Merged National Geographic Special - "9/11 Science and Conspiracy" Debunks Thermite Myth

[TruthersLie]

So you think it was the nose cone which caused the exit hole?

I think it was the full momentum of a jet liner moving 500 mph... and what caused it to blow out the other end? Oh that heavy landing gear in the nose.

so if the nose of the cylinder breaks through the walls in the test (w/out the landing gear) what does that tell you?

what should it tell you? that there was enough momentum and force to have it blow out. Now add in heavy landing gear and oopsie you have enough momentum to blow out the walls.

wowsers scoob... you don't even need engines for that... but you doubt that flight 77 impacted there so no wonder you don't understand the test.

Of course I still want to know how DNA gets put into a burning building that then collapses unless it was on the jet, which the DNA of the passengers got on that morning...

 

[RedIbis]

I think it was the full momentum of a jet liner moving 500 mph... and what caused it to blow out the other end? Oh that heavy landing gear in the nose.

so if the nose of the cylinder breaks through the walls in the test (w/out the landing gear) what does that tell you?

what should it tell you? that there was enough momentum and force to have it blow out. Now add in heavy landing gear and oopsie you have enough momentum to blow out the walls.

wowsers scoob... you don't even need engines for that... but you doubt that flight 77 impacted there so no wonder you don't understand the test.

Of course I still want to know how DNA gets put into a burning building that then collapses unless it was on the jet, which the DNA of the passengers got on that morning...

So you think that the landing gear was able to do what the engines couldn't?

 

[TexasJack]

So you think that the landing gear was able to do what the engines couldn't?

Can you come up with another scenario other than Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon? Please explain how the DNA of the passengers got there, explain the light poles being knocked down, explain why there were plane parts found there. If you can, maybe some of your inane questions will have some bite.

 

[TruthersLie]

So you think that the landing gear was able to do what the engines couldn't?

Actually yes I do.

For one simple reason. The engines while HUGE and very heavy are also made up of hundreds of smaller parts which are moving very fast.

In impacting with the pentagon, and being filled with stone and concrete, they would have shredded into thousands of much smaller parts, like the rest of the plane.
Kind of like this



Of course with the jet moving at 500 mph this is more accurately what it looked like


The front landing gear on the other hand is HEAVY and relatively one or two solid pieces (when compared with the engines) and the momentum carried it forward. Which is what numerous simulations show... including the one in Nat Geo.. you know the one which shows all of the different DNA evidence found in the pentagon...amazing that.

 

[Myriad]

So you think that the landing gear was able to do what the engines couldn't?

The serious answer, in case anyone cares, is that the nose landing gear had the entire mass of the rest of the fuselage flowing in behind it, able to impart momentum to it, while the engines did not.

Compare two similar arrow heads fired at a permeable target at the same velocity. Assume both strike it cleanly. But one of them is attached to the front of an arrow in the normal way, and the other is just the arrow head alone. Which will penetrate farther into the target?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[RedIbis]

The serious answer, in case anyone cares, is that the nose landing gear had the entire mass of the rest of the fuselage flowing in behind it, able to impart momentum to it, while the engines did not.

Compare two similar arrow heads fired at a permeable target at the same velocity. Assume both strike it cleanly. But one of them is attached to the front of an arrow in the normal way, and the other is just the arrow head alone. Which will penetrate farther into the target?

Respectfully,
Myriad

In your false analogy you are suggesting that the landing gear has the same mass as an engine. The two "arrowheads" are not the same.

 

[beachnut]

When you think of a real plane, is there something else on the wings that might affect the results of impact?

Paint?
Rivets?
Bird droppings?
Jet fuel 20,000 to 30,000 pounds of jet fuel is IN each wing, not ON the wings.
The engines are UNDER the wings, not ON the wings.
Must be the paint. Or the spoilers.

NG has blasted Jones' failed delusion to fantasy-land.

So you think it was the nose cone which caused the exit hole?

A highly intellectual question; Do you think the fiberglass nose cone caused the exit hole?

No, the fiberglass nose cone did not cause the exit hole the mass from the impact did. Flight 77 was a kinetic energy weapon. The damage to the Pentagon is exactly what a 757 impact would look like.
The people on board 77 weighed more than an engine.

77 impacted the Pentagon and it was exactly what you get when a 757 hits at 535 mph.
NG presented the impact was consistent with an aircraft impact not a bomb or a missile blast.

