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.
Reply
Old 2nd July 2011, 05:36 PM   #41
BobHaulk
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Okay, just found it, and noticed someone () paraphrasing me!

He responds:




Here's a real copy of that link:

http://easycalculation.com/physics/c...c-velocity.php


I'd love to see what part of that page he thinks supports his "calculation".

Above, I was referring to the A = (v - vo)/t equation. The only way a vo of 154 m/s can equal an A of -154 m/s/s is if v = 0 m/s and t = 1 s, which is a calculation so stupid that again, I assert that he'll never understand why it's wrong. There are at least two ridiculous assumption here: that the impact with the post will stop the plane dead, and that this stoppage will take a full second to occur. There's no other way he could justify this "calculation".
if you've an youtube account you could join in the debate. I've must say i've learned quite a bit these last few hours. What with the answers here and further reading elsewhere i might be able to work out the velocity of my jaw when it hits the floor when talking with proponents of the 9/11 conspiracy
BobHaulk 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 July 2011, 05:41 PM   #42
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
Originally Posted by BobHaulk View Post
if you've an youtube account you could join in the debate.


I prefer to keep YouTube debates at a comfortable remove. I'd rather not have such a stupid person know who I am.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 July 2011, 05:41 PM   #43
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by BobHaulk View Post
if you've an youtube account you could join in the debate. I've must say i've learned quite a bit these last few hours. What with the answers here and further reading elsewhere i might be able to work out the velocity of my jaw when it hits the floor when talking with proponents of the 9/11 conspiracy
There's a debate? So far I've seen someone who flunked high-school physics trying to impress someone that skipped the class and took shop and got a D.


__________________
"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 July 2011, 05:47 PM   #44
BobHaulk
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
There's a debate? So far I've seen someone who flunked high-school physics trying to impress someone that skipped the class and took shop and got a D.


Sorry my ignorance offends you, i will re-sit my physics sometime, maybe. However, i'm still trying to convince my mate he's wrong about the 9/11 conspiracy and any help is appreciated especially as i'm none to sharp on physics.
BobHaulk 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 July 2011, 05:50 PM   #45
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by BobHaulk View Post
beachnut
since i'm none too smart on physics (forgive me for i was behind the bike sheds smoking when i should have been in class) but what is it you find funny about
"A is = to v when impact mass is stationary". You can tell why i needed help in debating those who claim science as evidence of the 9/11 conspiracy
A constant velocity means there is no acceleration. There is no debating a clown. The guy who does the news is a clown who makes up nonsense.

Quote:
the pole will accelerate after impact - obviously - the plane is constant velocity - th e pole is stationary until impact - not complicated really
He is right, the pole does accelerate, he fails to comprehend the the base breaks away like a car hit it, and the plane knocks the pole away, bends the pole, and the aircraft keeps going.

Use the hand and wood, concrete Karate analogy next. How can flesh and blood break wood, or concrete? An aircraft wing is strong, it has to hold up at 600 mph, and lift a lot of weight.

What is the guys original claim? The wing could have dent, small, big, even a broken spot, cracked etc. but the wing will still work. A fellow pilot lost about 10 feet of wing and he kept flying after the wingtip blew off due to strobe lights or lightning.
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 July 2011, 05:53 PM   #46
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,133
Why are we continuing to pick around the details for supporting proof for a claim (that there was no damage) for which he has provided no initial evidence for?

In other words I think we are wasting time trying to correct calculations for something that is attempting to prove the ridiculous. Let him first try to show evidence for the ridiculous.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Zingiber Officinale

Travis 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 July 2011, 05:54 PM   #47
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by BobHaulk View Post
Sorry my ignorance offends you, i will re-sit my physics sometime, maybe. However, i'm still trying to convince my mate he's wrong about the 9/11 conspiracy and any help is appreciated especially as i'm none to sharp on physics.
I'm sorry you took my comment personally. I did take shop and my physics was over 35 years ago (I think I got a C). Fact of the matter is he's not even in the ball-park with his "math". Did you ask him to apply his math to my "traffic cone/ tree example"?
__________________
"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 July 2011, 05:58 PM   #48
BobHaulk
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post

