|
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. |
8th July 2011, 12:31 PM | #241 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
11th July 2011, 09:01 AM | #242 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
I first posted my query on July 5. Is the question more difficult than I had envisioned?
|
12th July 2011, 10:48 AM | #243 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
OK, I went through pages and pages of other threads here concerning the Pentagon and Lloyd and still cannot find a CiT or CiT adherent telling me what exactly they believe that Mr. England is.
Well other than Turbofan outright calling Lloyd a "liar". |
13th July 2011, 06:24 AM | #244 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
13th July 2011, 08:23 AM | #245 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
|
|
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM |
|
13th July 2011, 11:09 AM | #246 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
13th July 2011, 11:33 AM | #247 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
18th July 2011, 07:39 AM | #248 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 212
|
Okay I see there are 7 pages of replies so this has probably already been stated, but it's sad that the guy uses the equation F=ma (which reads, Force equals mass times acceleration) but then goes on to make two huge blunders proving that he doesn't understand this equation at all (and then a third embarassing mistake just to top it off). First, for the mass of the airplane, he uses the sum of 80,000 kg. This is the plane's WEIGHT, not its mass. Weight is mass times the acceleration of gravity, so its mass would be somewhere around 8,200 kg. His second blunder was for the other part of the right hand side of the equation: the a (acceleration). He simply plugs in the plane's VELOCITY (its speed), not its acceleration. A plane can be travelling at 600mph but if it's at a constant speed, its acceleration is zero. I believe that Flight 77 WAS accelerating, but surely not 150 m/s^2. And, his third embarassing mistake that just tops off his stupidity is when he says that Flight 77 was a Boeing 767. It was actually a Boeing 757.
I don't claim to be a physicist, but I did have to take several upper level physics classes for my civil engineering degree and F=ma is like high school physics. Lastly, when the plane's wings clipped the poles, its nose was less than a half a second away from hitting the side of the Pentagon (maybe even a quarter or an eighth of a second). So even if the poles had caused damage to the wings (which they probably did), the plane still would have crashed into the Pentagon! |
__________________
"It's amazing, amazing, that with all the access to accurate information, that people could be so pathetically uninformed." -CNN's Jack Cafferty |
|
18th July 2011, 08:02 AM | #249 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
Look, I'm sorry to have to do this, but it's only fair: I have to nominate that for a Stundie. The plane's mass is quite reasonable at 80,000kg - Wikipedia gives values around 60,000kg for an empty 757 and around 120,000kg at maximum takeoff weight. Its weight is not expressible in kg because kg is a measure of mass, not force, but the force due to gravity on 80,000kg is about 785,000 Newtons. Console yourself with the knowledge that debunker Stundies are so extremely rare.
Dave ETA: Of course, multiplying the plane's mass by its velocity to get a force is quite stupid, but not as stupid as the later post where he claimed that the calculation was valid. |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
18th July 2011, 04:11 PM | #250 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 212
|
A quick check on Wikipedia's Boeing 767 page had its WEIGHT as about 80,000 kg. Not mass. And yes, as soon as I saw that, I noticed that it had the incorrect unit of kg which should have been N and figured this was a minor mistake on Wikipedia's part. Well whoever updated that section did make a mistake, but it was in posting the MASS under WEIGHT, rather than an error in newtons/kg. Yes, the mass is around 80,000 kg. My mistake was in getting the weight from Wikipedia.
|
__________________
"It's amazing, amazing, that with all the access to accurate information, that people could be so pathetically uninformed." -CNN's Jack Cafferty |
|
19th July 2011, 02:00 AM | #251 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
19th July 2011, 12:55 PM | #252 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 212
|
That's news to me (I'm American). But, I've worked literally thousands if not tens of thousands of homework/classwork/exam problems using the metric system and kilograms/newtons and not once did I see weight expressed in kilograms. I just figured the person who updated the Wikipedia page mistakenly wrote kg instead of n, as it was listed under the heading "weight". But, whatever, rest of the guy's claim was still totally wrong.
|
__________________
"It's amazing, amazing, that with all the access to accurate information, that people could be so pathetically uninformed." -CNN's Jack Cafferty |
|
20th July 2011, 02:33 AM | #254 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|