IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 9/11

Reply
Old 8th January 2014, 07:55 PM   #81
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Correct.

And the problem that he doesn't understand it does not make him right.
Just because he wants it to be true, doesn't make it so.
yankee451 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 8th January 2014, 07:57 PM   #82
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
I've said it before: your force arrows are going in the wrong direction. The net force vector is *into* the building, not away from it. Reverse the direction of the arrows and you will see why the pillar deformations curve towards the point of impact.
You're confused because you haven't watched the video.
yankee451 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 8th January 2014, 07:58 PM   #83
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Just because he wants it to be true, doesn't make it so.
Agreed.
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 8th January 2014, 08:23 PM   #84
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
And yet the damage allegedly caused by said plane indicates something else entirely, and from a different direction.

See, now's your chance to explain how the damage evidence is consistent with the story you don't question.
Actually, no. The wholes in all of the structures and the ground at Shanksville are the exact sizes and shapes they need to be to have been made by anything other than the hijacked aircraft. No explosive device known to military science can make those sorts of hole nor fireballs.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant 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 8th January 2014, 08:26 PM   #85
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
But enough about me, how about the video describing the directional damage proving a jet, whether Boeing 767 or otherwise didn't cause it?
There is none that is not sculpted out of unicorn poo.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant 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 8th January 2014, 08:38 PM   #86
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
How is the damage evidence consistent with a jet impact?
The length of the gashes match approximately the length of an airliner wing. They were not strong enough to cut the full length. The wing tips are very fragile, usually.
Quote:
How does jet fuel add density to aluminum sheeting formed into the shape of an airfoil?
How does jet fuel affect the modulus of elasticity of aluminum?
Fuel has mass. That mass gave the sheet aluminum some kinetic force oon impact. Aluminum does not shatter easily when pressed down over its wholwe surface.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant 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 8th January 2014, 09:05 PM   #87
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
And yet the damage allegedly caused by said plane indicates something else entirely, and from a different direction.

See, now's your chance to explain how the damage evidence is consistent with the story you don't question.
Nothing is alleged, your own video shows what happened.

Last edited by Craig4; 8th January 2014 at 09:12 PM.
Craig4 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 8th January 2014, 09:10 PM   #88
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,512
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
The length of the gashes match approximately the length of an airliner wing. They were not strong enough to cut the full length. The wing tips are very fragile, usually.


Fuel has mass. That mass gave the sheet aluminum some kinetic force oon impact. Aluminum does not shatter easily when pressed down over its wholwe surface.
ok, I watched the video, well most of it. I skipped the bits about 911 truths crazy ideas because you dont have to convince me that they crazy ideas. Its funny how you try to gain for yourself some kind of credibility by admonishing the other completely crazy ideas. But you are yourself entrering the land of cookoo.

For example:

- missing floors and furniture, really? I mean seriously? People did work in the building you know. It wasnt harry potter and the missing platform 9 and 3/4
- Removed bolts? Reeeeaaaallly?!!?
- Sloped back wings should show a different impact site?! Nah, becuase of the kinetic energy involved the slight angle of the wing would make no difference to speak of.


Look, its simples.

** There is video showing a plane hit, leaving the plane shaped hole. **

And

- Your ideas require that the plane would have to have been flown exactly into a specific location in the towers where the floors and bolts that were removed. You were talking about specific locations where the bolts were removed.

- Why bother removing the floors and bolts. Enough damage would have been caused anyway for the terrorists to achieve their goals. (and as we can see did more damage than they probably expected)

Your ideas are as silly as the dustification or the complete video hoax, or the no planers. Its completely ridiculous.

0/10 for the film. Its a joke.
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here

Last edited by BadBoy; 8th January 2014 at 09:15 PM.
BadBoy 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 8th January 2014, 09:20 PM   #89
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
It certainly is relevant. Did you see the slow-motion video of the steel being sliced by the hollow, wing shaped cutting blade? No?

Want to take your best shot as to why steel cutting blades are not shaped like airfoils?
Pop quiz: Which is more hollow, the wing or the steel columns?
phunk 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 8th January 2014, 09:38 PM   #90
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
You're confused because you haven't watched the video.
I've quoted your exact post and explained why it's wrong:

Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
I've said it before: your force arrows are going in the wrong direction. The net force vector is *into* the building, not away from it. Reverse the direction of the arrows and you will see why the pillar deformations curve towards the point of impact.

Where's the confusion?

Your diagrams shows that you have got your understanding of force and motion being the opposite of what does occur.

You repeat the mistake in the video.

Confusion? Yes, but not by me.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....

