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.
Tags no plane theory , no planers

Reply
Old 5th September 2012, 04:42 AM   #361
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,566
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
I would strongly disagree with this statement.

If I were to back my car into another one at 5 mph, I would have no concern about driving away. (After I'd left my contact info, of course.)

If I were to back either a C172 or a 767 into another plane, then ... no way.
You try to have your car OR your C172 go 500mph and see what happens.

About the 767, even a low speed collision will concentrate the energy from a very large and heavy craft into a small area, so ....

But, we are nitpicking.

Quote:
As for "sturdy", it depends on the part. As mentioned above, there are no bumpers on planes, and the skin is far weaker than a car's.
Yes, of course.

Quote:
All these are side points, tho. You're original point that the planes have an enormous mass - far more than most people appreciate - is absolutely accurate.

I was trying to point out that the mass is not evenly distributed across the cross section, as seen from the front of the plane.
I agree. But we are talking to someone who is comparing the plane with a water-filled condom.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans 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 5th September 2012, 08:40 AM   #362
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,266
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
I agree. But we are talking to someone who is comparing the plane with a water-filled condom.

Hans
I think I'm more offended that he compared my head to a pair of buildings New Yorkers used to universally condemn as ugly.

__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 5th September 2012, 10:42 AM   #363
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
If the front part got torn apart and failed to slow down the plane, how could it punch that hole?
Numbers just for elucidation. I've got no particular interest in gathering up all the info required to do the calculations.

Let's say that the lower portion of the fuselage has sufficient mass in the first 10' to penetrate an UNDAMAGED outer wall, the upper portion of the fuselage would require about 50' to penetrate the same.

Once the nose (& especially the heavier bottom part of the fuselage) splits the outer columns, then the columns are no longer "undamaged". Once the columns have been split, it becomes very easy (i.e., consumes little work) for the columns to be pealed back and/or fractured by both the upper & lower halves of the fuselage.

In the process, the plane gets sliced up too. It is NOT "one or the other" that gets damaged. It's both.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Not all tools are designed for slicing, planes included.
The plane is designed very well to GET sliced.
The walls of the towers, and the thin concrete floors, are designed very well to DO the slicing.

The message that you missed is that it takes much less energy to slice up a plane than it does to compact it.

Originally Posted by tfk
You can't see the deceleration of the front, shredded parts of the plane on the video because, surprise, there is a wall between the shredded parts and the camera.
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
It's about the deceleration of the whole plane, Pinkie
Yes, and the answer is that the disassembled, fractured, flying-around debris that used to be the front part of the plane HAS been decelerated. And it's trajectory diverted into 1000 different directions. But you can't see that debris or its velocities in the video, because they are INSIDE the building.

And the back portion of the plane has not slowed down significantly, because the thin wall of the plane cannot carry a lot of axial load.

a = F/m.

If F is small, and m is large, then a is small.

The back portion of the plane doesn't decelerate very much at all, even tho the front, sliced up portions do.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
why not... if it was strong enough to demolish steel
Because its a thin wall tube, and the forces applied at the interface of the wall have significant inward components. The tube splits & buckles at that interface, and the forces transmitted axially down the cylinder are close to zero.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
me thinks you are all over the place, Pinkie.
You don't understand impacts. You don't understand strength of structures.

Smart ass remarks incline anyone who is trying to teach you about this to toss in the towel on that effort & just point fingers & laugh at your ignorance instead.

Pinkie.

Which way do you want to go?

Last edited by tfk; 5th September 2012 at 10:55 AM.
tfk 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 5th September 2012, 10:59 AM   #364
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
I read the whole thing just to get to the concise concluding rebuttal to all of 9/11 conspiracy............
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Why are the current analyses wrong? It takes far more than just saying it couldn't happen.
jaydeehess 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 5th September 2012, 11:04 AM   #365
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
You try to have your car OR your C172 go 500mph and see what happens.
Hans
As I understand it, it was an annual tradition to get an old clunker & launch it with the catapult of one of the aircraft carriers in San Diego Harbor.