What is the guys original claim? The wing could have dent, small, big, even a broken spot, cracked etc. but the wing will still work. A fellow pilot lost about 10 feet of wing and he kept flying after the wingtip blew off due to strobe lights or lightning.
i'm not sure what his claim of what happened to the wing is other than it breaks the laws of physics f=ma. I guess it must be that the wing would be ripped off before impacting the pentagon and be lying next to the lamp post but as i say, i can't speak for him so i don't know if that's what he thinks.
BobHaulk 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 July 2011, 06:02 PM   #49
BobHaulk
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I'm sorry you took my comment personally. I did take shop and my physics was over 35 years ago (I think I got a C). Fact of the matter is he's not even in the ball-park with his "math". Did you ask him to apply his math to my "traffic cone/ tree example"?
I didn't take it too personally. I don't know what taking shop is but music was my thing not science. I have asked your question, no answer yet. Maybe it would be better coming from you.
BobHaulk 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 July 2011, 06:03 PM   #50
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
In other words I think we are wasting time trying to correct calculations for something that is attempting to prove the ridiculous. Let him first try to show evidence for the ridiculous.


We're not trying to "Correct calculations", though. What we're doing is pointing out that, yet again, a truther who insists he knows all about physics, and that we're the idiots for not agreeing with him, in fact doesn't even understand the most basic of physics equations. It highlights both the ignorance and arrogance that all too often characterizes the truther position.


Now, queue him whining about "ad hominem attacks", while completely failing to understand that an ad hominem is only a fallacy when we're addressing aspects of the person that are irrelevant to the debate. In this case, however, his understanding (or lack thereof) of physics is entirely central to the debate. As I said earlier, someone who can't even understand the errors he makes in asserting that A = V will never understand anything more complicated. And analysis of a high-speed collision definitely falls into the "more complicated" category.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 July 2011, 06:07 PM   #51
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,133
Yes, but don't you think he should provide some physical evidence for his "no damage" claim before delving into the minutia of physics calculations?

This is more like me claiming that the planes turned into circus clowns at the last second and then providing nonsense calculations for it. Everyone then points out the errors in the calculations without pointing out how stupid it is to even claim the planes turned into circus clowns at all.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Zingiber Officinale

Travis 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 July 2011, 06:08 PM   #52
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
Originally Posted by BobHaulk View Post
i'm not sure what his claim of what happened to the wing is other than it breaks the laws of physics f=ma. I guess it must be that the wing would be ripped off before impacting the pentagon and be lying next to the lamp post but as i say, i can't speak for him so i don't know if that's what he thinks.

Now, asking why the wing didn't tear off is a legitimate question, and I can understand someone wondering about that. The issue here is, figuring out the answer to that question is so complicated, that even understanding what F = MA actually means is only the first, most basic requirement. He's trying to use YouTube to do an analysis that I wouldn't even start without a couple of mechanical engineers on staff.

That he thinks this is reasonable is just ridiculous.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 July 2011, 06:11 PM   #53
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
Yes, but don't you think he should provide some physical evidence for his "no damage" claim before delving into the minutia of physics calculations?

This is more like me claiming that the planes turned into circus clowns at the last second and then providing nonsense calculations for it. Everyone then points out the errors in the calculations without pointing out how stupid it is to even claim the planes turned into circus clowns at all.


"Should"? How long have you been arguing with truthers? You should () know by know that expecting them to provide the evidence they "should" provide is a fool's game.

If I want to argue (and I do!), I've got to argue with what we've got - and so far, the only evidence we have to discuss is the evidence of his complete incompetence. So that's what I'll argue about.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 July 2011, 06:16 PM   #54
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by BobHaulk View Post
Maybe it would be better coming from you.
I doubt it. My patience level for these guy's is at an all time low. At this point I prefer to point and laugh, (unless of course they produce something worth looking at). I'm not holding my breath.
__________________
"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 July 2011, 06:17 PM   #55
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,133
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
"Should"? How long have you been arguing with truthers? You should () know by know that expecting them to provide the evidence they "should" provide is a fool's game.
Wow. What was I thinking?

