Split From Kamikaze Attacks and the Effect of Speed

[Jackanory]

macgyver



Oh for goodness sake! macgyver, I appear never yet to have answered a question of yours satisfactorily; and, I don't ever expect I will!!

That said, would you now do me a favor and skip the "you didn't answer my question" routine if at all possible.

I thought I was clear in calling it "a shadow thingy"? Do you not understand that I am calling it a shadowy thingy and can we let it go at that?

For your information, I do not have the serial number of the shadow thingy. However, if past is prologue, the lack of serial numbers is not considered by you to be an impediment. If it looks like a shadow thingy on video, why shouldn't that be an adequate descriptor? I here assert that it is.



Wow, macgyver, that is about as maximally elastic, imprecise, approximate and non-investigative as one could possibly be. But, ok, I get it. You have looked, you have listened and you have given your reply. Thanks.



Did you stop the video at the 24" marker? If you did then, can you say what you saw at that point?

Are you an aquaintence of femr2?

femr2 is a confused no planer too. Yet he uses similar youtube videos to attempt to prove that 'pods' attached to the base of the aircraft (in your case shadow) are infact large bombs of some description. Ammusingly, he also uses the exact same puffs of smoke on entry to attempt to prove that the 'pod' was real and that the puffs of smoke where actually an ignition or detonation. The 'pod' is actually part of the undercarriage - but thats a different story.

Truthers just cant get their story in order. One says no plane at all and directs us to a video. Another says plane but with bombs attached and directs us to the same video. Yet both use the puffs of smoke as evidence. Both contradict each other and neither can provide one scrap of evidence to prove either theory. Hillarious. Classic stuff.

 

[The Big Dog]

I thought I was clear in calling it "a shadow thingy"? Do you not understand that I am calling it a shadowy thingy and can we let it go at that?

a shadowy thingy.

nothing more needs be said.

bye bye jamms

 

[Jackanory]

The 24" mark shows barely a puff of light gray smoke and virtually no discernable debris.

Tell that to femr2. Perhaps the aircraft was powered by the same technology as DEW and the puff of light grey smoke was the ignition. See, i can make stuff up to. Prove me wrong.

 

[beachnut]

beachnut, hello again,

Posters, beachnut thinks I am delusional. OK, beachnut, I get that. You think I am delusional. If you were to ask me "what part of beachnut thinks jammonius is delusional don't you grasp" I would reply as follows:

beachnut thinks jammonius is delusional is absolutely 100% clear because beachnut says so in just about every post that he makes that is in reply to a post I make. So I think not only I, but all 200 +/- of us who might review this thread at some point or another also get that beachnut firmly believes, asserts, and frequently re-states that jammonius is delusional.

Now it's your turn, beachnut, do you get it yet?

How many times are you going to use the words "moronic stupidity" before you realize they reveal information about you and you alone, pray tell?

How many times will you spew idiotic statements before you realize they reveal information about you? LOL, you can't be this bad at physics; can you?

Your ideas are delusional. You have proved it by insisting a jet engine part is a wheel-cover. Your ideas are delusional. You live in a fantasy world.

The WTC was designed to stop a 707 going 180 mph. It would stop it. This design point was confirmed in a study after 911 where the researchers found a 200 mph impact from a jet airliner would be stopped. Limited damage and the plane would fall to the ground.

Your problem is this equation and you are not on talking terms, E=mv². You can't comprehend the WTC structure or the dynamic of a 590 mph jet aircraft. You can't do physics so you repeat lies and make delusional statements.

Don't take it personally, you make up lies or just repeat lies due to your incredible ignorance on all topic associated with 911. You are the one pushing moronic ideas. I point they out to you. It is moronic to say a jet engine part is a wheel-cover; go ask your mom.


The impact of Flight 175 was how many joules in kinetic energy? Do you do physics? Why not?

Joules at impact WTC 175 enters because it is greater then the ability of the building to stop Flight 175. 4,380,000,000 joules, which is equal to 2,093 pounds of TNT.

Flight 175 was a bomb at impact, a 2,000 pound bomb which is why it entered the building. A bomb has only expanding gases and a bomb destroys steel and structure, so an aircraft with mass can destroy steel and structure when it is going 590 mph. If you could do physics you would not repeat lies and idiotic statements which expose your willful ignorance on 911.