I strongly doubt that the catapult could travel nearly that fast, but it was supposed to be quite the sight.

i sincerely doubt that anyone got any more mileage out of the clunker.

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
I agree. But we are talking to someone who is comparing the plane with a water-filled condom.

Hans
Yeah. One with quite the 'tude, too.

What are you gonna do…?

Kids. Can't live with 'em. Can't retroactively abort them...
tfk 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 5th September 2012, 11:09 AM   #366
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
You try to have your car OR your C172 go 500mph and see what happens.

About the 767, even a low speed collision will concentrate the energy from a very large and heavy craft into a small area, so ....
One need only watch the various videos of large ships travelling under bridges that are lower than the upper structure of the ship. Bridge doesn't appear to move while sections of the ship are sliced away. Of course on inpsection of the bridge one sees that it too did in fact suffer great damage at the point of contact(wish I had time to find the video I am thinking of, alas I do not)
Both the ship(steel) and the bridge (concrete and a lot more steel ) suffer.

There are pictures of the damage inflicted when one ship hits another as well, where both suffer greatly.

And finally of course there are the pictures of the light Kamikazee aircraft that penetrated American warships with massive steel hulls, in cases where the aircraft's on board bombs failed to detonate.
jaydeehess 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 5th September 2012, 11:11 AM   #367
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Yeah. One with quite the 'tude, too.

What are you gonna do…?

Kids. Can't live with 'em. Can't retroactively abort them...
Surely you are not advocating for 60th trimester abortion?
jaydeehess 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 5th September 2012, 11:47 AM   #368
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Surely you are not advocating for 60th trimester abortion?

Let's see...

18 years x 4 trimesters/year = 72.

Nope, not 60th.

At the 60th, they are just starting into the black years...
tfk 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 5th September 2012, 01:00 PM   #369
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,087
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
If the front part got torn apart and failed to slow down the plane, how could it punch that hole? ...
You don't understand physics. The impact is exactly what a 767 would do at 590 mph, only a fringe few don't understand that fact.

If you had a valid claim, you would present the math, the physics, etc. You have only presented what you think should happen based on nonsense.
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 5th September 2012, 01:13 PM   #370
drewid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,257
Mikeys, in that video you posted of the phantom being launched into the 12 foot thick reinforced concrete block, what happened to the wingtips?
drewid 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 5th September 2012, 01:46 PM   #371
nomuse
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 779
Hrm. Both this and the subsequent collapse seem to be examples of the truther looking at a collision (with instincts honed by collisions involving significantly less inertia) and whining, "But it should have slowed down!" I think in their minds an airplane flying into a building should be like a U-haul trailer backing into a telephone pole, only scaled up.
nomuse 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 5th September 2012, 01:55 PM   #372
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by tfk View Post

Once the nose (& especially the heavier bottom part of the fuselage) splits the outer columns, then the columns are no longer "undamaged". Once the columns have been split, it becomes very easy (i.e., consumes little work) for the columns to be pealed back and/or fractured by both the upper & lower halves of the fuselage.
The nose came in first, before any heavy gear and the wings with fuel touched the wall.
Quote:
In the process, the plane gets sliced up too. It is NOT "one or the other" that gets damaged. It's both.
Slicing requires perpendicular action. No slicing of the plane took place. You are the only responder who wants to talk the actual stuff. Unfortunately your not much of a fireball.

Quote:
They were decelerated by punching a hole.
And the back portion of the plane has not slowed down significantly, because the thin wall of the plane cannot carry a lot of axial load.
It makes sense. The nose didn't take advantage of the momentum the mass of the plane had. It just punched a hole by itself.

Quote:
Because its a thin wall tube, and the forces applied at the interface of the wall have significant inward components. The tube splits & buckles at that interface, and the forces transmitted axially down the cylinder are close to zero.
Imagine a giant Pinkie, say 30 meters in length welded to the front of the plane. The pinkie is made of aluminum or wood or carbon or fiberglass. The plane with the pinkie attached hits the wall. Does it punch a hole or gets squashed before the rest of the plane meets the wall?