Last edited by Kid Eager; 8th January 2014 at 09:40 PM.
Kid Eager 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 8th January 2014, 09:41 PM   #91
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by BadBoy View Post
** There is video showing a plane hit, leaving the plane shaped hole. **
[/thread]

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 8th January 2014, 10:43 PM   #92
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
I've quoted your exact post and explained why it's wrong:




Where's the confusion?

Your diagrams shows that you have got your understanding of force and motion being the opposite of what does occur.

You repeat the mistake in the video.

Confusion? Yes, but not by me.
Sigh.

Here's a still shot of the video you won't watch accompanied by a snippet from the transcript you won't read

Quote:
767 wings are swept-back about 30 degrees which would mean they would strike in a wedge motion, with the wings sawing from the inside out, from fuselage to wing-tips. The fuselage would strike first, and then would come the wings at the wing roots, followed by the engines and finally the wing tips. Had this happened the damage would reflect it – but it doesn’t.
[quote]



Quote:
Some people think a real jet was modified to be able to slice into the building, but this directional damage proves that’s not the case too. Had there been a real, heavily reinforced jet that was at once dense enough to slice steel yet somehow light enough to fly, all the steel would bend SOUTH, in the direction of travel of the jet. In such a case, the wing damage would bend away from the center hole – the right wing would wedge the columns to the right and the left wing would wedge the columns to the left.

Last edited by yankee451; 8th January 2014 at 10:45 PM.
yankee451 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 8th January 2014, 10:47 PM   #93
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Pop quiz: Which is more hollow, the wing or the steel columns?
Counter quiz: which had more density, was less brittle, had much more material and far more mass?
yankee451 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 8th January 2014, 10:53 PM   #94
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,215
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Why, what kind of jet were you thinking of?
A 767, or a reinforced jet. The very two things quoted in my post, just a bit above YOUR post.
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.
Iamme 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 8th January 2014, 11:11 PM   #95
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by Iamme View Post
A 767, or a reinforced jet. The very two things quoted in my post, just a bit above YOUR post.
You lost me. What hair are you trying to split, exactly?
yankee451 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 8th January 2014, 11:13 PM   #96
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
You lost me. What hair are you trying to split, exactly?
You don't do reality. You do lies about 911.

Radar data proves it was a 767, you don't do reality. Your family told you it was fiction, you keep doing it.

The dumbest part of your video, you debunk yourself showing Flight 11 impact the WTC. Radar backs the footage up. oops

Last edited by beachnut; 8th January 2014 at 11:15 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 8th January 2014, 11:16 PM   #97
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,215
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
You're confused because you haven't watched the video.
I cant get videos. What`s it OF, anyway?
We all saw, live on tv, the jets crashing into the buildings.
What`s the argument here, anyway? What`s the debate? What`s the alternative theory that rules out what we saw live on tv was not real?
What was it?...doctored up live tv? Like we were all duped by a plot, and what we saw that day was computer generated?
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.
Iamme 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 8th January 2014, 11:17 PM   #98
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Sigh.

Here's a still shot of the video you won't watch accompanied by a snippet from the transcript you won't read



Quote:
and yet again, you are exactly wrong. The sequence of impact is not the same thing as the direction of the resulting forces. You keep repeating this mistake.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....

Last edited by Kid Eager; 8th January 2014 at 11:19 PM.
Kid Eager 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 8th January 2014, 11:22 PM   #99
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
and yet again, you are exactly wrong. The sequence of impact is not the same thing as the direction of the resulting forces. You keep repeating this mistake.
You keep speaking as if you're some kind of authority but you're not really saying anything.

Would you like to borrow the model so you can demonstrate what you mean?
yankee451 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 8th January 2014, 11:26 PM   #100
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by Iamme View Post
I cant get videos. What`s it OF, anyway?
We all saw, live on tv, the jets crashing into the buildings.
What`s the argument here, anyway? What`s the debate? What`s the alternative theory that rules out what we saw live on tv was not real?
What was it?...doctored up live tv? Like we were all duped by a plot, and what we saw that day was computer generated?
The transcript is linked in the OP.
yankee451 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 8th January 2014, 11:27 PM   #101
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,215
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
You lost me. What hair are you trying to split, exactly?
What`s going on here?! You asked me a question, where in my original post is a quote FROM SOMEBODY ELSE, that says about `a 767 or reinforced jet`.
Are we talking about 2 different things or what? I couldnt even fathom why you asked me your question in the first place? What was there to question?????? I quoted somebody saying a 767 or reinforced jet. End of story. No more responses about this from me, as i dont know what you are driving at or think i`m driving at. Its a waste of my time.
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.
Iamme 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 8th January 2014, 11:34 PM   #102
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
You keep speaking as if you're some kind of authority but you're not really saying anything.

Would you like to borrow the model so you can demonstrate what you mean?
Oh, I love the apparently unintentional irony of doing "science"-by-youtube, getting schooled in god knows how many different ways, then complaining that somebody else is "not really saying anything".