What is your big anomaly at the Pentagon? 8 years; spring your anomaly.

 

[Myriad]

In your false analogy you are suggesting that the landing gear has the same mass as an engine. The two "arrowheads" are not the same.

Well, there you go then.

The engines and landing gear aren't the same. They differ from the nose landing gear not only in mass, but also in form factor, composition, density, location of impact, and their position relative to the mass of the rest of the fuselage.

So with all those differences, why would anyone expect them to have the same effect on the Pentagon wall?

Only a quantitative analysis taking all those factors into account can demonstrate an anomaly in the outcome. Can you show me such an analysis?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[RedIbis]

Well, there you go then.

The engines and landing gear aren't the same. They differ from the nose landing gear not only in mass, but also in form factor, composition, density, location of impact, and their position relative to the mass of the rest of the fuselage.

So with all those differences, why would anyone expect them to have the same effect on the Pentagon wall?

Only a quantitative analysis taking all those factors into account can demonstrate an anomaly in the outcome. Can you show me such an analysis?

Respectfully,
Myriad

The issue is whether or not NatGeo was able to do so.

 

[Myriad]

The issue is whether or not NatGeo was able to do so.

They weren't able to demonstrate an anomaly in the outcome.

Their test wasn't designed to test for an anomaly in the effects of the engines, though. That's why it didn't include any engines.

That leaves the issue wide open for you to present evidence that there was an anomaly in the effects of the engines on the building. However, an argument that takes only some relevant factors into account (e.g. the mass of the parts) and not others (e.g. the physical configuration of parts subject to momentum transfer) does not constitute valid evidence.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[A W Smith]

Heh? I'm pointing out why the cylinder experiment has no relevance to what took place at the Pentagon since it wasn't just the wings they omitted.

Were the engines in a cylinder which carried them through the building?

At least someone was able to figure it out. So I suppose the engines weren't necessary in the "experiment"?

exactly,

So you think it was the nose cone which caused the exit hole?

No we do not. The nose cone and everything behind it, Think of the cargo and contents almost as a fluid.

So you think that the landing gear was able to do what the engines couldn't?

the landing gear was within the circumference of the fuselage. Which carried/pushed it through the building.

In your false analogy you are suggesting that the landing gear has the same mass as an engine. The two "arrowheads" are not the same.

Who suggested mass? Think of the contents within a jacketed bullet. the jacket pierces the target. the lead continues into the target. Fuselage=jacket. Is this too complex for a dirty bird to grasp? Or an inconvenient truth?

 

[RedIbis]

No we do not. The nose cone and everything behind it, Think of the cargo and contents almost as a fluid.

And everything behind it? What happened to all of the plane that was dispersed and disintegrated upon impact?

 

[funk de fino]

No-planers are pondlife

 

[Macgyver1968]

No-planers are pondlife

Now, now...let's not be insulting to frogs and biting insects.

 

[Justin39640]

And everything behind it? What happened to all of the plane that was dispersed and disintegrated upon impact?

Red
for some reason you think of an engine as a giant solid block
it isnt
its made up of thousands of tiny parts and just a few large ones

landing gear on the other hand....

 

[The Big Dog]

And everything behind it? What happened to all of the plane that was dispersed and disintegrated upon impact?

Yeah! Red Ibis has a point, what about all the DNA evidence that they found...

Oh wait, the DNA evidence....

They certainly found that, didn't they, Red?

 

[WildCat]

So you think it was the nose cone which caused the exit hole?

I knew it! RedIbis, we went through all this before in an old thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3539664#post3539664

You had the exit hole explained to you over and over again. Is there something that still confuses you?

 

[WildCat]

So you think that the landing gear was able to do what the engines couldn't?

RedIbis, is it your claim that engines should have punched through the Pentagon walls, but didn't*, and therefore a jet airplane didn't hit the Pentagon?

If you don't think that what hit the Pentagon had jet engines, that makes you a no-planer, yes?






*actually they did

 

[WildCat]

In your false analogy you are suggesting that the landing gear has the same mass as an engine.

No, he is not! The mass of the landing gear is being impacted by everything behind it. At this point the mass of the landing gear is of no consequence, because it now must be treated as the entire mass of the airplane behind it.

Since there is no mass behind the engines, they hit the wall with only their own mass because there is nothing behind them.

The two "arrowheads" are not the same.

That's kind of the point, and it went right over your head.

 

[Justin39640]

not to mention the wall in question was designed to take a full frontal attack