[/quote]

Last edited by Mikeys; 5th September 2012 at 02:18 PM.
Mikeys 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 5th September 2012, 02:16 PM   #373
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
You don't understand physics. The impact is exactly what a 767 would do at 590 mph, only a fringe few don't understand that fact.

If you had a valid claim, you would present the math, the physics, etc. You have only presented what you think should happen based on nonsense.
No one knows what would happen. I believed the plane was real but I am not sure anymore after watching this video. Flying a plane into that tower would require a hell of a risk or at best plenty of experience form practical applications in real world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfb...eature=related
Mikeys 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 5th September 2012, 02:33 PM   #374
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post

Slicing requires perpendicular action.
What? I think we may be dealing with a troll.
dafydd 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 5th September 2012, 02:35 PM   #375
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
No one knows what would happen. I believed the plane was real but I am not sure anymore after watching this video.
My suspicions are growing stronger.
dafydd 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 5th September 2012, 02:38 PM   #376
drewid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,257
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
No one knows what would happen. I believed the plane was real but I am not sure anymore after watching this video. Flying a plane into that tower would require a hell of a risk or at best plenty of experience form practical applications in real world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfb...eature=related
Stundied
drewid 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 5th September 2012, 02:38 PM   #377
Bell
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,050
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
No one knows what would happen. I believed the plane was real but I am not sure anymore after watching this video. Flying a plane into that tower would require a hell of a risk or at best plenty of experience form practical applications in real world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfb...eature=related
Hell of a risk? What risk?

And what experience is needed beyond knowing how to pilot a plane? Just aim for one of the largest buildings in New York City. How hard can that be? Do you experience difficulty passing through doors?
Bell 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 5th September 2012, 02:41 PM   #378
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,266
Originally Posted by drewid View Post
Mikeys, in that video you posted of the phantom being launched into the 12 foot thick reinforced concrete block, what happened to the wingtips?
Wait, what?? Please, please tell me that this wasn't an attempt to draw a direct conclusion about the 9/11 crashes from nothing more than the Sandia Labs test footage. Does anyone realize that the "wall" was a 7 square meter block and rested on air bearings in order to move backwards upon impact? Too many people act as if the wall was barely affected while the fighter simply disintegrated, but the reality was that the entire 469 ton block was "displaced 1.83 m against the back-up structure and rebounded"*. Which, BTW, is a great deal of why it didn't take any fracturing damage or the like: They wanted to measure force of impact, so they set the block on a platform that moved so that they could measure displacement. Fracturing of the concrete would end up being a source of energy dissapation that could not be measured simply.

Yes, the test has great influence on a discussion about the forces involved during a hgh speed aircraft crash because it's data, but no, you cannot simply look at the test and conclude that because a concrete wall on an air bearings completely destroyed a fighter jet that a composite structure of steel columns and spandrels and the like would cause the same effect to a larger jetliner. This is what I mean about studying the relevant information. What it tells us is that the force in a high speed jet crash is large enough to rock a 400+ ton block over a full meter backward, so imagine what a larger jet travelling at equivalent speed could do to a rigid, constrained assembly held together at splices by welds and bolts that were already carrying their natural day-to-day loads. That's the proper way to compare things. Not just to look and say "Hey, the jet disappeared, that also should've happened on 9/11". No. Not when you actually examine the relevant details and achieve better understanding.


Source:
* "Full-scale aircraft impact test for evaluation of impact force", T. Sugano, H. Tsubota, y. Kasai, N. Koshika, S. Orui, w.m. von Riesemann, D.C. Bickel and M.B. Parks, Kobori Research Complex, Inc., Tokyo, Japan and Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA, Nuclear Engineering and Design, 140 (1993) 373-385, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2954939390119T
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 5th September 2012, 02:43 PM   #379
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,818
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post

Slicing requires perpendicular action. No slicing of the plane took place. You are the only responder who wants to talk the actual stuff. Unfortunately your not much of a fireball.
Eh? The plane hit the building at close to 90° relative to the plane's long axis. Perpedicular, like pushing a carrot or a string bean through a vegetable slicer.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
The nose didn't take advantage of the momentum the mass of the plane had. It just punched a hole by itself.
And the nose took what percentage of a single frame of video to disappear? This is not high-speed high-def, so how the hell can you say what exactly happened to that quite short nose cone?
GlennB 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 5th September 2012, 02:52 PM   #380
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,266
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Numbers just for elucidation. I've got no particular interest in gathering up all the info required to do the calculations.
Tom, I don't know if this helps any - and plus, you might already know about this, so if you do, just tell me to shut up, but: NCSTAR 1-2B, near the end (chapter 10) has calculations not for a nose penetration, but for wing impulse upon impacting the columns. So no, it's not exactly the specific case being discussed here, but it's still an examination of a part of the jet's impact on part of the structure.

To be clear: I am simply trusting their pressure-impulse curve graphs for column fracturing (figures 10-4 and 10-5). I simply don't have the knowledge to independently draw up my own numbers for that, plus I think it was built on computer modeling that's well beyond me anyway, but at the same time I have no reason to doubt their info. They make a compelling case to me that they've reasonably determined what it would've taken to break a WTC column, but you're the one with the background to better evaluate that than I.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 5th September 2012, 02:55 PM   #381
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by Bell View Post
Hell of a risk? What risk?

And what experience is needed beyond knowing how to pilot a plane? Just aim for one of the largest buildings in New York City. How hard can that be? Do you experience difficulty passing through doors?
Plenty could have gone wrong. It's not just directing a plane into a building but what happens next. The whole world was watching. The plane had to follow the script. Math is abstract science and it won't give you all answers to what will happen in real world. It was either confuse and CGI or the real thing.
Mikeys 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 5th September 2012, 03:02 PM   #382
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,818
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Plenty could have gone wrong. It's not just directing a plane into a building but what happens next. The whole world was watching. The plane had to follow the script. Math is abstract science and it won't give you all answers to what will happen in real world. It was either confuse and CGI or the real thing.
The mistake you're making here is in supposing that utter destruction of those buidlings and the death of the occupants was the terrorists' objective. It wasn't, and they admitted as much. Their objective was a spectacular display of terrorism. The collapses were just by-products of that.
GlennB 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 5th September 2012, 03:16 PM   #383
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
The mistake you're making here is in supposing that utter destruction of those buidlings and the death of the occupants was the terrorists' objective. It wasn't, and they admitted as much. Their objective was a spectacular display of terrorism. The collapses were just by-products of that.
And you believe them! They are honest face liars.
Mikeys 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 5th September 2012, 03:23 PM   #384
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,087
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
No one knows what would happen. I believed the plane was real but I am not sure anymore after watching this video. Flying a plane into that tower would require a hell of a risk or at best plenty of experience form practical applications in real world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfb...eature=related
You sure are gullible. You show us a video made by an idiot who thinks this is true.
Quote:
In the days after 9/11, numerous pilots and aviation experts commented on the elaborate maneuvers performed by the aircraft in the terrorist attacks, and the advanced skills that would have been necessary to navigate those aircraft into their targets. The men flying the planes must have been "highly skilled pilots" and "extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators," who were "probably military trained," these experts said.
I have flown heavy jets (300,000 pound class aircraft) since 1976 - there were zero "elaborate maneuvers performed" on 911. You post lies, and you can't do physics.

RISK? Hitting 207 foot wide targets are easy for pilots, we do it every flight, under much harder conditions.
RISK? It was a suicide mission, the terrorists were killing themselves! RISK?