Oh yeah I was suffering from temporary "retard" because I'm going through the June Stundies.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Zingiber Officinale

Travis 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 July 2011, 06:21 PM   #56
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by BobHaulk View Post
i'm not sure what his claim of what happened to the wing is other than it breaks the laws of physics f=ma.
Stupid argument since there is only a minimal acceleration component exerted on the wing. He is using the wrong equation for the plane. There is a kinetic energy component based on mass and velocity, but not acceleration. There will be a negative acceleration based on the impulse required to sever the 'break-away', but again, there is lever action involved which will further reduce. The kinetic energy of a 757 traveling at 500 knots relative to a light pole 'break-away' impulse is so insignificant that the acceleration component might not even register on the accelerometer on the aircraft (although we believe that it did).

Whoops, missed your comment beachnut.

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
A constant velocity means there is no acceleration. There is no debating a clown. The guy who does the news is a clown who makes up nonsense.
What beachnut said
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM

Last edited by BCR; 2nd July 2011 at 06:25 PM.
BCR 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 July 2011, 06:24 PM   #57
BobHaulk
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Now, asking why the wing didn't tear off is a legitimate question, and I can understand someone wondering about that. The issue here is, figuring out the answer to that question is so complicated, that even understanding what F = MA actually means is only the first, most basic requirement. He's trying to use YouTube to do an analysis that I wouldn't even start without a couple of mechanical engineers on staff.

That he thinks this is reasonable is just ridiculous.
so how would you deal with the idea that the wing should be ripped off and wasn't?
Maybe it was partially ripped off but since it was so close to impact it didn't have time to fall completely off
BobHaulk 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 July 2011, 06:25 PM   #58
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
Wow. What was I thinking?

Oh yeah I was suffering from temporary "retard" because I'm going through the June Stundies.


Well, I think I'm on the "cynical" part of my "cynic-optimist" cycle. We should continue to hope that truthers will figure out what they need to do to really answer some of their questions, while at the same time, not losing sight of the fact that, if they could do that, they likely wouldn't be truthers.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 July 2011, 06:29 PM   #59
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
Stupid argument since there is only a minimal acceleration component exerted on the wing. He is using the wrong equation for the plane. There is a kinetic energy component based on mass and velocity, but not acceleration. There will be a negative acceleration based on the impulse required to sever the 'break-away', but again, there is lever action involved which will further reduce. The kinetic energy of a 757 traveling at 500 knots relative to a light pole 'break-away' impulse is so insignificant that the acceleration component might not even register on the accelerometer on the aircraft (although we believe that it did).

Whoops, missed your comment beachnut.



What beachnut said
You don't actually think this person would understand what you're talking about? This is a person that left the object out of the calculation he claims proves it didn't hit.


__________________
"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 July 2011, 06:32 PM   #60
BobHaulk
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You don't actually think this person would understand what you're talking about? This is a person that left the object out of the calculation he claims proves it didn't hit.


this sounds good, what do you mean by this?
BobHaulk 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 July 2011, 06:34 PM   #61
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You don't actually think this person would understand what you're talking about? This is a person that left the object out of the calculation he claims proves it didn't hit.


Actually, I don't think 'this person' even understands what he (or she) is talking about.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR 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 July 2011, 06:36 PM   #62
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
Originally Posted by BobHaulk View Post
so how would you deal with the idea that the wing should be ripped off and wasn't?
Maybe it was partially ripped off but since it was so close to impact it didn't have time to fall completely off


Well, like I said, I'd start off by sitting down with a couple of mechanical engineers. Modelling this is far beyond what we can do here (never mind YouTube), but here's at least a few questions we'd need to ask:
  1. What force is needed to break off a light pole of this type?
  2. Since the force above is likely known for a car at ground level, how does it translate to an impact at the height of the wing?
  3. How much was the pole accelerated by the impact? A higher post-impact speed of the pole means higher accelerations
  4. Over what span of time did the impact occur? Real-world events take real amounts of time, and that has effects on the impulse applied to the plane/pole
  5. What forces would be required to shear off the wings?
  6. How does the above depend on where the impact occurred? Shearing off a tip of the wing would be expected to be easier than ripping it out at the wing root.

Of course, to answer some of these questions (such as the one about the force needed to shear off the wing) will themselves be very complicated questions, but we can hope that standard answers can be found elsewhere, so we can just plug the numbers in.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 July 2011, 06:52 PM   #63
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
OP, can you ask fknnewz to post a link where it says the velocity is equal to the acceleration in a collision with one object stationary?