Yes, I and others are saying stuff - whether there exists the competency to understand it is another matter entirely. The evidence so far is "entirely not".

Some kind of authority? Being able to remember some of my vectors lessons from high school physics classes doesn't normally count as being authoritative....

And to what "model" do you refer? Surely not that ridiculous gif animation?

Anyhow, I'm off to do some stuff IRL. I'll check back later to see if your "model" *snork* has been amended to include any physics...
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 8th January 2014, 11:40 PM   #103
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9,071
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Oh hey, I know this one!
I didn't ask you because it was obvious you didn't know but you decided to try anyway and failed to answer the question demonstrating your lack of knowledge. Don't worry I'll find the information out from someone who knows the subject.
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 8th January 2014, 11:43 PM   #104
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,753
AAL11 took off that day, was hijacked, and crashed into the North Tower yankee. Get over it.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
For my complete compilation of evidence showing AAL77 hit the Pentagon -http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
For my compilation of evidence for UAL93 - http://ual93.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 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 8th January 2014, 11:46 PM   #105
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Oh, I love the apparently unintentional irony of doing "science"-by-youtube, getting schooled in god knows how many different ways, then complaining that somebody else is "not really saying anything".

Yes, I and others are saying stuff - whether there exists the competency to understand it is another matter entirely. The evidence so far is "entirely not".

Some kind of authority? Being able to remember some of my vectors lessons from high school physics classes doesn't normally count as being authoritative....

And to what "model" do you refer? Surely not that ridiculous gif animation?

Anyhow, I'm off to do some stuff IRL. I'll check back later to see if your "model" *snork* has been amended to include any physics...
Puffing up your chest and using big words enthralls me, sure, but I would be in your thrall if you could explain how the southbound jet caused westbound damage. Please use big words.
yankee451 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 8th January 2014, 11:55 PM   #106
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,214
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
But enough about me, how about the video describing the directional damage proving a jet, whether Boeing 767 or otherwise didn't cause it?
This must be some new use of the word "proving" that I wasn't previously aware of.
Reactor drone 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 9th January 2014, 12:10 AM   #107
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
somebody show him NFL highlights please for the northbound linebacker hitting the quarter back and sending him east by ... etc. lol, this is bad
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 9th January 2014, 12:32 AM   #108
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,512
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Puffing up your chest and using big words enthralls me, sure, but I would be in your thrall if you could explain how the southbound jet caused westbound damage. Please use big words.
He already did. I understood him. You need to stop spitting back and read what people are saying.

Are you suggesting it was a missile?
If so, you probably need help.
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
BadBoy 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 9th January 2014, 12:33 AM   #109
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,512
Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
This must be some new use of the word "proving" that I wasn't previously aware of.
this
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
BadBoy 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 9th January 2014, 12:39 AM   #110
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Pop quiz: Which is more hollow, the wing or the steel columns?
That's easy, it's the steel columns.
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner.
Mudcat 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 9th January 2014, 01:13 AM   #111
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,512
Did anyone calculate the kinetic energy of the fuel in the wings?

- If it was full of fuel it would have 150,000 pounds of fuel (23k gal @ 6.7 lbs per gallon) which is 68,000 kg.

- 0.5 * mv^2 with m=68,000 kg of fuel and speed = 200m/s :=

1300, 000, 000 joules.
1.3 gigajoules :=
approx qtr ton of TNT.

Seems a bit high to me. Is that correct or where did I go wrong.
I wonder even without a jet rapped around that much fluid what damage it would do colliding with an object like a tall building.
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here

Last edited by BadBoy; 9th January 2014 at 01:22 AM.
BadBoy 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 9th January 2014, 01:51 AM   #112
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
But enough about me, how about the video describing the directional damage proving a jet, whether Boeing 767 or otherwise didn't cause it?
Oh, that....it was utter garbage that didn't prove anything of the kind. It looks like you've wasted your time on a silly story. The video fails for two reasons as pointed out by Ozeco:

1) "Most truthers cannot think"; AND
2) "That is why most of them became truthers".

These are serious shortcomings that are responsible for the banalities inherent within the video.

Last edited by HotRodDeluxe; 9th January 2014 at 02:03 AM. Reason: Othello didn't put out the light.
HotRodDeluxe 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 9th January 2014, 02:55 AM   #113
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
I swear some people think the James Bond films are documentaries.
HotRodDeluxe 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 9th January 2014, 03:03 AM   #114
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
I swear some people think the James Bond films are documentaries.
Yet they overlook the part where the evil scheme is foiled by Bond, James Bond.
tsig 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 9th January 2014, 03:24 AM   #115
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
I swear some people think the James Bond films are documentaries.
Much like creationists think "The Flintstones" is a documentary proving the concurrent existence of humans and dinosaurs.