Crashing requires zero experience, it is the easiest maneuver pilots do, yet avoid. I put kids in a simulator, and they hit the WTC first try, no flight training. Maybe you can't fly, but most American kids can fly a jet without training good enough to hit the WTC and Pentagon; with no training. In a 767/757. In a 707, many pilots without training in type would have a problem, but the 767/757 are new jets, they don't have the same flying problems found in earlier jets. Sorry, your claims are nonsense.

Some of the terrorists flew jet simulators in types harder to fly than the 767/757. Darn, research steps in and trashes your delusions.

How many hours do you have in heavy jets?

You blindly accept lies as your evidence - lies; why are you so gullible.

Last edited by beachnut; 5th September 2012 at 03:26 PM.
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 5th September 2012, 03:28 PM   #385
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
The mistake you're making here is in supposing that utter destruction of those buidlings and the death of the occupants was the terrorists' objective. It wasn't, and they admitted as much. Their objective was a spectacular display of terrorism. The collapses were just by-products of that.
Yeah, I hate reading the KSM testimony. He almost seems human when he mentions he didn't like to kill kids and innocents. He said, basically, war sucks and that's what happens. He gets it, truthers don't.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 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 5th September 2012, 03:30 PM   #386
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Plenty could have gone wrong. It's not just directing a plane into a building but what happens next. The whole world was watching. The plane had to follow the script. Math is abstract science and it won't give you all answers to what will happen in real world. It was either confuse and CGI or the real thing.
Their stated goal was to fly the planes into the WTC. No one knew what the results would be. The WTC towers were wider than a runway. You do realize pilots land jets on runways every day without missing?

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Ok the plane got sliced by the wall. We are forced to accept plenty unbelievable here why not slicing of a plane. Which object did the cutting?
Honestly, if you can't be bothered to do your own research - why should we do it for you?
Robrob 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 5th September 2012, 03:39 PM   #387
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,087
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Plenty could have gone wrong. It's not just directing a plane into a building but what happens next. The whole world was watching. The plane had to follow the script. Math is abstract science and it won't give you all answers to what will happen in real world. It was either confuse and CGI or the real thing.
Classic 911 truth. Math is not reality, woo is.

You are anti-science; and proud to remain in ignorance.
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 5th September 2012, 03:39 PM   #388
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
No one knows what would happen. I believed the plane was real but I am not sure anymore after watching this video. Flying a plane into that tower would require a hell of a risk or at best plenty of experience form practical applications in real world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfb...eature=related
What risk?
Let's examine the scenario. We have four men with at least some training in flight operation. Let's discount the tough parts, getting the plane in the air and landing safely on a runway as they simply will have no need of those skills.
They take over an aircraft that the experienced pilots have already adjusted for proper trim, the flaps and landing gear are retracted. This means all that is required is a midicum of navigation skills and flight operation skills. Turn the plane in the general direction of New York City and fly until one sees the two tallest and largest office structures on the horizen. First pilot in has it easy he can choose either building from many miles out and line it up for a straight in shot, push thrust to maximum just before he hits. All he needs to do is make slight adjustments to column and pedals.

Second pilot in needs to line up at the non-burning tower, this makes it slightly more difficult. Remember though that he can try anything at all he sees fit to try.
If he is in jeopardy of missing he can wrench the controls ain the last seconds. This will stress the plane more than in a normal passenger flight but he has no concern regarding this. He does not have any concern over the sfaety of the craft or its occupants, in fact he fully intends on destroying them. He is taking absolutely no risk in doing so since even if he does miss the tower all he need do is dive the aircraft into the ground and it still counts as a victory, all on board are dead and many New Yorkers are also dead at the crash site.

At the Pentagon, once again all that needs to be done is navigate to the vicinity of this structure. It is very distinctive in shape and size and lies alongside a major waterway.. Hanjour it seems did not see it until it was too late to descend in a stright line. No problem, he performed a standard 3 minute turn (descending in a turn is easier than maintaining a constant alititude during a turn btw) and came out of it as the Pentagon came into view through the cockpit window, then flew again, in a straight line for miles, to impact.

