How Loony are the Loons?

[RemoveBush]

"Can I ask what level of mathmetics instruction you've completed? Level of physics instruction?"

I have a bachelors in Engineering and have worked in my field for over 10 years, using my math EVERYDAY.

 

[TheChadd]

NO! Actually a 767 is slightly smaller and about a 100 miles per hour slower than the 707. Perhaps you need to do some research on this??????

The 707 is actually a bigger faster plane. It is however, much less economical than the 767.

You're correct it is larger, I'm not sure about top speeds, but I do know that the WTC's estimate for a 707 crash was roughly for taxiing speed - Not the 500mph or so that the 767 crashed into it.

 

[RemoveBush]

defaultdotxbe you don't need to blow EVERY floor! You seem to have this pre concieved notion that EVERY floor needs to be blown up????

Only every 10 or 20 floors need to have explossives. Gravity will do the rest.

 

[stateofgrace]

"A W Smith" though your calculations "appear" to be accurate for a quick glance, this by no means proves or disproves anything.

For example: The floors would have PILED up on one another! Did that happen???? Was a large portion of the core still standing?

Why would the floors simply have piled up on each other during a gravity driven collapse?

Please explain the relationship between the floor trusses, the central cores and the external supports.

Also, the formula(s) do not take into account other factors. Like the top of the building tilting and starting to fall! Yet it miraculously straightens out and falls neatly on its own footprint.

Are you claiming each Tower fell into there own footprint? Source?

 

[TheChadd]

I have a bachelors in Engineering and have worked in my field for over 10 years, using my math EVERYDAY.

Which field of engineering? What sort of projects in that field have you worked on? I kinda doubt a real engo would leave that out, but lets see.

 

[A W Smith]

"A W Smith" though your calculations "appear" to be accurate for a quick glance, this by no means proves or disproves anything.

what? are you serious? This just after you mention your shorthand formula for calculating the force of a plane impact? well that doesn't prove anything either.

For example: The floors would have PILED up on one another! Did that happen???? Was a large portion of the core still standing?

turn back a page and see that it was already compensated for

Also, the formula(s) do not take into account other factors. Like the top of the building tilting and starting to fall! Yet it miraculously straightens out and falls neatly on its own footprint.

Two things to consider. Your indestructible "core" could have in fact skewered the top of the building and arrested its tilting. Also theres the consideration of momentum overcoming the tilt as it was falling a hell of a lot faster than it was tilting.

You also forget that demolitions DO NOT REQUIRE 40 tons of TNT! You can gloss over this little fact, but it is reality. I am in the process of finding other demolitions and the amount of TNT required to implode them.

I DOUBT it was over 10 TONS for a modest sized building. So your claim of 40 Tons is simply a pull out of... well....

A page ago you yourself said that there was not enough kinetic energy to precipitate a fall at that speed. Do the math and the tonnage of TNT to make up for the lack of kinetic energy will reveal itself.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

"Can I ask what level of mathmetics instruction you've completed? Level of physics instruction?"

I have a bachelors in Engineering and have worked in my field for over 10 years, using my math EVERYDAY.

Oh good lord... it's YOU again.

You know, you never responded to what I said over at 911blogger about how no engineering or scientific journal has questioned the EBV (Evidence Based Version), no articles published, no papers have passed peer review, no professional association of engineers and no faculty of engineering at any university, college or technical school has either.

Were you ever going to comment on that?

 

[uk_dave]

"Can I ask what level of mathmetics instruction you've completed? Level of physics instruction?"

I have a bachelors in Engineering and have worked in my field for over 10 years, using my math EVERYDAY.

Amazing.

Do you work professionally in the construction field?

Do you have PI insurance?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

defaultdotxbe you don't need to blow EVERY floor! You seem to have this pre concieved notion that EVERY floor needs to be blown up????

Only every 10 or 20 floors need to have explossives. Gravity will do the rest.

i thought gravity couldnt turn everything into a fine powder? i thought you needed "a hell of a lot" more energy (however much a hell of a lot is)

 

[stateofgrace]

No it is not, it is completely wrong.

Why would the floor spaces slow a gravity driven collapse?

 

[Mr. Skinny]

"Can I ask what level of mathmetics instruction you've completed? Level of physics instruction?"

I have a bachelors in Engineering and have worked in my field for over 10 years, using my math EVERYDAY.

Thank you. It's always nice to know the educational level of someone where the debate rests considerably on mathmatics, physics, chemistry, and the other sciences.

BTW, if I would have had to guess what, if any, education you had, I'd have guessed you were an engineer as they (and I include myself here) tend to have atrocious spelling skills.

 

[ConspiRaider]

"Can I ask what level of mathmetics instruction you've completed? Level of physics instruction?"

I have a bachelors in Engineering and have worked in my field for over 10 years, using my math EVERYDAY.

'kay let's see, 365 days a year.

You've used math every day of those 10 years.

10y * 365d = 10 TONS OF TNT

Your rite - the maths spokes for thierselves.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

'kay let's see, 365 days a year.

You've used math every day of those 10 years.

10y * 365d = 10 TONS OF TNT

Your rite - the maths spokes for thierselves.

killtown? is that you?

 

[A W Smith]

defaultdotxbe you don't need to blow EVERY floor! You seem to have this pre concieved notion that EVERY floor needs to be blown up????

Only every 10 or 20 floors need to have explossives. Gravity will do the rest.

how would explosives every 10th or 20th floor speed up the collapse any more than 10 of 5 percent of an unassisted collapse? And for what purpose? If explosives were used that far ahead of the collapse it would have been self evident from 80 something camera angles. Are you reading what you are typing? Do you think you have stumbled upon a Sesame Street forum for children?

 

[uk_dave]

killtown? is that you?

365d =

3+6 = 9

5 - d(being 4th letter of alphabet) = 1

10tons of tnt + 1 = 11

therefore 9 11

QED

 

[RemoveBush]

"How fast was the 707 flying in their examples?"

I don't know! I would think they would be somewhere in the area of landing and takeoff speeds? This speed would be somewhere between 200 and 350 MPH, by best guess.

"How fast were the 767's that flew into the WTC going?"

They say about 500 MPH, but the speed seems slower when you watch it. The plane is not moving through the air like a fighter jet at an air show and you can track it with a camera. If it was going 500 MPH, it would have been much harder to track with a camera.

I have tried following planes at an air show, and you can barely see them coming or going. Nothing like that on 9/11.

 

[uk_dave]

"How fast was the 707 flying in their examples?"

I don't know! I would think they would be somewhere in the area of landing and takeoff speeds? This speed would be somewhere between 200 and 350 MPH, by best guess.

"How fast were the 767's that flew into the WTC going?"

They say about 500 MPH, but the speed seems slower when you watch it. The plane is not moving through the air like a fighter jet at an air show and you can track it with a camera. If it was going 500 MPH, it would have been much harder to track with a camera.

I have tried following planes at an air show, and you can barely see them coming or going. Nothing like that on 9/11.

You really are an expert!!!!!

BTW - Did you try following them in your car?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

They say about 500 MPH, but the speed seems slower when you watch it. The plane is not moving through the air like a fighter jet at an air show and you can track it with a camera. If it was going 500 MPH, it would have been much harder to track with a camera.

I have tried following planes at an air show, and you can barely see them coming or going. Nothing like that on 9/11.

Oh gawd... I think half my frontal lobe mass just went necrotic.

 

[TheChadd]

They say about 500 MPH, but the speed seems slower when you watch it. The plane is not moving through the air like a fighter jet at an air show and you can track it with a camera. If it was going 500 MPH, it would have been much harder to track with a camera.

Have you seen the clips of it hitting the building? Take out a frame or two and you'll miss it.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

"How fast was the 707 flying in their examples?"

I don't know! I would think they would be somewhere in the area of landing and takeoff speeds? This speed would be somewhere between 200 and 350 MPH, by best guess.

"How fast were the 767's that flew into the WTC going?"

They say about 500 MPH, but the speed seems slower when you watch it. The plane is not moving through the air like a fighter jet at an air show and you can track it with a camera. If it was going 500 MPH, it would have been much harder to track with a camera.

I have tried following planes at an air show, and you can barely see them coming or going. Nothing like that on 9/11.

how far away were the cameras that were able to track the planes on 9/11? its much easier to track a fast moving object from farther away you know (as opposed to at an air show when they fly directly overhead)