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 9th January 2014, 05:13 AM   #116
waypastvne
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451

How does jet fuel affect the modulus of elasticity of aluminum?
Go down to your local Wallmart, go the sporting goods section, and buy an aluminum arrow shaft. The arrow shaft will most likely be 7075 T6 aluminum. Cut off an 10" section and break it using only your hands. This will at least give you some grasp of the difference between aircraft aluminum and beer can aluminum.
waypastvne 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 9th January 2014, 05:42 AM   #117
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Answer:
Not even close to the weight of the plate steel it impacted.
Wrong.
Aluminium alloys are used extensively in aircraft due to their high strength-to-weight ratio. On the other hand, pure aluminium metal is much too soft for such uses, and it does not have the high tensile strength that is needed for airplanes and helicopters.

Aluminium alloys versus types of steel
Aluminium alloys typically have an elastic modulus of about 70 GPa, which is about one-third of the elastic modulus of most kinds of steel and steel alloys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alumini...oys_properties

One third the strength is more than strong enough to break it under such conditions; there's a FEA proving it. Water can also cut through steel if thrown at a bigger speed and in a thin jet (google waterjet cutting), and it's not even a solid. The principle is the same: kinetic energy.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE



Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
How does jet fuel add density to aluminum sheeting formed into the shape of an airfoil?
It adds density to the wing as a whole, thus increasing the mass, and with it, the kinetic energy.

Imagine yourself throwing an empty soda can to a glass. You will probably not hurt it. Now imagine yourself throwing it full. You will probably break it. Same material, different overall density.

And an airplane is much more than the sheeting. Focusing on the cover and forgetting about the structure is a lie by omission. Remember the wings must be strong enough to support the weight of the fuselage.









http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/struct...es/image12.gif


Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Surely you can use your math to demonstrate how the east-west bends and twists were caused by aluminum sheeting formed into the shape of a jet with 30 degree swept back wings striking in a north-south trajectory.

These two sheets look like they bent post-impact, due to the load. They bent east-west because it was far easier for them to bend east-west than north-south, due to their orientation and shape (a very oblong rectangle, i.e. basically, a sheet of steel with its faces pointing north and south).

However I think that parts of that picture show that the wing was pulled towards the hole by its own structure as the plane penetrated. Good catch.

Last edited by pgimeno; 9th January 2014 at 05:52 AM. Reason: Minor wording, add image
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 9th January 2014, 08:33 AM   #118
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Counter quiz: which had more density, was less brittle, had much more material and far more mass?
The plane. Unless for the "more mass" part you want to count the whole building instead of just the columns that were impacted.
phunk 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 9th January 2014, 08:37 AM   #119
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Wrong.
Aluminium alloys are used extensively in aircraft due to their high strength-to-weight ratio. On the other hand, pure aluminium metal is much too soft for such uses, and it does not have the high tensile strength that is needed for airplanes and helicopters.

Aluminium alloys versus types of steel
Aluminium alloys typically have an elastic modulus of about 70 GPa, which is about one-third of the elastic modulus of most kinds of steel and steel alloys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alumini...oys_properties

One third the strength is more than strong enough to break it under such conditions; there's a FEA proving it. Water can also cut through steel if thrown at a bigger speed and in a thin jet (google waterjet cutting), and it's not even a solid. The principle is the same: kinetic energy.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE




It adds density to the wing as a whole, thus increasing the mass, and with it, the kinetic energy.

Imagine yourself throwing an empty soda can to a glass. You will probably not hurt it. Now imagine yourself throwing it full. You will probably break it. Same material, different overall density.

And an airplane is much more than the sheeting. Focusing on the cover and forgetting about the structure is a lie by omission. Remember the wings must be strong enough to support the weight of the fuselage.

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...he/boeing2.jpg

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim.../13WMAZ_03.jpg

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...he/estruc1.jpg

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...e_fuselage.jpg

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/struct...es/image12.gif



These two sheets look like they bent post-impact, due to the load. They bent east-west because it was far easier for them to bend east-west than north-south, due to their orientation and shape (a very oblong rectangle, i.e. basically, a sheet of steel with its faces pointing north and south).

However I think that parts of that picture show that the wing was pulled towards the hole by its own structure as the plane penetrated. Good catch.
And yet the question was about the weight of the steel as compared to the aluminum, not the tensile strength.

You also neglected to mention that pressure, very tiny apertures and often abrasives are necessary for water to cut steel. Why?

To be an accurate comparison you'll need to explain how a Boeing 767 is like a water jet.
yankee451 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 9th January 2014, 08:40 AM   #120
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,127
The steel was not "cut". It had a large force applied to it and it mostly bent and broke apart at the connections between column segments.
phunk 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

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 11:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.