As for flt 93, I personally think that was destined for the Capitol building. Once again a huge and distinctive structure and again a symbol of American wealth and power.(the Whitehouse is relatively small and all but surrounded by trees whereas the Capitol bldg has few trees near it and is very wide and tall compared to its surroundings.)

With all 4 aircraft there is no risk at all. If the hijackers missed all targets but crashed them it would count as victory. They would have killed a close to two hundred people on the planes and possibly taken out as many or more on the ground(crashing into a street at rush hour would kill hundreds let alone missing the WTC and hitting an apartment building)

Last edited by jaydeehess; 5th September 2012 at 03:42 PM.
jaydeehess 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 5th September 2012, 03:46 PM   #389
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
A row of vertical steel beams did the cutting before they failed.
that's getting circular.
Mikeys 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 5th September 2012, 03:46 PM   #390
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Ok the plane got sliced by the wall. We are forced to accept plenty unbelievable here why not slicing of a plane. Which object did the cutting?
In the Trutherverse, axes never need sharpening!
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 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 5th September 2012, 03:51 PM   #391
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
You sure are gullible. You show us a video made by an idiot who thinks this is true.
Thanks for verifying. I just saw it
Mikeys 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 5th September 2012, 03:56 PM   #392
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,087
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Thanks for verifying. I just saw it
Your video is a lie. Anyone with a grade school education understands that. Did you skip a lot of school? You never took physics, you don't have clue why flying on 911 was not hard to do, and required no experience.

You are gullible.
You failed to present the math, which you think can't work in the real world. Which means you don't know what physics is.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
... Math is abstract science and it won't give you all answers to what will happen in real world. ...
You don't do math, or you can't do math? You will not do math.

Too hard?
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 5th September 2012, 04:09 PM   #393
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
You sure are gullible. You show us a video made by an idiot who thinks this is true.

I have flown heavy jets (300,000 pound class aircraft) since 1976 - there were zero "elaborate maneuvers performed" on 911. You post lies, and you can't do physics.

RISK? Hitting 207 foot wide targets are easy for pilots, we do it every flight, under much harder conditions.
RISK? It was a suicide mission, the terrorists were killing themselves! RISK?

Crashing requires zero experience, it is the easiest maneuver pilots do, yet avoid. I put kids in a simulator, and they hit the WTC first try, no flight training. Maybe you can't fly, but most American kids can fly a jet without training good enough to hit the WTC and Pentagon; with no training. In a 767/757. In a 707, many pilots without training in type would have a problem, but the 767/757 are new jets, they don't have the same flying problems found in earlier jets. Sorry, your claims are nonsense.

Some of the terrorists flew jet simulators in types harder to fly than the 767/757. Darn, research steps in and trashes your delusions.

How many hours do you have in heavy jets?

You blindly accept lies as your evidence - lies; why are you so gullible.
I never said hitting a building was tough. I am aware pilots can land in more challenging places than on a side of the tallest tower. What a plane does afterwards is to at least some extend up to unpredictable physics, assuming the criminals were running a script and there was no place for mistakes.
Mikeys 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 5th September 2012, 04:14 PM   #394
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,087
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
I never said hitting a building was tough. I am aware pilots can land in more challenging places than on a side of the tallest tower. What a plane does afterwards is to at least some extend up to unpredictable physics, assuming the criminals were running a script and there was no place for mistakes.
You posted a video which claims it is hard to fly. Are you retracting that claim?

What? The plane did exactly what 767 would do at 590 mph.
The math say 175 had 2,093 pounds of TNT in kinetic energy. Which means it has 11 times the energy required to break the shell of the very strong WTC.

Physics is not unpredictable, it is used to build the planes we fly. Engineering is used to build the WTC, and the structure can handle 187 pounds of TNT in kinetic energy, and that was seen on 911, when 11 times the energy required knocked a hole in the WTC. The physics is predictable, you are spreading nonsense again.

