International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64)
-   -   9/11: How they Faked the Videos (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341275)

ozeco41 27th January 2020 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966089)
And once again, for those of you with short attention spans, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim,...

So true. And the "burden" is to present the proof that they rely on. In this case those representatives of "officialdom" who presented the extant hypothesis. And who have met their burden of proof by presenting the proof they rely on. (We could include the many professionals who support the same but lets keep it simple to expose Yankee's dishonesty.)

Here is where you go astray yankee451. (And given you have been playing this nonsense for years it CANNOT be ignorance - so it must be deliberate lying.)
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966089)
.... not we who call BS to the claim.

Hogwash of course. THAT is the claim to which BoP attaches - YOUR claim that the extant hypothesis is wrong. Your burden to prove your claim that the so called "official version" is wrong. Or at the least those bits YOU claim are wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966089)
The original claim being, on 9/11 mostly hollow aluminum jets burrowed into the ground, bored through a concrete and brick building, and sliced through steel skyscrapers like butter.

OK - if we take that as near enough what YOU claim is wrong. YOUR Burden of Proof to support YOUR claim.

[/EndIntroToLegalBasics000.5]

smartcooky 27th January 2020 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12967879)
you really have no clue what physics is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo

oops, density, you have no clue

Beat me to it.

The ping ping ball is orders of magnitude less dense and lower mass than the bat, yet it punched right through it (and disintegrated) and actually broke the bat blade off at the handle. THAT is what Newton was talking about!

NOTE: If you were hit by that supersonic ping pong ball, it would to a lot of damage - broken bones, torn flesh etc, and depending on where it hit you, it might even kill you instantly.

Itchy Boy 27th January 2020 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12967919)
Beat me to it.

The ping ping ball is orders of magnitude less dense and lower mass than the bat, yet it punched right through it (and disintegrated) and actually broke the bat blade off at the handle. THAT is what Newton was talking about!

NOTE: If you were hit by that supersonic ping pong ball, it would to a lot of damage - broken bones, torn flesh etc, and depending on where it hit you, it might even kill you instantly.

Yes, but we could see the ball breaking apart immediately upon impact and before it had fully penetrated.
That's what we don't see in the plane video and I don't believe that can be chalked up to video resolution, though I'm sure you will do so.
Unlike the plane, the ball displayed real crash physics.

Robin 27th January 2020 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967934)
Yes, but we could see the ball breaking apart immediately upon impact and before it had fully penetrated.
That's what we don't see in the plane video and I don't believe that can be chalked up to video resolution, though I'm sure you will do so.
Unlike the plane, the ball displayed real crash physics.

Again I am unclear on what you expect to see in the video.

I can't imagine what else you would expect to see.

You say that the videos are not what you expect to see.

Can you carefully describe what you do expect to see and explain why.

That would help me understand your position.

Itchy Boy 27th January 2020 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12967943)
Again I am unclear on what you expect to see in the video.

I can't imagine what else you would expect to see.

You say that the videos are not what you expect to see.

Can you carefully describe what you do expect to see and explain why.

That would help me understand your position.

I expect to see damage to the plane upon impact, similar to what beachnut's ping pong video shows. I owe beachnut a 'thank you' for proving that the plane impact videos are fake.

curious cat 27th January 2020 01:25 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967934)
Yes, but we could see the ball breaking apart immediately upon impact and before it had fully penetrated.
That's what we don't see in the plane video and I don't believe that can be chalked up to video resolution, though I'm sure you will do so.
Unlike the plane, the ball displayed real crash physics.

I have a distinct feeling there is something fishy with the video (how else it could fit in your fantasy world ;-)). A close examination reveals, the creators have filled the ball with water to make things easier. You can clearly see the rear of the ball bursting by hydraulic action (that's the part I was trying to get your attention to when talking about wing hitting the building), the ball opening outwards and the water escaping.
Mythbusters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV4xVAYCK8Q made a similar experiment, but didn't cheat. Here is a screenshot:

smartcooky 27th January 2020 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967934)
Yes, but we could see the ball breaking apart immediately upon impact and before it had fully penetrated.
That's what we don't see in the plane video and I don't believe that can be chalked up to video resolution, though I'm sure you will do so.
Unlike the plane, the ball displayed real crash physics.

And here is what you are missing.

The difference between the densities of the ping ping ball and the blade is slightly colossal; at least a couple of orders of magnitude greater than the difference between the building (a hollow, extended cubical structure composed of 90% air and 10% building materials ) and the aircraft (a hollow tubular structure composed of 90% air and 10% aluminium superstructure).

You seem to have this picture in your head of the aircraft being "swallowed whole", of remaining largely intact until it disappeared from sight. Get this picture out of your head, its wrong; it is not what happened - it only looks like that from the outside.

In reality, the aircraft started to crush and deform from the moment of impact. At the point where the wing roots are entering the building, the forward fuselage has already disintegrated beyond recognition.

smartcooky 27th January 2020 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12967952)
I have a distinct feeling there is something fishy with the video (how else it could fit in your fantasy world ;-)). A close examination reveals, the creators have filled the ball with water to make things easier. You can clearly see the rear of the ball bursting by hydraulic action (that's the part I was trying to get your attention to when talking about wing hitting the building), the ball opening outwards and the water escaping.
Mythbusters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV4xVAYCK8Q made a similar experiment, but didn't cheat. Here is a screenshot:

Rubbish.... it would not be possible to accelerate a water-filled ping ping ball up to mach 1.4 with the equipment they had.....and your screenshot is from a different video from the one beachnut posted, and that we are talking about.

Itchy Boy 27th January 2020 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12967952)
I have a distinct feeling there is something fishy with the video (how else it could fit in your fantasy world ;-)). A close examination reveals, the creators have filled the ball with water to make things easier. You can clearly see the rear of the ball bursting by hydraulic action (that's the part I was trying to get your attention to when talking about wing hitting the building), the ball opening outwards and the water escaping.
Mythbusters made a similar experiment, but didn't cheat. Here is a screenshot:

OK, then shouldn't the fuel filled wing break apart like the water-filled ball?
Plus, if they had to 'cheat' doesn't that mean an unfilled ball would have fared worse - ie failed to penetrate? If so, doesn't that mean the fuselage would have failed to penetrate?

Don't get me started on the MythBuster clowns or we'll be talking more Moon landing nonsense.
Now that I wATCHED YOU MB VID, it change nothing. Again we see real crash physics - at the end in slo-mo. The ball is a lot shorter than the plane and so the debris disappears to fast to see in real time. But we have slo-mo of the plane too, and still see no crash physics. All your ping pong videos do is prove my point - that the plane videos do not show real crash physics and therefore must be fake. Thanks.

curious cat 27th January 2020 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12967956)
Rubbish.... it would not be possible to accelerate a water-filled ping ping ball up to mach 1.4 with the equipment they had.....and your screenshot is from a different video from the one beachnut posted, and that we are talking about.

Well, rubbish or not - what is the clear stuff visibly escaping at the rear of the ball? A strawberry pie?
How the creators of the video prove the speed is 1.4 M?

Lets admit the possibility the speed is CONSIDERABLY lover and all is falling in place, including the breaking of the paddle that hasn't occur in the MB experiment.

Itchy Boy 27th January 2020 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12967956)
Rubbish.... it would not be possible to accelerate a water-filled ping ping ball up to mach 1.4 with the equipment they had.....and your screenshot is from a different video from the one beachnut posted, and that we are talking about.

Neither does it appear that what looks like water was in the ball.If you slow the YT video down, it appears to follow the ball and when it hits the bat, it doesn't drip like water. It looks more like Saran-wrap.

curious cat 27th January 2020 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967957)
OK, then shouldn't the fuel filled wing break apart like the water-filled ball?
Plus, if they had to 'cheat' doesn't that mean an unfilled ball would have fared worse - ie failed to penetrate? If so, doesn't that mean the fuselage would have failed to penetrate?

Don't get me started on the MythBuster clowns or we'll be talking more Moon landing nonsense.
Now that I wATCHED YOU MB VID, it change nothing. Again we see real crash physics - at the end in slo-mo. The ball is a lot shorter than the plane and so the debris disappears to fast to see in real time. But we have slo-mo of the plane too, and still see no crash physics. All your ping pong videos do is prove my point - that the plane videos do not show real crash physics and therefore must be fake. Thanks.

I never succumb to extortion. The possibility of you becoming to discuss the moon landing is frightening, but not enough for me to divert from my rule of not getting in a serious discussion with a nut.:D

Itchy Boy 27th January 2020 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12967961)
Well, rubbish or not - what is the clear stuff visibly escaping at the rear of the ball? A strawberry pie?
How the creators of the video prove the speed is 1.4 M?

Lets admit the possibility the speed is CONSIDERABLY lover and all is falling in place, including the breaking of the paddle that hasn't occur in the MB experiment.

Regardless, in each case, we seer real crash physics - the ball breaks in in your MB vid, pieces even bounce backwards. Fake plane videos proven! Well done gentlemen.

smartcooky 27th January 2020 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12967961)
Well, rubbish or not - what is the clear stuff visibly escaping at the rear of the ball? A strawberry pie?

The "clear stuff" is not escaping, its the remainder if the cling film that was used to help create the vacuum to accelerate the ball

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12967961)
How the creators of the video prove the speed is 1.4 M?

The same way you do it in any such an experiment, by measuring the time v the distance travelled - that's what the green and red stripes were for; as a known reference for measuring the speed on the high speed camera. FFS, have you never watched any of these episodes where they deal with the velocity of objects?

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12967961)
Lets admit the possibility the speed is CONSIDERABLY lover and all is falling in place

No, lets not. I don;t accept falsehoods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12967961)
including the breaking of the paddle that hasn't occur in the MB experiment.

The bat didn't break in the MB experiment because it was only loosely held. The bat did break in the Purdue experiment because it was being held in a ******* vice!

smartcooky 27th January 2020 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967966)
Regardless, in each case, we seer real crash physics - the ball breaks in in your MB vid, pieces even bounce backwards. Fake plane videos proven! Well done gentlemen.

Pieces of plane bounced backwards too... some of them even fell to the ground on the impact sides of the buildings.

curious cat 27th January 2020 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12967956)
Rubbish.... it would not be possible to accelerate a water-filled ping ping ball up to mach 1.4 with the equipment they had.....and your screenshot is from a different video from the one beachnut posted, and that we are talking about.

O.K., let's look at it again. I am aware of the existence of the Gladrwrap or whatever, but there seems to be something else there. The ball is definitely showing signs of bursting outwards by internal pressure, not collapsing inwards and forward as a result of rapid deceleration. It is possible it could be air pressure, but SOME pressure by all means. Thanks for your explaining me of how speed is measured at HS footages, but you came about 50 years late with it :-). I did't notice the stripes on the video. As for the way the bat is being held - possible, but I would tend to say at M 1.4 it would make little difference. No point arguing.
There is, obviously, a question why this ball burst and the MB one didn't. I believe either scenario is possible with some differences in variables like speed, temperature, materials etc.
By no means either of these alternatives prove there is anything wrong with the official version of the 9/11 events.

Cosmic Yak 27th January 2020 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12966194)

There is a gap. Not big enough for a cruise missile to fit through.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966333)
How do you figure? The columns were 14 inches wide. The warheads, the AGM-86 D has a 14 inch warhead, and the AGM-158 has a 12 inch warhead. Using the known measurements of the columns, the warheads of either of these missiles could do the deed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86_ALCM

http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...ndoff-missile/


Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12966991)
Interesting.
Can you explain how a 14 inch missile warhead can pass through a 14 inch space without getting stuck fast?

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12967124)
Quote:

"The warhead performed as predicted and met all expectations," said Elmer Lueker, the JASSM payload integrated product team leader in Phantom Works. "After experiencing shock loads as high as 12,000 Gs, there was no deformation of the casing and the fuze timing delay performed to the millisecond." The warhead struck the thick, reinforced concrete target, penetrated through it and traveled another half mile down range. The clean exit hole it left indicates that it had maintained the desired straight trajectory while traversing the thick target.
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/1998-02...M-Warhead-Test

This is a great example of how so many CT-ists are so desperate to refute any and all questioning of their pet theories that they forget what they were actually arguing for.
yankee451: You said there were holes big enough for a missile to pass through. I noticed that a 14-inch-wide missile could not pass through a 14-inch-wide hole without getting jammed.
You responded with a link explaining how a missile would not need a hole, because it could blast its own way through.
You are therefore arguing against yourself, and also inadvertently destroying your whole theory.
Please highlight the 'clean exit hole' your own link says the missile would make, and then explain why you have been arguing that a missile passed through a hole, thus proving that it was a missile and not a plane, when your own link says that won't happen.

Itchy Boy 27th January 2020 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12967970)
Pieces of plane bounced backwards too... some of them even fell to the ground on the impact sides of the buildings.

