Humint Events Online: "No Planers" Are Stupid

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

"No Planers" Are Stupid






Pics from here.

Thanks to DF for the link!

23 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow. I guess Aero-planes really DO disintegrate (as well as many little bits falling off) when they strike hard, solid objects.

Just not on 9/11/01 though...

9:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course No Planers are stupid!
Imagine thinking that a fragile aluminum tube could not punch directly through a wall of giant steel columns!

10:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"disintegrate"

The robShill needs a dictionary.

10:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

implying that rob is a shill?
almost well done 10:37!

10:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not quite sure how one can compare a plane that jumped its chocks during an engine test and hit a concrete blast wall to one flying at full throttle into a building.

But it's what keeps you guys amusing. The straws you grasp at.

11:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if a real aluminum 767 (with a plastic nosecone) were to really strike a wtc wall comprised of massive steel columns with a force equivalent to X then the massive steel wtc wall would also be striking the aluminum 767 (with a plastic nosecone) with the same force equivalent to X.

of course this scientific certainty is much easier to ignore than it is to discuss, right, 11:07?

11:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ Anon 10:37 PM:

Gee, thanks Mom. :-)

11:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear @11:35,
No problem son...
I was merely trying to distract everyone from considering the actual physics of a real aluminum 767 vs. a steel WTC by insinuating that you did not even know how to spell the word disintegrate properly!
My bad!
Love, Mom.

12:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if a real aluminum 767 (with a plastic nosecone) were to really strike a wtc wall comprised of massive steel columns with a force equivalent to X then the massive steel wtc wall would also be striking the aluminum 767 (with a plastic nosecone) with the same force equivalent to X.

I agree. Ever think this may be why so little of the plane was recovered?

Now answer my question. Are you guys honestly saying a plane that jumped its chocks and drove into a concrete wall is comparable to one flying at 500+mph into a building?

Honestly?

8:03 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

Are you guys honestly saying a plane that jumped its chocks and drove into a concrete wall is comparable to one flying at 500+mph into a building?

Who ever said that? Talk about grasping straws-- you're the one making a straw man!

9:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The 8:03 SHILL is a real comedian. She just isn't very funny.

9:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"if a real aluminum 767 (with a plastic nosecone) were to really strike a wtc wall comprised of massive steel columns with a force equivalent to X then the massive steel wtc wall would also be striking the aluminum 767 (with a plastic nosecone) with the same force equivalent to X."

Two words: KINETIC ENERGY

Two More Words: POTENTIAL ENERGY

Really Spooky....you should work on getting some of your minions here graduated out of grammar school.

10:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Are you guys honestly saying a plane that jumped its chocks and drove into a concrete wall is comparable to one flying at 500+mph into a building?

Who ever said that? Talk about grasping straws-- you're the one making a straw man!"

Why the hell post these pictures than if you aren't trying to say an aircraft is a fragile little flower? Read the comments from your minions, Spooky. GET A GRASP of things here. Its getting out of control.

10:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if a real aluminum 767 (with a plastic nosecone) were to really strike a wtc wall comprised of massive steel columns with a force equivalent to X then the massive steel wtc wall would also be striking the aluminum 767 (with a plastic nosecone) with the same force equivalent to X.

I agree. Ever think this may be why so little of the plane was recovered?

actually i think that thanks to this reality of physics we can consider all 4 of the officially produced videos that show alleged ua175 gliding entirely thru the wall of the wtc before any explosion occurs to be nothing more than badly done video fakery.

Now answer my question. Are you guys honestly saying a plane that jumped its chocks and drove into a concrete wall is comparable to one flying at 500+mph into a building?

i'm not saying that. what i am saying is that the images of alleged ua175 that we were shown by the media were nothing more than video fakery.

video fakery

10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two words: KINETIC ENERGY

Two More Words: POTENTIAL ENERGY

why don't you explain yourself there 10:12?
idiot.

10:28 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

How about three words, since we're having so much fun with words:

"Newton's 3rd Law"

11:05 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

Just for the sake of complete honesty here, I guess some of the commenters here were making comparisons between this plane that jumped its chocks and drove into a concrete wall and to a plane "flying at 500+mph into a building".

So I take back the straw man comment.

Personally, I wasn't making a direct comparison "between this plane that jumped its chocks and drove into a concrete wall and to a plane "flying at 500+mph into a building". I was more showing an example of how fragile a large plane can be when hitting concrete.

Importantly though, high speed is NOT going to make the plane less fragile.

11:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

spooked 11:17 "Importantly though, high speed is NOT going to make the plane less fragile."

My point exactly in sending you the link in the first place.

Another favorite of mine is: Having a plane stationary, swinging the WTC like a baseball bat, connecting with the bat at 500 mph into the plane, and IMAGINING the plane just slipping into the building.

12:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just for the sake of complete honesty here, I guess some of the commenters here were making comparisons between this plane that jumped its chocks and drove into a concrete wall and to a plane "flying at 500+mph into a building".

Just for clarity, the title of this post specifically refers to "no-planers", people who believe no planes hit the towers. (Or the Pentagon, or in Shanksville for that matter.) You then go on to post images of a plane that jumped its chocks and hit a wall in an attempt.

As long as we're clear that what happened on 9/11 and what happened to this plane are nowhere near similar, all's fine.

2:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"(with a plastic nosecone)"

What does that "plastic" nosecone cover, asshole?

4:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the plastic nosecone covers electronic components, asshole.

8:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where is the cutout of the plane's nose in the concrete?

12:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

POTENTIAL ENERGY, dudes!

4:40 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger