Conspircay Judo: Use their stupid against them

[Johnny Pixels]

I realised that it's quite fun to beat CTs with their own stupid, rather than make them see reason.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=19845#19845

Posting here has led me to believe that some of you people have no experience of the real world. I think your understanding of physics and engineering comes straight out of Hollywood, or maybe Wolfenstein 3D.

The reason for this thinking?

1. This question:

How did the aluminium plane penetrate the steel grill shill?

Link:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=19796#19796

Now you may not be aware of this, but the universe is not one great game of paper, scissors, rock. Steel doesn't always beat aluminium. I mean, according to this theory, bullets don't work.
Here's a piece of straw embedded in a tree, but this picture must have been photoshopped, because wood beats straw everytime. Right?

2. Apparently all the sections of steel in the WTC fell into nice neat short sections, as claimed here:

Link:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=19781#1978

WOW!! Cheers stateofgrace, there sure is an awful lot of unmelted steel in those pics. And many of the same size lengths as well hmmmmmm....
just long enough for those trucks as well, mightily handy.

When shown a photo of men cutting up steel, that was:

Because obviously, that one section out of the many hundreds is too big to fit into the back of a lorry.

That's nice, but take a look at the photo:

All of the pieces of metal in that photo are too big. Every single one. Evidence eh? How come I can look at it and see large sections of steel that need to be cut, but through conspiracy tinted lenses, all of those sections are short enough and neat enough to fit into trucks?

Do I need a new prescription? Or do you guys need to stop with the BS?

I like this, because I can just use your own words against you, and there's nothing you can do about it except stop lying, and then you'll stop looking like idiots. Self-insulting, it's a fascinating situation...

ETA: Gagh, my thread title needs to be kung-fu'd back into shape. That's just typical when you make a thread about people being stupid...

 

[Skibum]

And many of the same size lengths as well hmmmmmm....
just long enough for those trucks as well, mightily handy.

Kinda makes sense, considering they would have been transported to the construction site on trucks, pretty convenient. Granted there would be alot of cutting, since many of the beams were welded together.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Can't we just use regular Judo against them?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Love the takedown.

 

[Bob Klase]

I think it's even more fun to watch when they use judo on each other but don't ever realize it. Such as:

CTer #1- They had time to shoot down Flight 93 but they didn't because the government was in on it.

CTer #2- The government shot down Flight 93, but they're covering it up.

 

[fsol]

The people over there seem just slightly tapped. Especially with all their "you must be working for the government" schtick. It's quite sad really.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I think it's even more fun to watch when they use judo on each other but don't ever realize it. Such as:

CTer #1- They had time to shoot down Flight 93 but they didn't because the government was in on it.

CTer #2- The government shot down Flight 93, but they're covering it up.

CTer #3- There were 3 planes

CTer #4- No, there were only two planes.

CTer #5- You idiots, there were NO planes at all!

CTer #6 Hey numnutz, if there were not planes, then what were the pods hanging off of?

(Screaming, name calling, selective semi-permanent forum bannings and hilarity ensues)

 

[T.A.M.]

Lord of the flies is the best description.

Their movement is doomed. They are too paranoid to come up with single unifying theory, and as a result, they will schism the F&*k out of themselves.

 

[Almo]

I realised that it's quite fun to beat CTs with their own stupid, rather than make them see reason.

Title's great too!

 

[kevin]

Nah, if they come up with one unifying theory then when that gets shot down they got nothing. With multiple, even contradictory, theories they can hop from theory to theory to counter whatever arguement is made. Even if it contradicts their stance 5 seconds ago.

 

[DavidJames]

Nah, if they come up with one unifying theory then when that gets shot down they got nothing. With multiple, even contradictory, theories they can hop from theory to theory to counter whatever arguement is made. Even if it contradicts their stance 5 seconds ago.

consider the "molten steel" in the rubble. Used by CTers as a smoking gun. Has anyone ever read of a reason why molten steel in the rubble would be a smoking gun for anything. To the best of my knowledge no CD has ever resulted in molten steel.

 

[geni]

Nah, if they come up with one unifying theory then when that gets shot down they got nothing. With multiple, even contradictory, theories they can hop from theory to theory to counter whatever arguement is made. Even if it contradicts their stance 5 seconds ago.

Yes homeopathy has simular trends.

 

[Johnny Pixels]

consider the "molten steel" in the rubble. Used by CTers as a smoking gun. Has anyone ever read of a reason why molten steel in the rubble would be a smoking gun for anything. To the best of my knowledge no CD has ever resulted in molten steel.

I thought the molten steel was because of the super hot thermite reaction. which can keep burning even in the rubble pile because it has its own source of oxygen. That's what I read somewhere once anyway.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

yeah, but thermite reacts very quickly, theres no way it would burn for weeks on end

 

[tracer]

consider the "molten steel" in the rubble. Used by CTers as a smoking gun. Has anyone ever read of a reason why molten steel in the rubble would be a smoking gun for anything.

Yes -- the molten steel is a smoking gun for the fact that some of the steel got so hot, it melted.

Almost as though the steel had been subjected to a gigantic jet-fuel fire from a plane crash.

OH MY GOD!! An AIRPLANE must have crashed into the World Trade Center, and THEY'RE COVERING IT UP!!!!

 

[T.A.M.]

So, by the title of your thread, we should get them to Bukakke themselves?

 

[Mancman]

I realised that it's quite fun to beat CTs with their own stupid, rather than make them see reason.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=19845#19845



ETA: Gagh, my thread title needs to be kung-fu'd back into shape. That's just typical when you make a thread about people being stupid...

That British 9/11 board really is full of condescending goons.

1. You should post up the calculations Huntsman did a month or so ago which showed how a 767 would easily have enough energy to smash through the WTC facade, they are in one of the Loose Change threads somewhere.

2. For the 'Steel split into neat sections' tripe, show them this photo. Look at that huge section of perimeter columns, approx 12-15 storeys high and approx 30 columns wide. Obviously cut like that to allow easy removal!

 

[Hellbound]

That British 9/11 board really is full of condescending goons.

1. You should post up the calculations Huntsman did a month or so ago which showed how a 767 would easily have enough energy to smash through the WTC facade, they are in one of the Loose Change threads somewhere.

2. For the 'Steel split into neat sections' tripe, show them this photo. Look at that huge section of perimeter columns, approx 12-15 storeys high and approx 30 columns wide. Obviously cut like that to allow easy removal!
[qimg]http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/columns.jpg[/qimg]

I don't think I did those calculations, but they're easy enough to do. I recall that conversation, but I was only tangentially involved (I think).

Of course, if you take a speed of 500mph (223.5 m/s), and the weight of a 767 (174,110 lbs. empty to 315,000 lbs max load, 244,500 lbs. average which is ~110,900 kg), you can figure the kinetic energy:

KE = 1/2 * m * v * v
KE = 1/2 * 110,900 kg * 223.5 m/s * 223.5 m/s
KE = 2,769,852,262 J (actually I'd need to say 2,770,000,000 J to preserve significant digits)

For comparison, TNT contains 2,723 J of energy per gram, or 2,723,000 J per kilogram.

So, the impact alone (not including the explosive or inflammatory effects of the jet fuel igniting) was the equivalent of ~1,000 kg of TNT, or ~2,200 lbs.

Now, find someone who is willing to say that 2200 lbs. of TNT won't blow a hole in the side of a building

Edited to add: Thinking about it, it gets even worse. The energy from teh TNT goes out in all directions. So, assuming the TNT goes off right next to the building, only have the energy even hits the building. OF that half, much of it hits at an angle, with a small percentage hitting perpendicular to the surface. I'd estimate that only 1/3rd of the energy from the TNT blast would work towards pushig through the building.

With the plane, the total of the force (or at least the vast majority of it, say 90%) went directly into the building, all at the same angle, and roughly perpendicular. So I'd guesstimate that the impact of the plane was closer to the effect that 6,000 lbs. of TNT would have, if set off right next to the building.

 

[Hellbound]

Actually, Manc, now that I think about it, are you thining of the argument about pressure?

I believe it was geggy (or maybe thesyntaxera) that made an argument about millions of pounds of force from wind hitting the building constantly. I did make an argument them about the difference between a distributed force and a concentrated force. FIgured up the amount of pressure applied.

I'll have to look up the formulas to refigure that, but it shouldn't be that difficult.

Found the post!!!

It was Speakthetruth, another CTer we haven't heard from in a while.

Link to the post and thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1789933&highlight=pressure#post1789933

And you know, on re-reading that, I did a d@mn good job

Although, my calculation of force was a bit off. I should have used the Kinetic energy. I figured the force by assumign the plane would decelerate to zero in one second, when parts of it actually continued to move. So that might drop my estimate to a mere 200,000 Pascals, or even 150,000.

 

[Mancman]

Actually, Manc, now that I think about it, are you thining of the argument about pressure?

I just had a look for it, and it was in fact a combination of posts between yourself and azazal that I was thinking of:

Ok Hutch, found Huntsman's figures and I belive we ran these from the same sources - Huntsman's posting

If anyone see's a math error, please point it out.

Mass = ~ 89585 Kg, that's half the max load, going to be erroring on the side of caution

Speed = 475 Mph or 764 Kph (212 M/s), propably slower then the real impact speed, but again erroring on the side of caution. Also this helps up establish a lower limit.

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 Mass * Velocity squared

KE = .5*89585 * (212^2)
KE = 44792.5 * 44944
KE = 2013154120 Joules

Just for fun, from wikipedia.org we see that a kilo of TNT packs 4184000 joules of energy. Or our impact is equal to 1060 pounds of TNT. Granted this is just impact energy on the low end. Kick the speed up to a more belivible 885 Kph or 550 Mph and we have a KE of 2706991189 Joules or 1426 pounds of TNT. Anyway, I digress.

From Boeing's 767 site we get a wing span of 47.6m. Leading edge surface are seems a bit tricky to track down, from JANE'S we have a leading edge slats surface area of 28.3 squre meters. I'm going to up that to 35 meter, take into account the fusealauge, engines, rest of the wings that is not slats, so please take with a grain of salt. So taking our low-end figure of 2013154120 joules and divide by 35 M^2, we get 57518689.14 joules per square meter. Comes out to 13.75 Kg of TNT per M^2.


From rikzilla quoting Huntsman we find that to cut a steel column with TNT, the formula is P=3/8*A, where P is the TNT-equivalent, in pounds, and A is the cross-sectional area, in inches.

This is were my brain goes plop. If Huntsman is out there, hopefully he can dod the math for what is needed to shear an exterior column.

Azazal:

Well, according to http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/...per 2003.pdf the exterior columns were about 46cm x 46cm exterior, with varying thickness. The interior columns were either 2" steel or 5" steel, so I'll assume the exterior columns are 2" steel as well.

So, 46cm is 18.11 inches. We'll round to 19 for argument's sake. That gives a cross section of a solid column as (19x19=) 361 in2. The interior "hole" would be 15" x 15", taking up 225in2. That leaves (361-225) 136in2 for our A value.

So, we take P = 3/8A and end up with P = 3/8 * 136 = 51 pounds of TNT, or 23.13kg. And that's an upper estimate.

Realistically, it's 18.11 inch columns likely to be about 1 inch to 1.5 inches thick, which gives a mid-limit A of 68.44 and a P of 25.665 lbs, or 11.64kg.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1758234&highlight=huntsman#post1758234

Nice work guys.

 

[Hellbound]

Ah well, you got two additional posts of analysis using differing techniques, both agreeing with the one you were thinking of. SO consider it a bonus