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 1st September 2012, 07:59 PM   #201
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by Montag451 View Post
No I believe it is a bunch of white pixels found on an image uploaded by a truther on YouTube who has admitted to manipulating the image.

Or it is a real flash that was set off to allow future video technicians to edit planes in to all footage available of the most filmed terrorist event the planet has ever seen? I know which one is logically more likely.
Why is it all truther theories always sound like something thought up by a not very bright ten year old?
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 1st September 2012, 08:03 PM   #202
Bell
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,050
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
Why is it all truther theories always sound like something thought up by a not very bright ten year old?
Because of the pot they smoke.
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 1st September 2012, 08:08 PM   #203
Montag451
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
But again, you ignore the evidence from several different camera angles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRL_IptUYTA

Ok, I will let you off the hook. It's not easy to debunk this, I know.
Would you accept that it is possible to add a flash to a single image?
If it is possible to do it to one then it is possible to add it to any shot you wanted.
Would you accept that if the flash is real it should be present on all footage of the face of the building?

Or is your premise that it was present on every piece of footage but somehow it was edited out of every piece of footage that existed. Except that these pieces of footage were somehow missed and they fell into the hands of the YouTube truther who has admitted to manipulating the image.

This is actually very easy to resolve. Just get multiple other videos and look for the artifacts that must be present in every single one of them where they were edited out. I say must because somehow digital technology is not capable of adding a flash, so they must not be capable of removing the flash.

Even better how is it not possible to add a flash, yet it is possible to add a plane?

Have to say it isn't that hard.

Last edited by Montag451; 1st September 2012 at 08:11 PM. Reason: iPad auto correct
Montag451 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 1st September 2012, 08:10 PM   #204
Montag451
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by Bell View Post
Sounds more like glue sniffing
Montag451 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 1st September 2012, 08:17 PM   #205
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by Montag451 View Post
Sounds more like glue sniffing
Certainly some form of solvent...
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 1st September 2012, 08:21 PM   #206
Bell
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,050
There is a flash in this video:

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


Just as with UA175, maybe, I dunno, it's from the release of energy from the ferocity of the impact?
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 1st September 2012, 08:25 PM   #207
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by Bell View Post
There is a flash in this video:

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


Just as with UA175, maybe, I dunno, it's from the release of energy from the ferocity of the impact?
OMG, the Swedes did it!
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 1st September 2012, 08:30 PM   #208
Montag451
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
OMG, the Swedes did it!
Absolute proof that a plane could not destroy a building. See it just disintegrates when it hits a wall.

I miss Tomorrow's World
Montag451 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 1st September 2012, 09:17 PM   #209
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
No-planes divert the issue hence they are more likely to be manipulators. Who cares whether there were planes there or no. They could not have done the kind of damage they are assumed to have done. Their existence doesn't matter. The claim is real.
Proven to have done. By scientific study. Some of which is now used in engineering classes.

If you mean "make the buildings collapse", no, they needed help from the fire to do that. Fire and impact. You need both.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
I wonder what the believers will say after watching this video. It will hurt their fragile social little egos.
That the WTC wasn't made of concrete and the plane in question was both larger and going much faster? Even I know that's exponentially more impact force.
000063 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 1st September 2012, 10:30 PM   #210
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,921
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
I wonder what the believers will say after watching this video. It will hurt their fragile social little egos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPe-bKIid8w
Funny stuff, you debunk yourself and you don't know it. Typical failed 911 truth believers in woo always do this.
That is cool, the WTC was not made of concrete. No wonder you can't get much right, you don't know anything about the WTC structure, and don't like to research physics.

The video was testing concrete 3.66 meters thick as a method of protecting nukes, or other structures from high speed impacts.

The WTC was designed to resist impacts from planes flying 180 mph. This design was confirmed by engineers after 911, 200 mph impacts would not do major damage. E=1/2mv2

You have no idea why aircraft damaged the WTC, you are unwittingly playing both sides of the physics problem. It is amusing you have no idea you are debunking yourself.