As stated earlier, I see nothing falling on the impact side in any video until After the explosion.
I see no Damage to the plane like we see to the ball despite the pane taking longer to pass through the wall than the ball through the bat.

There'a no getting around it. beachnut's and cat's attempt to belittle my understanding of physics backfired.

Itchy Boy 27th January 2020 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12967972)
By no means either of these alternatives prove there is anything wrong with the official version of the 9/11 events.

They prove the impact videos are fake.
If 9/11 was what they said, there would be no reason to present us with fake video.

smartcooky 27th January 2020 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12967972)
O.K., let's look at it again. I am aware of the existence of the Gladrwrap or whatever, but there seems to be something else there. By all means, the ball is definitely showing signs of bursting outwards by internal pressure, not collapsing inwards and forward as a result of rapid deceleration. It is possible it could be air pressure, but SOME pressure by all means.

You do know that ping ping balls are sealed, right? Of course it burst instead of collapsing inwards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12967972)
There is, obviously, a question why this ball burst and the MB one didn't.

No there isn't, both ping pong balls burst, its just that they did so at different times. If you watch the MB video, the ball totally disintegrates. Its also travelling a lot faster than the Purdue one - 1100 mph v 700 mph. That means I would expect the MB ball to penetrate the bat further before becoming deformed and bursting.

By way of illustration let me tell you about something I discovered very early on when I was just getting interested in guns. My first hand weapon was given to me by my Dad. It was a .177 Webley air pistol, very similar to this one...

https://uc4c84bcb7a5ff6b6b249503c8ca...dGxhHHDY/file#

It was a single shot, charged by cocking the top lever forward and back. It had one muzzle velocity and was great for shooting empty aluminium soda cans off a log.

Some years later, I bought one of these similar to a Crosman .177 BB/Pellet gun...

https://uc97c0a4cb0dafad18cba0e990b1...7PllydVI/file#

It was also a single shot, cocked by pumping it up (working the lever). The first thing you notice is that the more you pump the lever, the higher the muzzle velocity, and that had the curious effect (at least to me at that time) that at lower muzzle velocities (2-3 pumps), it would knock these cans off the log and back a few feet and leave a big dent in the front, but at higher muzzle velocities (7-9 pumps) it would hardly move the cans at all, leave a much smaller dent, but punch a hole right through.

At the time, this seemed totally counter-intuitive to me, I would have thought that the higher muzzle velocity would result in a bigger dent in the can, and the can being knocked further back. That is not what happened, and the fact that it didn't made me, a young man (still at high-school) curious enough to want to know why, so I investigated in the physics involved and used it as part of a school assignment on energy and momentum.

beachnut 27th January 2020 02:50 AM

failed physics leads to sick fantasy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967934)
Yes, but we could see the ball breaking apart immediately upon impact and before it had fully penetrated.
That's what we don't see in the plane video and I don't believe that can be chalked up to video resolution, though I'm sure you will do so.
Unlike the plane, the ball displayed real crash physics.

I see it on the aircraft video. You are spreading another lie. Maybe you should watch the original video.

However, since the resolution is so low, and the frame rate slow, you can't see the aircraft being smashed, like the ping pong ball.

The fact is you don't know video. lol, you have no clue, the frame rate for the ping pong ball was 1,000 times more frames per second.

You can't do physics, you have no clue when it comes to video specs.

You are unable to figure out reality, so you make up lies and fantasy.

30,000 frames per second, vs 30 or maybe 60. You have no clue and no knowledge useful to understand the video of the plane impact.

BTW, the air in the plane is also mass, and you have no clue what mass at 590 mph can do.

You have not proved the videos are fake, you prove you are fake on all science issues, from video to physics. Velocity and mass are what broke the WTC shell in the shape of the 767 which hit the WTC.

But you prefer to make lies, and you not very good at it.

How did they fake the Radar. You don't do Radar. How did they fake the image on the back of the eye, and in the brains?

It remains, you got no physics.

https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg

curious cat 27th January 2020 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12967981)
You do know that ping ping balls are sealed, right? Of course it burst instead of collapsing inwards.

So, what are we arguing about?:-) Both of us are saying the plane wouldn't crumple forward before the point of impact, I am even presenting evidence it may burst backwards or side-wise under certain conditions. Aren't we in an agreement? BTW, my reaction with the water (almost certainly wrong) was because of rather superficial observation and the fact I didn't check the origin of the video which definitely ads credibility.



