ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th January 2020, 12:18 AM   #2001
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,531
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
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.)
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
.... 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.

Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
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]

Last edited by ozeco41; 27th January 2020 at 12:58 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 12:31 AM   #2002
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 13,482
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
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.
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 12:51 AM   #2003
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
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.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 27th January 2020 at 12:59 AM. Reason: grammar
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 01:15 AM   #2004
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,533
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 01:25 AM   #2005
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
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.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 01:25 AM   #2006
curious cat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 324
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Capture.JPG (39.4 KB, 4 views)

Last edited by curious cat; 27th January 2020 at 01:30 AM.
curious cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 01:29 AM   #2007
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 13,482
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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.
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 01:33 AM   #2008
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 13,482
Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
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.
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 27th January 2020 at 01:36 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 01:37 AM   #2009
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
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.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 27th January 2020 at 01:44 AM. Reason: sp
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 01:47 AM   #2010
curious cat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 324
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
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.
curious cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 01:49 AM   #2011
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
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.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 01:53 AM   #2012
curious cat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 324
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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.
curious cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 01:54 AM   #2013
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
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.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 27th January 2020 at 01:55 AM. Reason: sp
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 02:06 AM   #2014
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 13,482
Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
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

Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
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?

Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
Lets admit the possibility the speed is CONSIDERABLY lover and all is falling in place
No, lets not. I don;t accept falsehoods.

Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
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!
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 02:07 AM   #2015
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 13,482
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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.
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 02:14 AM   #2016
curious cat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 324
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
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.

Last edited by curious cat; 27th January 2020 at 02:28 AM.
curious cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 02:19 AM   #2017
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,183
Originally Posted by Robin View Post

There is a gap. Not big enough for a cruise missile to fit through.
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
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/

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Interesting.
Can you explain how a 14 inch missile warhead can pass through a 14 inch space without getting stuck fast?
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
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.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 02:23 AM   #2018
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
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.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 02:33 AM   #2019
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
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.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 02:36 AM   #2020
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 13,482
Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
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.

Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
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...



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...



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.
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 27th January 2020 at 02:38 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 02:50 AM   #2021
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,515
failed physics leads to sick fantasy

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 03:29 AM   #2022
curious cat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 324
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
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?
curious cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 03:43 AM   #2023
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,357
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
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?
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 04:21 AM   #2024
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,533
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 04:50 AM   #2025
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 13,482
Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
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"!
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 27th January 2020 at 05:07 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 04:55 AM   #2026
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,997
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 05:03 AM   #2027
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,997
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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?
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 05:06 AM   #2028
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 13,482
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
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.
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 05:11 AM   #2029
The Common Potato
Thinker
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 225
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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.)

Last edited by The Common Potato; 27th January 2020 at 05:51 AM. Reason: A thought! It entered my noggin.
The Common Potato is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 05:25 AM   #2030
The Common Potato
Thinker
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 225
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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.
The Common Potato is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 05:33 AM   #2031
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
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:

pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 05:34 AM   #2032
The Common Potato
Thinker
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 225
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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.

Last edited by The Common Potato; 27th January 2020 at 06:44 AM.
The Common Potato is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 05:35 AM   #2033
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
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.


Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
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.

Last edited by pgimeno; 27th January 2020 at 05:44 AM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 05:36 AM   #2034
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,582
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.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 05:43 AM   #2035
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,183
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post

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.
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
No, That's not how it works I don't disbelieve an authority by default.
In consecutive posts, no less.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 05:47 AM   #2036
The Common Potato
Thinker
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 225
If the table tennis bat hadn't been penetrated, the Mythbusters would have blown it up anyway.

Last edited by The Common Potato; 27th January 2020 at 05:52 AM.
The Common Potato is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 06:21 AM   #2037
curious cat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 324
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
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.
curious cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 06:44 AM   #2038
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,080
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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.
__________________


The better you get, the harder you work.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 06:45 AM   #2039
curious cat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 324
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
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.
curious cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2020, 08:37 AM   #2040
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,481
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
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.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:09 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.