The Kamikaze needed a bomb to make up for the lack of mass he carried into the attack. An airliner at 590 mph is as good as a 2,000 pound bomb at making damage.

On 911 the fuel, 10,000 gallons, 66,000 pounds of jet fuel doomed the WTC after the impacts rendered the fire suppression systems dead. Never has a office building been set on fire with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel set in an instant by jet engines disintegrating and spewing hot jet engine parts which instantaneously set fire to all the jet fuel. What is the auto ignition temperature of jet fuel.

You will ignore physics and the jet fuel burning on multiple floors and deny 911 happened due to 19 terrorists; your terrorists buddies did 911 and now with your delusional ideas you apologize for your buddies, murderers who you deny existed or flew jets into buildings. Good for you delusions, you and your wheel-covers and fuselages that you say are horse-trailers. Why do you like the terrorists so much?

 

[jammonius]

Here is a video that demonstrates deceleration (and lateral movement of the tail) as United Airlines 175 hit:


Take your compressed GIF and shove it Judy.

You have shown a doctored version of the Evan Fairbanks video; one about which Fairbanks himself said: "It disappeared like a bad special effect."

What interest do you think you advanced by showing a doctored version of the Fairbanks' self described "bad special effect"?

 

[Jackanory]

You have shown a doctored version of the Evan Fairbanks video; one about which Fairbanks himself said: "It disappeared like a bad special effect."

What interest do you think you advanced by showing a doctored version of the Fairbanks' self described "bad special effect"?

Would you care to post the full Faibanks quote, then come back to defend it again?

 

[BigAl]

You have shown a doctored version of the Evan Fairbanks video; one about which Fairbanks himself said: "It disappeared like a bad special effect."

What interest do you think you advanced by showing a doctored version of the Fairbanks' self described "bad special effect"?

Read what people that saw 175 (and Flight 11) for real said.

A nation challenged : a visual history of 9/11 and its aftermath By Callaway

Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11
By David Friend

102 Minutes by Dwyer & Flynn

 

[jammonius]

Well, macgyver,

it looks like I get to play the "you didn't answer my question" routine

You've stated:

Yes I did...it showed a plane striking the building, followed by a humongous (scientific term) fireball.

That is not what I see at the 24sec marker. What I see is the shadow thingy having completely entered the south face of the building, and a small, light gray puff appearing to look like smoke. Noticeably absent is any visible debris and no explosion either at the impact site, let alone the east side. I have not yet calculated when the explosion appears on the east side, that is to say, at what time marker because, quite frankly, that is something I thought you would do as a part of the interactive dialogue approach. I did invite you to set the next time interval. However, you have declined to do that.

Quite frankly, it does not appear that you are interested in looking closely or carefully at the video from an investigative perspective. And, that is ok. You are not obliged to do a damn thing that you do not want to do.

regards

 

[BigAl]

Well, macgyver,

it looks like I get to play the "you didn't answer my question" routine

You've stated:



That is not what I see at the 24sec marker. What I see is the shadow thingy having completely entered the south face of the building, and a small, light gray puff appearing to look like smoke.

So now we all know what a 140 tons of aluminum looks like when it penetrates a wall made of columns of 1/4 inch steel and glass at 600 mph.


You are a troll.

 

[jammonius]

beachnut,

Joules at impact WTC 175 enters because it is greater then the ability of the building to stop Flight 175. 4,380,000,000 joules, which is equal to 2,093 pounds of TNT

Your descriptor "Flight 175" is interestingly stated. By "flight 175" I take it you mean to infer that a jetliner, make Boeing and model 767-200 comes into contact with the South Tower, aka WTC2, of the World Trade Center, correct?

My question to you is what impact does the above energy have upon the said make Boeing model 767-200, if any at all?

My concern is looking at the video, the shadow thingy simply slices through steel and concrete, with no visible effect, and then, apparently explodes on the inside of the said South Tower, presumably while impacting with a few pictures, cups, mugs, files and, to be sure, some solid objects like paper weights and computer monitors, not to mention dense objects like steel cabinets. However, as to the latter, they are presumably of little effect, since, as we know, when the shadow thingy impacted with, at a minimum, 1/4inch steel and also concrete flooring, it was unstoppable. So, steel cabinets couldn't stop it either. Therefore, since it did come to a sudden stop inside, it must have been as a result of the combination of those pictures and post-its on the cubicle dividers, the desks, and especially, the hard edges of them together with the computer monitors that, in 2001, probably weren't flat screen as yet.