No there isn't, both ping pong balls burst, its just that they did so at different times. If you watch the MB video, the ball totally disintegrates. Its also travelling a lot faster than the Purdue one - 1100 mph v 700 mph. That means I would expect the MB ball to penetrate the bat further before becoming deformed and bursting.

The same case - what are we arguing about? Both of us are trying to prove the fact the plane didn't disintegrate before the point of impact. The MB vid shows it beyond any doubts, the other subject to interpretation of the way the ball disintegrated. Can I agree with you without making you going bananas? :-)


By way of illustration let me tell you about something I discovered very early on when I was just getting interested in guns. My first hand weapon was given to me by my Dad. It was a .177 Webley air pistol, very similar to this one...

https://uc4c84bcb7a5ff6b6b249503c8ca...dGxhHHDY/file#

It was a single shot, charged by cocking the top lever forward and back. It had one muzzle velocity and was great for shooting empty aluminium soda cans off a log.

Some years later, I bought one of these similar to a Crosman .177 BB/Pellet gun...

https://uc97c0a4cb0dafad18cba0e990b1...7PllydVI/file#

It was also a single shot, cocked by pumping it up (working the lever). The first thing you notice is that the more you pump the lever, the higher the muzzle velocity, and that had the curious effect (at least to me at that time) that at lower muzzle velocities (2-3 pumps), it would knock these cans off the log and back a few feet and leave a big dent in the front, but at higher muzzle velocities (7-9 pumps) it would hardly move the cans at all, leave a much smaller dent, but punch a hole right through.

At the time, this seemed totally counter-intuitive to me, I would have thought that the higher muzzle velocity would result in a bigger dent in the can, and the can being knocked further back. That is not what happened, and the fact that it didn't made me, a young man (still at high-school) curious enough to want to know why, so I investigated in the physics involved and used it as part of a school assignment on energy and momentum.

Thanks for telling me something by the way of illustrating :-). But read again:
"As for the way the bat is being held - possible, but I would tend to say at M 1.4 it would make little difference. No point arguing."
Are you sure you have to illustrate the above to somebody who said this? I am sure you are trying to tell me I have a point, right?
For god sake, what is wrong with me? :)

Elagabalus 27th January 2020 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12967981)
You do know that ping ping balls are sealed, right? Of course it burst instead of collapsing inwards.



No there isn't, both ping pong balls burst, its just that they did so at different times. If you watch the MB video, the ball totally disintegrates. Its also travelling a lot faster than the Purdue one - 1100 mph v 700 mph. That means I would expect the MB ball to penetrate the bat further before becoming deformed and bursting.

By way of illustration let me tell you about something I discovered very early on when I was just getting interested in guns. My first hand weapon was given to me by my Dad. It was a .177 Webley air pistol, very similar to this one...

https://uc4c84bcb7a5ff6b6b249503c8ca...dGxhHHDY/file#

It was a single shot, charged by cocking the top lever forward and back. It had one muzzle velocity and was great for shooting empty aluminium soda cans off a log.

Some years later, I bought one of these similar to a Crosman .177 BB/Pellet gun...

https://uc97c0a4cb0dafad18cba0e990b1...7PllydVI/file#

It was also a single shot, cocked by pumping it up (working the lever). The first thing you notice is that the more you pump the lever, the higher the muzzle velocity, and that had the curious effect (at least to me at that time) that at lower muzzle velocities (2-3 pumps), it would knock these cans off the log and back a few feet and leave a big dent in the front, but at higher muzzle velocities (7-9 pumps) it would hardly move the cans at all, leave a much smaller dent, but punch a hole right through.

At the time, this seemed totally counter-intuitive to me, I would have thought that the higher muzzle velocity would result in a bigger dent in the can, and the can being knocked further back. That is not what happened, and the fact that it didn't made me, a young man (still at high-school) curious enough to want to know why, so I investigated in the physics involved and used it as part of a school assignment on energy and momentum.




Hmmmmm...pellet gun, you say? Muzzle velocity at about 420fps? How did I know this?


https://youtu.be/_nq_-ldfUh0?t=329


What am I, chopped liver?

Robin 27th January 2020 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967976)
As stated earlier, I see nothing falling on the impact side in any video until After the explosion.

I see no Damage to the plane like we see to the ball despite the pane taking longer to pass through the wall than the ball through the bat.