It is not belief, we are not believers, we are people who do math, you are the believer who makes up what you think should happen based on nothing but your opinion. You can't show the math, you have no clue what the WTC was designed for.

https://share.sandia.gov/news/resour...tml#rocketsled

Typical post and run, not discussing the failed claims, moving the goal posts, running on to the next post of nonsense - why do you do this?
You think aircraft are made of Al foil, you think a nose cone came out of the WTC, and you have no clue why an aircraft can enter a building going 590 mph, but can't at 200 mph.
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 2nd September 2012, 05:06 AM   #211
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
That is cool, the WTC was not made of concrete.
The vid shows what happens to the fuselage on impact against stuff that is much stronger, in this case concrete
Quote:
No wonder you can't get much right, you don't know anything about the WTC structure, and don't like to research physics.
WTC was a steel structure. I know how a steel frame works.Are you trying to tell me the events of 911 have been thoroughly incorporated into engineering.
Quote:
The WTC was designed to resist impacts from planes flying 180 mph. This design was confirmed by engineers after 911, 200 mph impacts would not do major damage. E=1/2mv2
Are you winding me up or yourself? Can you elaborate on this equation? Resist in what form?
Quote:
You have no idea why aircraft damaged the WTC, you are unwittingly playing both sides of the physics problem. It is amusing you have no idea you are debunking yourself.
Its mass and velocity that damaged the WTC.
Quote:
It is not belief, we are not believers, we are people who do math, you are the believer who makes up what you think should happen based on nothing but your opinion. You can't show the math, you have no clue what the WTC was designed for.
Believe me, you are believers.

Quote:
Typical post and run, not discussing the failed claims, moving the goal posts, running on to the next post of nonsense - why do you do this?
When you reread my posts you will see I stick to one thing at a time.
Quote:
you think a nose cone came out of the WTC, and you have no clue why an aircraft can enter a building going 590 mph, but can't at 200 mph.
So you admit the planes were swallowed by the towers.That's the issue we are discussing here. The photos clearly show the plane entering the building, cutting through it like knife through butter. I suspect your believes stem from videos rather than science.KE enough to smash a rigid steel frame is not enough to destroy the plane on impact. Its fascinating. We take for granted things we intuitively believe are a matter of fact and yet they so often run counter to our experience and intuition, just like the planes did on 911, and the steel structures of 3 towers that fell down neatly like a pile of bristle matches stacked one on top of the other. How that plane could make its own imprint in a rigid steel frame and tell the tale afterwards? Someone here pointed that hurricane can embed a stalk of straw in a tree. Good observation, and although it is only a straw argument, it is someplace to start.
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 2nd September 2012, 05:24 AM   #212
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Proven to have done. By scientific study. Some of which is now used in engineering classes.
Why only some.
Quote:
If you mean "make the buildings collapse", no, they needed help from the fire to do that. Fire and impact. You need both.
You see, there was no impact on WTC7, just mystery.


Quote:
That the WTC wasn't made of concrete and the plane in question was both larger and going much faster? Even I know that's exponentially more impact force.
The speed was 500mph in both cases.
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 2nd September 2012, 06:33 AM   #213
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,695
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Its mass and velocity that damaged the WTC.
It's much more useful to think in terms of rate of momentum transfer. The columns were unable to accelerate fast enough to stop the plane. The connections fractured, as it happens, that being the first failure mode to be satisfied.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Someone here pointed that hurricane can embed a stalk of straw in a tree. Good observation, and although it is only a straw argument, it is someplace to start.
And birds can pentrate aircraft fuselages. How, in your world where harder things always win the argument?
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 2nd September 2012, 06:43 AM   #214
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,414
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
You see, there was no impact on WTC7, just mystery.
No impact except a big chunk of the 110-story North Tower, followed by 8 hours of uncontrolled, raging fires. No building could have been reasonably expected to survive that. Thus no mystery.
Mark F 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 2nd September 2012, 06:55 AM   #215
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,414
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
We take for granted things we intuitively believe are a matter of fact and yet they so often run counter to our experience and intuition, just like the planes did on 911, and the steel structures of 3 towers that fell down neatly like a pile of bristle matches stacked one on top of the other.
If WTC 1, 2 and 7 fell neatly into a pile how is it that 12 buildings were destroyed that day, another 25 or severely damaged and around another 100 or so damaged?
Mark F 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 2nd September 2012, 08:00 AM   #216
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
 
Ape of Good Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,483
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Why only some.