You may or may not understand that the above is intended to confirm that what you claim regarding joules and tnt doesn't make sense in light of what is seen in the various and sundry WTC2 hit videos.

 

[Jackanory]

Quite frankly, it does not appear that you are interested in looking closely or carefully at the video from an investigative perspective. And, that is ok. You are not obliged to do a damn thing that you do not want to do.

regards

Didnt you say the video was a 'fake'? Do you routinely invite others to agree with you on 'fake' videos? Seems odd that!

 

[beachnut]

Dear alferd,

Kindly state why you ask about "total Joules" and indicate the assumptions the underlie your question in conjunction with that which is seen below:

911 truth always deubunks themselves as they show a video of a Flight 175 impact the WTC. RADAR has flight 175 right here at the same time verifying the exact flight.

I love it you show a low speed impact of an aircraft! LOL, you are so not able to understand physics. LOL

Low speed impact has big parts left over due to lack of energy at impact. Pilots try to crash as slow as possible to survive. You posted your lack of knowledge by comparing a 150 mph impact to a 590 mph impact and forgot E=mv² again. Sad your ignorance on physics makes you repeat failed moronic statements from the idiots at 911 truth.


High speed impact, only small parts.

See parts that look like a aircraft? No because it was a high speed impact, no recognizable aircraft parts, just aircraft parts when you look and investigate. I can't believe you don't understand you debunk yourself by showing a slow speed impact.

You show the slow speed impact and fail instantly as you compare it to a 590 mph impact you posted video of! Kind of sad you can't comprehend your own mistake as you expose your lack of knowledge and fail.

Low Speed impact. Big pieces.


High speed impact, not a single large piece to see!

In the high speed impact things are buried in the earth, and things are scattered for hundreds of feet.

In the WTC a jet engine when thought the building and landed in the street.

But you will say this jet engine part is a wheel-cover due to your ignorance of what things are. How much do wheel-covers weigh in your fantasy world?

 

[carlitos]

I don't even think bill smith can approach this level of idiocy in his parody posts. Post it notes?

 

[jammonius]

Didnt you say the video was a 'fake'? Do you routinely invite others to agree with you on 'fake' videos? Seems odd that!

jackanory,

Why are you feigning ignorance here? Cut the crap.

regards

 

[BigAl]

beachnut,



Your descriptor "Flight 175" is interestingly stated. By "flight 175" I take it you mean to infer that a jetliner, make Boeing and model 767-200 comes into contact with the South Tower, aka WTC2, of the World Trade Center, correct?

My question to you is what impact does the above energy have upon the said make Boeing model 767-200, if any at all?

The WTC wall was glass and 1/4 inch steel plate made into box columns with bolted joints every 30 feet.

The momentum of the plane caused the beams to break at the joints. Joints are typically the weak point.

It was easy for the plane to punch through that wall. Nobody with a grasp of the physics sees anything unusual in that video.

Ryan Mackey wrote it up in "The Physics of 9/11" and made a video on what happened. It's your loss if you don't read it.

http://911myths.com/index.php/Ryan_Mackey

 

[Jackanory]

beachnut,



Your descriptor "Flight 175" is interestingly stated. By "flight 175" I take it you mean to infer that a jetliner, make Boeing and model 767-200 comes into contact with the South Tower, aka WTC2, of the World Trade Center, correct?

My question to you is what impact does the above energy have upon the said make Boeing model 767-200, if any at all?

My concern is looking at the video, the shadow thingy simply slices through steel and concrete, with no visible effect, and then, apparently explodes on the inside of the said South Tower, presumably while impacting with a few pictures, cups, mugs, files and, to be sure, some solid objects like paper weights and computer monitors, not to mention dense objects like steel cabinets. However, as to the latter, they are presumably of little effect, since, as we know, when the shadow thingy impacted with, at a minimum, 1/4inch steel and also concrete flooring, it was unstoppable. So, steel cabinets couldn't stop it either. Therefore, since it did come to a sudden stop inside, it must have been as a result of the combination of those pictures and post-its on the cubicle dividers, the desks, and especially, the hard edges of them together with the computer monitors that, in 2001, probably weren't flat screen as yet.