There'a no getting around it. beachnut's and cat's attempt to belittle my understanding of physics backfired.

So let me get this straight. You say that the shattering of the airframe of a cruise missile is not a valid comparison with the shattering of the airframe of a 767, but a ping-pong ball is? Really?

smartcooky 27th January 2020 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12967995)
Thanks for telling me something by the way of illustrating :-). But read again:
"As for the way the bat is being held - possible, but I would tend to say at M 1.4 it would make little difference. No point arguing."
Are you sure you have to illustrate the above to somebody who said this? I am sure you are trying to tell me I have a point, right?
For god sake, what is wrong with me? :)

Kinetic Energy (in Joules) is equal to half of an object's mass (in kg) multiplied by its velocity (in m/s) squared.

KE=M/2 x V2

A ping pong ball has a mass of 2.7 grammes (0.0027 kg)
In the Purdue Experiment the velocity of the ping pong ball was 700 mph (313 m/s)
The Mythbuster Experiment the velocity of the ping pong ball was 1100 mph (492 m/s)

So

the kinetic energy of ping pong ball in the Purdue experiment is

0.0027/2 x 3132 joules = 132.3

the kinetic energy of ping pong ball in the Purdue experiment is

0.0027/2 x 4922 joules = 326.8

Almost 250% greater... yeah, it makes a very BIG difference

This is what we call "doing the math"!

Jack by the hedge 27th January 2020 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967579)
How's a book going to help me

I take it back. You already know everything you need to know in order to reach your conclusion. Carry on.

Jack by the hedge 27th January 2020 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967623)
All the same, it's unfathomable to me that he was unaware of such reports.

ETA: I didn't realize that steel is not a metal!

Did you realise they would have been surprised to say the least at there having been molten steel rather than, say, molten lead?

smartcooky 27th January 2020 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12967999)
Hmmmmm...pellet gun, you say? Muzzle velocity at about 420fps? How did I know this?


https://youtu.be/_nq_-ldfUh0?t=329


What am I, chopped liver?

Yeah, I saw that

All I was pointing out is that, as a teenager, it seemed counter-intuitive to me that increasing the muzzle velocity did not have the effect I expected. I expected the cans to fly further, but instead, they didn't fly as far; the pellets tended to punch through the soda can rather than dent it and knock it flying. I was curious, and I investigated, and it resulted in a great basis for a high school physics assignment on momentum and energy.

This is what CTs fail to do almost every time. They see something counter-intuitive, and they question the evidence and the science. It doesn't even occur to them for a moment that they need to question their own thinking or that their intuition might be flawed.

The Common Potato 27th January 2020 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967579)
How's a book going to help me verify the claims of 'officials'?

Learn something about the subject matter. Don't just read about what a handful of individuals say about an event that may include that topic on one particular occasion.

For example, I have had a lifelong interest in aviation. I read a fair amount about the topic and spend an unhealthy amount or time pretending to be a pilot on my flight sim. So, although I happily defer to, say, Reheat or Beechnut when it comes to aviation, I don't simplistically think that they are automatically right or wrong. I compare what they have to say with what I already know about aviation. A pleasant side effect of this is that my own knowledge might get a little larger.

I would point out that knowledge is more than just looking stuff up on the internet. It takes time to accrue. It is slightly frustrating, though, when CTs come out with comments like "but how can you know for sure?" That's intentionally distracting, IMO.

ETA: Also, I do not see these discussions as some form of competition that I or 'my side' has to win. That's why it is unusual for the non-CT side to employ teenage-type rhetoric. (I doubt you'll accept that I think that we don't.)

The Common Potato 27th January 2020 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967628)
Yes, trenches. I hate to quote Alex Jones, but he's correct when he says "there's a war on for your mind". Isn't that part of the reason we spend time here arguing back and forth?

No.

pgimeno 27th January 2020 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12967952)
A close examination reveals, the creators have filled the ball with water to make things easier. You can clearly see the rear of the ball bursting by hydraulic action

I think you're confusing the plastic film that kept the vacuum in the tube (and that was broken by the ball) with water. Here's a similar screenshot of that one:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...g-unbroken.jpg

The Common Potato 27th January 2020 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967950)
I expect to see damage to the plane upon impact, similar to what beachnut's ping pong video shows. I owe beachnut a 'thank you' for proving that the plane impact videos are fake.