You see, there was no impact on WTC7, just mystery.


The speed was 500mph in both cases.

You should learn from Anders.

He's really good at what you're trying to do.

Ape of Good Hope 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 2nd September 2012, 08:03 AM   #217
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
It's much more useful to think in terms of rate of momentum transfer. The columns were unable to accelerate fast enough to stop the plane. The connections fractured, as it happens, that being the first failure mode to be satisfied.
The bolts broke you mean. Look at the video of the plane entering the wall. It has the answer.


Quote:
And birds can pentrate aircraft fuselages. How, in your world where harder things always win the argument?
I am not surprised they can.
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 2nd September 2012, 08:51 AM   #218
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,921
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Why only some. ...
Failed question based on Reading comprehension issues.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
... You see, there was no impact on WTC7, just mystery. ...
Fire! Fire mystery to Mikeys. Fire not understood, fire mystery. Good one.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
...
The speed was 500mph in both cases.
No, the speed for 11 was 470 mph, the speed for 175 was 590 mph. You don't have any idea what the facts are, and it shows.

Physics is a mystery to you too.



Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
The vid shows what happens to the fuselage on impact against stuff that is much stronger, in this case concrete
No, the impact was a study to see how thick a concrete structure has to be to stop an aircraft attack on a structures like NUKE plants. You failed to comprehend what the study was for. On 911 a KE impact of 187 pounds of TNT would not enter the WTC. The two planes has KE of 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT, easily enough energy for the wings and plane to enter the WTC. Got MATH? No, you have woo.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
WTC was a steel structure. I know how a steel frame works.Are you trying to tell me the events of 911 have been thoroughly incorporated into engineering.
No, you have no clue what structures do, or what steel is. You think planes are made of Al foil. Pretty much sums up your research skills.


Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Are you winding me up or yourself? Can you elaborate on this equation? Resist in what form?
Yes, I will elaborate on the equation! You don't do physics!


Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Its mass and velocity that damaged the WTC.
Believe me, you are believers.
See, you do understand the aircraft did all the damage, but then you fail.



Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
When you reread my posts you will see I stick to one thing at a time.
So you admit the planes were swallowed by the towers.That's the issue we are discussing here. The photos clearly show the plane entering the building, cutting through it like knife through butter. I suspect your believes stem from videos rather than science.KE enough to smash a rigid steel frame is not enough to destroy the plane on impact. Its fascinating. We take for granted things we intuitively believe are a matter of fact and yet they so often run counter to our experience and intuition, just like the planes did on 911, and the steel structures of 3 towers that fell down neatly like a pile of bristle matches stacked one on top of the other. How that plane could make its own imprint in a rigid steel frame and tell the tale afterwords? Someone here pointed that hurricane can embed a stalk of straw in a tree. Good observation, and although it is only a straw argument, it is someplace to start.
The plane did not make a perfect imprint, it made the break in the shell due to mass and velocity. No one said the aircraft did not destroy itself at the same time it was breaking through the WTC.

Are you trying to say an aircraft did not cause the damage seen? Or, are standing on your aircraft are made of aluminum foil?


Quote:
the steel structures of 3 towers that fell down neatly like a pile of bristle matches stacked one on top of the other
Neatly? Not even close to neatly. You failed to look at photos. Please show me all the steel neatly stacked. Good luck.

Too shy to state your claims clearly? Why? Ashame? Unable to state your claim?

Last edited by beachnut; 2nd September 2012 at 09:06 AM.
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 2nd September 2012, 09:10 AM   #219
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,695
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Look at the video of the plane entering the wall. It has the answer.
If the video shows a shredded plane just beyond the wall then you'd be right. But it doesn't, so what on earth do you mean by "answer"? Do you seriously think the plane was essentially intact post-wall impact?