Last edited by beachnut; 5th September 2012 at 04:16 PM.
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 5th September 2012, 04:17 PM   #395
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
I never said hitting a building was tough. I am aware pilots can land in more challenging places than on a side of the tallest tower. What a plane does afterwards is to at least some extend up to unpredictable physics, assuming the criminals were running a script and there was no place for mistakes.


The plane crashed. Everyone on board was killed. That was the end of the mission. What else is needed?
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
TheRedWorm 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 5th September 2012, 04:19 PM   #396
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 6,795
I'm just so tired of this "they must have been great pilots to do what they did" crap, I want to puke.

Back in '78 or '79, I was in a high school aeronautics elective class. Think shop for aviation geeks. One day the ten or so of us were lucky enough to get a field trip to SFO (San Francisco Int'l) to spend an hour or so in one of Pan Am's motion base 747 flight simulators flying over New York City.

This will sound crass in a post 9/11 world, but close to the first thing each of us did (with permission) was to crash into a large skyscraper. The Empire State Building took the most hits as I recall. These sims are real enough for logged training time. In fact one of the first crashes threw me, elbow first, into the knob covered engineers panel.

None of us had ANY real life stick time... NONE of us missed.

Just accept it... hitting a building is easy.
__________________
----------------------
Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything.

"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
Jim_MDP is online now   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 5th September 2012, 04:42 PM   #397
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
You posted a video which claims it is hard to fly. Are you retracting that claim?
I never claimed that hitting a building would be difficult. I never raised the issue. The video is not about it. The video is a fake, I admit. Someone did it and posted it for fun.
Mikeys 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 5th September 2012, 04:44 PM   #398
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
I never said hitting a building was tough. I am aware pilots can land in more challenging places than on a side of the tallest tower. What a plane does afterwards is to at least some extend up to unpredictable physics, assuming the criminals were running a script and there was no place for mistakes.
So now you're backing away from your earlier position?

Please, feel free to elaborate on how you think "unpredictable physics" matter the least when the GOAL WAS TO FLY INTO THE WTC?
Robrob 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 5th September 2012, 04:47 PM   #399
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
I never claimed that hitting a building would be difficult. I never raised the issue. The video is not about it. The video is a fake, I admit. Someone did it and posted it for fun.
Really?

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
No one knows what would happen. I believed the plane was real but I am not sure anymore after watching this video. Flying a plane into that tower would require a hell of a risk or at best plenty of experience form practical applications in real world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfb...eature=related
Robrob 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 5th September 2012, 05:55 PM   #400
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Your equation will work on solid objects only and then you have to think about their densities.
Not really. F=ma and K.E = 1/2 mv2 It's pretty constant. Water, accelerated to a high speed, will cut steel.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
You can not plug into an equation numbers freely willy and go home happy as a clam.
Sure you can, if you know the numbers to plug in?

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
It was an aluminum shell bubble vs steel wall.
Well, aluminum, steel, structural aluminum, etc..

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
You have been told the shell somehow cut neatly through that crate of hardened steel and was given general physical expression as explanation.
Did you not understand the explanation?

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
An impact like that would result in anything but what you saw in the videos.
Prove it. Show the math, and list all your assumptions.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
There was no way the aluminum shell could cut through the wall without anything done to that wall prior to the impact or at east during the impact. It would have been pancaked, turned to dust, incinerated, and that at any high speed and above.
K.E = 1/2 mv2 f=ma

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
There was no debris coming down the wall.
Incorrect. Some most certainly did.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
There was no explosion on contact, no fire,
The fuel is not stored in the nose. JP fuel also is not explosive in large pools. However, when turned into an aerosol (fine, airborne particles) it does become an explosive reaction. Sugar and flour can do the same thing. It's an FAE, or Fuel Air Explosion.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
the plane was just swallowed.
Yep. Sort of.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
It was swallowed not because of the kinetic energy with which it hit the wall, but because most likely the columns had been undone in the place of impact, not a big deal.
Right
triforcharity 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 07:06 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.