Bits of plane were found on the other side of the buildings. There were damaged. Quite badly.

pgimeno 27th January 2020 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12967709)
would have snapped the towers in half because - unlike a 767 - those warheads are designed to pack an explosive punch:

I don't believe so. It's not that easy to cut steel with explosives.

Anyway, Yankee bounces around whether they had explosives or not, at his convenience.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12967709)
If you can show me another warhead that had a limited blast that looks like jet fuel and bounces around the interior of the target busting support beams then you need to present it.

And that is key. It was a huge fuel load that made that fireball, probably much more than a missile warhead eight missile warheads can carry.

pgimeno 27th January 2020 05:36 AM

Honestly, I find this fuzz about the "equal resistive" term pretty lame. I've googled it, and found this: https://www.getpractice.com/questions/3014 which in my opinion uses the term pretty clearly. I understood what Itchy Boy meant the first time. Reactive force would perhaps have been a term we're more familiar with, but still.

Cosmic Yak 27th January 2020 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967579)

Those that distrust authorities in general, like me, will naturallybview official proclamations with a great deal of skepticism.
WHatever your bent, I think it begins at an early age. I distrusted authority long before learning about CTs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967606)
No, That's not how it works I don't disbelieve an authority by default.

In consecutive posts, no less. :rolleyes:

The Common Potato 27th January 2020 05:47 AM

If the table tennis bat hadn't been penetrated, the Mythbusters would have blown it up anyway.

curious cat 27th January 2020 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12968044)
I think you're confusing the plastic film that kept the vacuum in the tube (and that was broken by the ball) with water. Here's a similar screenshot of that one:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...g-unbroken.jpg

Thanks for that, you are right and I admitted my mistake (without torture :-)) already earlier. While I apologise for not trusting a video from a credible source (didn't notice where it came from), my scenario was completely realistic. The fact the ball has been ruptured by an air pressure and not water pressure wasn't really important anyway. The vital point was: the ball didn't implode forward due to a rapid deceleration, but exploded outwards due to internal pressure.

AJM8125 27th January 2020 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967976)
As stated earlier, I see nothing falling on the impact side in any video until After the explosion.
I see no Damage to the plane like we see to the ball despite the pane taking longer to pass through the wall than the ball through the bat.

There'a no getting around it. beachnut's and cat's attempt to belittle my understanding of physics backfired.

No, it reinforces that and your lack of understanding of video.

curious cat 27th January 2020 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12968019)
Kinetic Energy (in Joules) is equal to half of an object's mass (in kg) multiplied by its velocity (in m/s) squared.

KE=M/2 x V2

A ping pong ball has a mass of 2.7 grammes (0.0027 kg)
In the Purdue Experiment the velocity of the ping pong ball was 700 mph (313 m/s)
The Mythbuster Experiment the velocity of the ping pong ball was 1100 mph (492 m/s)

So

the kinetic energy of ping pong ball in the Purdue experiment is

0.0027/2 x 3132 joules = 132.3

the kinetic energy of ping pong ball in the Purdue experiment is

0.0027/2 x 4922 joules = 326.8

Almost 250% greater... yeah, it makes a very BIG difference

This is what we call "doing the math"!

We are probably destined not to understand each other. Thanks for teaching me the maths, but again, about 50 years late with that :-). Just to make things clear: I am not 8 years old and retarded. I can also assure you, my physics is well pass the point I would be considering your bullet example "counterintuitive".
Your maths is right, but completely irrelevant to what I meant (you are crying well, madam, but on a wrong grave :-)). Obviously my fault, I should have explain myself more clearly.
I wasn't referring to the differences between the two experiment. I was trying to say, that at speed of M 1.4 (or small multiples, maybe even fractions of that) doesn't really matter how the racket is mounted. I suspect the result would've been much different if it was hanging on a string. Note, I am not trying to explain you why I think so :-). I also said clearly I am not 100% sure - and doing the maths wouldn't be as easy as the one above. If you won't to get through the trouble of doing it, you are welcome.

Leftus 27th January 2020 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965780)
And you would expect China and Russia to blow the whistle, why, exactly?

Yes, what motivation would they possibly have to expose a giant coverup where US forces killed US civilians. They would almost definitely keep that under their hat. There aren't any geopolitical advantages in exposing such corruption either. None what so ever. They would never try to destabilize the US or even think about trying to lower the profile the US had on the world stage. That would be rude.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.