Aside: I think we are overthinking the physics here. If the poles are designed to break away when they are hit by a car, they break when some maximum force is reached. Once that force is reached, they are no longer connected to the base, and have fallen to the ground, so are no longer having any contact with the plane.

So wouldn't the maximum force F would be the breakaway force?
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel
sylvan8798 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 July 2011, 06:55 PM   #64
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
OP, can you ask fknnewz to post a link where it says the velocity is equal to the acceleration in a collision with one object stationary?

Aside: I think we are overthinking the physics here. If the poles are designed to break away when they are hit by a car, they break when some maximum force is reached. Once that force is reached, they are no longer connected to the base, and have fallen to the ground, so are no longer having any contact with the plane.

So wouldn't the maximum force F would be the breakaway force?
Yes sir, that is called the impulse. You just earned an A+

Just to clarify, the F (impulse) is also dependent upon the deformation of the pole at the point of impact (elasticity) and how high on the pole it was stuck. You can use the 'break-away' force as the upper boundary if you wish, but the actual impulse will be less than that (lever action).
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM

Last edited by BCR; 2nd July 2011 at 07:01 PM.
BCR 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 July 2011, 06:57 PM   #65
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
I prefer to keep YouTube debates at a comfortable remove. I'd rather not have such a stupid person know who I am.
Whenever I engage in truther debates on youtube they usually post on my page that I'm a child molester or some such, then block me from their own page.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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 July 2011, 07:12 PM   #66
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,183
BobHaulk, if he's willing to blather on on YouTube, why won't he come here?
SezMe 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 July 2011, 07:13 PM   #67
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
So, at most, we are really looking at the design breakaway force for the poles. Anyone have a copy of AASHTO handy?
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel
sylvan8798 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 July 2011, 07:51 PM   #68
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
There is no debating a clown.
True.

It would also be against JREF Forum rules to debate here with someone who's posting in another forum. We can, however, answer BobHaulk's factual questions and go on to discuss related matters.

Originally Posted by Travis View Post
In other words I think we are wasting time trying to correct calculations for something that is attempting to prove the ridiculous. Let him first try to show evidence for the ridiculous.
We are not debating the clown, so his errors needn't limit our discussions.

Originally Posted by BCR View Post
Stupid argument since there is only a minimal acceleration component exerted on the wing. He is using the wrong equation for the plane. There is a kinetic energy component based on mass and velocity, but not acceleration. There will be a negative acceleration based on the impulse required to sever the 'break-away', but again, there is lever action involved which will further reduce. The kinetic energy of a 757 traveling at 500 knots relative to a light pole 'break-away' impulse is so insignificant that the acceleration component might not even register on the accelerometer on the aircraft (although we believe that it did).
To expand on BCR's last sentence and parenthetical comment: He suggested that calculation over at ATS about 18 months ago (when Rob Balsamo was posting there as "R_Mackey"), and I responded there. If you look at the accelerations recorded by Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder (FDR) during its final seconds (in the last graph on that web page), you'll see a small dip in the longitudinal acceleration 0.75 seconds before the end of data. That dip may have been caused by the plane's collisions with the last two light poles, but both the dip and the (correctly) calculated upper bound for the cumulative effect of those impacts are so small that we can't be sure. Both the dip and the estimated effect are only slightly larger than the noise.

That's consistent with what beachnut, Horatius, and BCR have been saying here.

By the way, those last few seconds of FDR data were recovered by Warren Stutt, another member of this forum. My curiosity about those missing seconds led me to BCR's research and to the JREF Forum.
W.D.Clinger 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 July 2011, 08:00 PM   #69
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
So, at most, we are really looking at the design breakaway force for the poles. Anyone have a copy of AASHTO handy?
Here a reference to the concept of impulse that might come in handy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_(physics)

Note that the impulse is essentially the change in momentum (force * time). Of course we are talking about a very small time interval. The resulting effect on the plane's wing will be dependent on the impulse. A small force exerted over long period can result in the same change in momentum (hence in velocity if the mass does not change) as a large force over a much shorter period of time.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR 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 July 2011, 08:06 PM   #70
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
Yes sir, that is called the impulse. You just earned an A+

Just to clarify, the F (impulse) is also dependent upon the deformation of the pole at the point of impact (elasticity) and how high on the pole it was stuck. You can use the 'break-away' force as the upper boundary if you wish, but the actual impulse will be less than that (lever action).