You may or may not understand that the above is intended to confirm that what you claim regarding joules and tnt doesn't make sense in light of what is seen in the various and sundry WTC2 hit videos.

Did the aircraft enter horizontaly? How did it enter?

Did you actually view the picture you posted earlier of the inside of WTC? What did you see?

The answers gained from those two questions should go some way to anwering your post.

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by Jackanory
Didnt you say the video was a 'fake'? Do you routinely invite others to agree with you on 'fake' videos? Seems odd that!

jackanory,

Why are you feigning ignorance here? Cut the crap.

regards

A question for jammonius: If the video was fake, how on 9/11 did someone fake the sound of screaming jet engines all along Manhattan Island's west side, louder and moving faster than anyone heard before?

What the eyewitnesses saw and heard wasn't fake. What the eyewitnesses saw matches the massive amount of video and picture we have for the impact of the two 757/767 jets on the towers.

 

[Jackanory]

jackanory,

Why are you feigning ignorance here? Cut the crap.

regards

No crap. You clealry imply that the said video was a doctored fake then directed us to view it in an investagatory manner. Whos feiging ignorance? Another one who forgets the lies hes in.

 

[beachnut]

beachnut,



Your descriptor "Flight 175" is interestingly stated. By "flight 175" I take it you mean to infer that a jetliner, make Boeing and model 767-200 comes into contact with the South Tower, aka WTC2, of the World Trade Center, correct?

My question to you is what impact does the above energy have upon the said make Boeing model 767-200, if any at all?

My concern is looking at the video, the shadow thingy simply slices through steel and concrete, with no visible effect, and then, apparently explodes on the inside of the said South Tower, presumably while impacting with a few pictures, cups, mugs, files and, to be sure, some solid objects like paper weights and computer monitors, not to mention dense objects like steel cabinets. However, as to the latter, they are presumably of little effect, since, as we know, when the shadow thingy impacted with, at a minimum, 1/4inch steel and also concrete flooring, it was unstoppable. So, steel cabinets couldn't stop it either. Therefore, since it did come to a sudden stop inside, it must have been as a result of the combination of those pictures and post-its on the cubicle dividers, the desks, and especially, the hard edges of them together with the computer monitors that, in 2001, probably weren't flat screen as yet.

You may or may not understand that the above is intended to confirm that what you claim regarding joules and tnt doesn't make sense in light of what is seen in the various and sundry WTC2 hit videos.

It does not make sense to you because you don't understand physics. Period. Go ask a physics teacher and stop exposing your ignorance on math and science. Simple as asking someone you trust.

I am only a trained aircraft accident investigator and a pilot who flew heavy jets and I have a masters degree in engineering; I am telling you your ideas on 911 are delusional, and you keep proving it.

Go ask someone with the same credentials as me, a trained aircraft accident investigator, a pilot who flew heavy jets for over 4,000 hours and someone with a masters degree in engineering. Go ask someone with the same or more experience. And ask them why 4,380,000,000 joules in the form of a 767 can't enter the WTC only designed for a 386,000,000 impact. The numbers say it all! GOT MATH???

Got physics?

 

[jammonius]

The WTC wall was glass and 1/4 inch steel plate made into box columns with bolted joints every 30 feet.

The momentum of the plane caused the beams to break at the joints. Joints are typically the weak point.

It was easy for the plane to punch through that wall. Nobody with a grasp of the physics sees anything unusual in that video.

Ryan Mackey wrote it up in "The Physics of 9/11" and made a video on what happened. It's your loss if you don't read it.

http://911myths.com/index.php/Ryan_Mackey

Greetings, big al,

My question is: What about the shadow thingy? What effect does the physics of impact have upon it? Why did it not degrade, create a debris field on the south side of building and so on? In particular, why didn't the wings and especially the tail separate and break off, such that a part, piece, portion or identifiable component thereof would be seen flying about.

Here is, perhaps, the best still shot of the aftermath of the shadow thingy impacting the south tower. This is David Handschuh's photograph:

To the extent debris can be seen, it looks like paper and certainly no discernible part or piece of a jetliner. Other videos, including that of Evan Fairbanks that has been relied on here by another poster simply show the entire length, breadth and width of the jetliner gliding right on into the south tower, no problema.

Reference to physics might be nice; however, imho, the visual evidence is rather overwhelming that what is depicted is a shadow thingy and not a make Boeing model 767.