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
I am not surprised they can.
Then why are you surprised a plane can smash through a bolted-up grid of steel?

Are you beginning to get the idea of momentum transfer? The wall would need to flex to soak up the momentum of the plane. There is only so far it can flex before steel ruptures or joints yield. How far is that? 12 inches? 24 inches? With the incoming plane at ~500mph how much time is that and how far would the wall need to flex like some huge steel safety net to 'stop' the plane? 12 feet? 24 feet? That far exceeds its capacity to flex.

Meanwhile you're happy to admit that softer things can penetrate harder things, so I'm really struggling to understand why you can't understand that those planes would break the building facades and the plane parts proceed inside.

Last edited by GlennB; 2nd September 2012 at 09:12 AM.
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 2nd September 2012, 11:38 AM   #220
Blaupunkt69
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 80
Saw this the other day and thought of this thread

steel fought the wood and the wood won!
Blaupunkt69 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 2nd September 2012, 12:23 PM   #221
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,166
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Are you winding me up or yourself? Can you elaborate on this equation? Resist in what form?
So you are arguing about the impact but you are unfamiliar with the basic equation of Kinetic Energy? I don't know about the US education system but that was part of the O-Level Physics syllabus I took between the ages of 14-16, in other words pretty basic stuff. To put it simply for you assuming all else is equal the energy of a moving object increases as the square of its velocity 500 mph is about 2.8 times 180 so the 500mph impact has about about 7.7 times as much energy as a 180mph one would.

In even simpler terms an building designed to survive a 180mph impact hasn't a snowball in hell's chance against a 500mph impact.
Garrison 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 2nd September 2012, 12:43 PM   #222
JohnG
Pedantic Bore
 
JohnG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Abandon All Hope
Posts: 6,783
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
I don't know about the US education system...

Hey, leave US out of this "Winding me up" is a British expression.
__________________
Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand. - Baruch Spinoza
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. - Harlan Ellison
JohnG 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 2nd September 2012, 02:05 PM   #223
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
How that plane could make its own imprint in a rigid steel frame and tell the tale afterwards?
Erm, are you seriously saying you don't understand how a fully laden passenger jet moving at ~500mph penetrated a steel, glass and aluminum facade?
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 2nd September 2012, 02:14 PM   #224
JohnG
Pedantic Bore
 
JohnG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Abandon All Hope
Posts: 6,783
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
Erm, are you seriously saying you don't understand how a fully laden passenger jet moving at ~500mph penetrated a steel, glass and aluminum facade?

Truthers believe that the jet should have bounced off the side of the building with a loud "BOING!" and then wafted gently to the ground like an autumn leaf.

OK, that's a bit of s strawman but only a bit.
__________________
Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand. - Baruch Spinoza
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. - Harlan Ellison
JohnG 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 2nd September 2012, 02:26 PM   #225
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
So you are arguing about the impact but you are unfamiliar with the basic equation of Kinetic Energy? I don't know about the US education system but that was part of the O-Level Physics syllabus I took between the ages of 14-16, in other words pretty basic stuff. To put it simply for you assuming all else is equal the energy of a moving object increases as the square of its velocity 500 mph is about 2.8 times 180 so the 500mph impact has about about 7.7 times as much energy as a 180mph one would.

In even simpler terms an building designed to survive a 180mph impact hasn't a snowball in hell's chance against a 500mph impact.
Your equation will work on solid objects only and then you have to think about their densities. You can not plug into an equation numbers freely willy and go home happy as a clam. It was an aluminum shell bubble vs steel wall. You have been told the shell somehow cut neatly through that crate of hardened steel and was given general physical expression as explanation. An impact like that would result in anything but what you saw in the videos. 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. There was no debris coming down the wall. There was no explosion on contact, no fire, the plane was just swallowed. 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.
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 2nd September 2012, 02:38 PM   #226
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
Erm, are you seriously saying you don't understand how a fully laden passenger jet moving at ~500mph penetrated a steel, glass and aluminum facade?
Fully laden with air. The frontal part of the plane cut through steel as easily as the section where the engines were. The engines were the only heavy solids of the plane that could go through that wall.
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 2nd September 2012, 02:48 PM   #227
brazenlilraisin
...tart
 
