|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
[/EndIntroToLegalBasics000.5] |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Mythbusters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV4xVAYCK8Q made a similar experiment, but didn't cheat. Here is a screenshot: |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
If 9/11 was what they said, there would be no reason to present us with fake video. |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
failed physics leads to sick fantasy
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
"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? :) |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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"! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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.) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...g-unbroken.jpg |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Anyway, Yankee bounces around whether they had explosives or not, at his convenience. Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
If the table tennis bat hadn't been penetrated, the Mythbusters would have blown it up anyway.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.