFlare


Scams Message Board - Copyright 2004-2013 Scam.com , All Rights Reserved.