brazenlilraisin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Fully laden with air.
A plane-shaped 500 mph blast of air would have penetrated the tower. Think of the plane as the delivery mechanism for the air (and thousands of gallons of jet fuel).
brazenlilraisin 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 2nd September 2012, 02:49 PM   #228
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,558
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Your equation will work on solid objects only and then you have to think about their densities. You can not plug into an equation numbers freely willy and go home happy as a clam. It was an aluminum shell bubble vs steel wall. You have been told the shell somehow cut neatly through that crate of hardened steel and was given general physical expression as explanation. An impact like that would result in anything but what you saw in the videos. 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. There was no debris coming down the wall. There was no explosion on contact, no fire, the plane was just swallowed. 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.
You're joking or you flunked out of high-school.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 2nd September 2012, 02:50 PM   #229
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,166
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Your equation will work on solid objects only and then you have to think about their densities. You can not plug into an equation numbers freely willy and go home happy as a clam. It was an aluminum shell bubble vs steel wall. You have been told the shell somehow cut neatly through that crate of hardened steel and was given general physical expression as explanation. An impact like that would result in anything but what you saw in the videos. 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. There was no debris coming down the wall. There was no explosion on contact, no fire, the plane was just swallowed. 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.
That was a very long winded way to admit you don't understand the concept of Kinetic Energy.
Garrison 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 2nd September 2012, 02:50 PM   #230
Montag451
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Your equation will work on solid objects only and then you have to think about their densities. You can not plug into an equation numbers freely willy and go home happy as a clam. It was an aluminum shell bubble vs steel wall. You have been told the shell somehow cut neatly through that crate of hardened steel and was given general physical expression as explanation. An impact like that would result in anything but what you saw in the videos. 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. There was no debris coming down the wall. There was no explosion on contact, no fire, the plane was just swallowed. 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.
You truly have no idea what you are saying do you?

Simply answer is yes an airline traveling at around 500mph would cut through the facade. With a sledgehammer you yourself could make a hole in a wall.

Could you draw a vector diagram showing exactly how debris (I assume you mean from the plane) actually could fall down the wall at impact?

I could draw a diagram showing why debris would not fall down the wall but I will describe it for you. An arrow pointing at the wall, smaller arrow pointing in opposite direction. The only way debris could fall down is if they had some component of it's velocity pointing down orvaway from the direction of the plane. If the plane hit a solid wall like in the video then on impact the debris would fall away from the wall.

But as you saw on the day the plane passed through the facade, the debris maintained forward momentum. Just like a ball passing through a window.

Of course the explosion of the jet fuel would change the situation a little, possible blowing light debris (low inertia) out of the whole, but the explosion itself is going to have no good effect on the building anyway.

When impact happens it isn't like video games where you bounce of.

Seriously try the car impacting on wall experiment I described earlier, let us know how it turns out for you.

It's a win win for you. You'll learn about energy and inertia, and if you are lucky enough to break through the wall you will understand how fast moving objects can pass through solid objects.

Do you have and science or engineering background at all?

Last edited by Montag451; 2nd September 2012 at 02:57 PM. Reason: iPad again
Montag451 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 2nd September 2012, 02:51 PM   #231
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,695
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.
"the columns had been undone" ?

What, the window-washer guys came down in their cradle and "undid" the columns? And nobody in the offices noticed? Then the plane hit exactly the right spot?

If you want to embarrass yourself please do it in private in future.
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 2nd September 2012, 02:55 PM   #232
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin View Post
A plane-shaped 500 mph blast of air would have penetrated the tower. Think of the plane as the delivery mechanism for the air (and thousands of gallons of jet fuel).
Forget the fuel. It ignited after the wall was severed.
A blast of air...
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 2nd September 2012, 02:56 PM   #233
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,166
And to illustrate the point about kinetic energy Mikeys if you think Aluminium couldn't cut through Steel then how the heck do they cut metal with water?:

Water jet cutter

You need to understand its not about the materials its about the energy.
Garrison 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 2nd September 2012, 02:57 PM   #234
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
"the columns had been undone" ?