We'd also need to allow for the acceleration of the light post after the impact, as it's final velocity will surely be greater than 0. Of course, this whole process will be spread out over a finite duration, so we get into the impulse issues you've brought up, but we shouldn't neglect it.

My instinct is to say that this will have less effect than the break-away force required, but we need to be thorough, so as to not give this truther any wiggle room.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 July 2011, 08:18 PM   #71
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
We'd also need to allow for the acceleration of the light post after the impact, as it's final velocity will surely be greater than 0. Of course, this whole process will be spread out over a finite duration, so we get into the impulse issues you've brought up, but we shouldn't neglect it.

My instinct is to say that this will have less effect than the break-away force required, but we need to be thorough, so as to not give this truther any wiggle room.
Absolutely. It is a two-body collision problem fer sure. In this case, plane wins, pole loses badly.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR 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 July 2011, 08:40 PM   #72
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
Originally Posted by BobHaulk View Post
this sounds good, what do you mean by this?

The light pole itself is not represented in his calculation. If he thinks "stationary object" is all the representation that it needs, he is out of his depth.
Cl1mh4224rd 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 July 2011, 09:27 PM   #73
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 7,599
Show this guy a picture of a building flattened by a tornado, then point out the damage was caused by a bunch of air moving at less than 500 knots. You may also want to point out:
  • A building is tougher than a light pole
  • Air is not as tough as an airplane
  • Yet the building lost
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)

Last edited by Blue Mountain; 2nd July 2011 at 09:31 PM.
Blue Mountain 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 July 2011, 10:03 PM   #74
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
The light pole itself is not represented in his calculation. If he thinks "stationary object" is all the representation that it needs, he is out of his depth.
Exactly. According to his reasoning a plane should break apart when it hits anything no matter what size.
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 2nd July 2011, 10:24 PM   #75
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
Originally Posted by fknnewz
when i hit a bug in a car at 70 mph it splats - 150kg of pole hits at 555 km ph a 100,000kg mass and nothing happens - gee what planet are you from - next
like tsig says...here he is apparently trying to tell us that his car splats when he hits a bug...


ETA: since he seems to be admitting that he is from another planet (where a sometimes equals v), perhaps the bugs there are really really big. I shouldn't be so quick to judge...

I hope fknnewz comes back tomorrow, I'm anxious to hear his thoughts on the kinetic energy issue!
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel

Last edited by sylvan8798; 2nd July 2011 at 10:34 PM.
sylvan8798 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 July 2011, 11:38 PM   #76
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,183
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Exactly. According to his reasoning a plane should break apart when it hits anything no matter what size.
Including - yikes - air molecules.
SezMe 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 3rd July 2011, 12:05 AM   #77
BobHaulk
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
BobHaulk, if he's willing to blather on on YouTube, why won't he come here?
I've asked him many times but you can't lead a horse to water

Last edited by BobHaulk; 3rd July 2011 at 12:30 AM. Reason: spelling
BobHaulk 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 3rd July 2011, 12:08 AM   #78
BobHaulk
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
like tsig says...here he is apparently trying to tell us that his car splats when he hits a bug...


ETA: since he seems to be admitting that he is from another planet (where a sometimes equals v), perhaps the bugs there are really really big. I shouldn't be so quick to judge...

I hope fknnewz comes back tomorrow, I'm anxious to hear his thoughts on the kinetic energy issue!
Just to be clear i'm not the fkn newz on youtube, i'm the resonators. You probably weren't thinking that but i had to make sure.
BobHaulk 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 3rd July 2011, 12:21 AM   #79
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Including - yikes - air molecules.
Yep.
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 3rd July 2011, 12:29 AM   #80
BobHaulk
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 686
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
The light pole itself is not represented in his calculation. If he thinks "stationary object" is all the representation that it needs, he is out of his depth.
i was lying awake this morning and thought this and wondered why i hadn't before. Still in the last few hours i've learned more about physics and have a better understanding why the lamp posts broke the laws of physics on 9/11 is nonsense.
Maybe i'm going to ask if there are any other laws of physics me mate might want to tell me about that were broken that day cause i've heard that there might be.
BobHaulk 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 01:32 AM.
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.