What, the window-washer guys came down in their cradle and "undid" the columns? And nobody in the offices noticed? Then the plane hit exactly the right spot?
Mexicans can do anything for a buck.
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 2nd September 2012, 02:57 PM   #235
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,921
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Fully laden with air. The frontal part of the plane cut through steel as easily as the section where the engines were. The engines were the only heavy solids of the plane that could go through that wall.
How much mass is in the air? LOL, you can't do the simple math and science to make a rational claim; you make no claims at all. An anti-science 911 truth believer.
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 2nd September 2012, 02:58 PM   #236
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,166
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Forget the fuel. It ignited after the wall was severed.
A blast of air...
But it hit the steel with a massive amount of kinetic energy before it ignited, a double whammy in effect.
Garrison 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 2nd September 2012, 03:07 PM   #237
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
How much mass is in the air? LOL, you can't do the simple math and science to make a rational claim; you make no claims at all. An anti-science 911 truth believer.
I don't negate that the total weight of the plane and velocity could destroy the section of the wall but how it happened.
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 2nd September 2012, 03:07 PM   #238
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,921
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
Your equation will work on solid objects only and then you have to think about their densities. You can not plug into an equation numbers freely willy and go home happy as a clam. It was an aluminum shell bubble vs steel wall. You have been told the shell somehow cut neatly through that crate of hardened steel and was given general physical expression as explanation. An impact like that would result in anything but what you saw in the videos. 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. There was no debris coming down the wall. There was no explosion on contact, no fire, the plane was just swallowed. 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.
You keep proving you have no clue what physics is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM9FeEgI0Eo

I love it when people make up what they think physics should be, instead of showing their work.

There is no explosion on impact, there is nothing to exploded in the nose. The fuel can't ignite until it hits parts of the Engine that are on fire, or hotter than 450C. You forgot to do the research required to be rational on 911. You picked up nonsense you made up, or plagiarized from 911 truth and spread it like gospel, your religion of woo.
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 2nd September 2012, 03:12 PM   #239
Mikeys
Muse
 
Mikeys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 501
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
And to illustrate the point about kinetic energy Mikeys if you think Aluminium couldn't cut through Steel then how the heck do they cut metal with water?:

Water jet cutter

You need to understand its not about the materials its about the energy.
they add abrasive mixes to water and the pressure applied is continuous. They don't just blast an aluminum bubble filled with water against the cutting object at high speed.
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 2nd September 2012, 03:21 PM   #240
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,921
Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
I don't negate that the total weight of the plane and velocity could destroy the section of the wall but how it happened.
You make no sense. What are you trying to say?

The aircraft did the damage seen, all by itself, no help needed. The impact was more energy than some cruise missiles; If a missile was used, it would be pathetically small. We don't use aircraft as weapons because they COST too much. A 767 going 590 mph carrying 10,000 gallons (66,000 pounds) of fuel is more energy than 75 cruise missiles. And you don't have a clue why.

The center section of the plane is very strong, and the mass is enough to destroy the shell, and destroy part of the core columns. It is called physics, math and science; what 911 truth avoids.

Originally Posted by Mikeys View Post
I don't negate that the total weight of the plane and velocity could destroy the section of the wall but how it happened.
You mean no one can fly into a building? It is easy to fly a jet, and the 767 is easy to fly.
RADAR proves it was Flight 175, from takeoff to landing. Is RADAR something you understand?

Are you a missile did it? If so you failed to realize a missile would have orders of magnitude less kinetic energy. A cruise missile has 22 times less kinetic energy than Flight 77. That is significant. The missile did it 911 truthers are unable to do physics, math, and rational research.

Have you retracted 767s are made of aluminum foil? You have been fooled by nuts who made up lies about 911, lies, and they call themselves 911 truth. irony
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
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 06:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.