Split From Kamikaze Attacks and the Effect of Speed

[Gorgonian]

I think maybe you'd better be "splainin'" why he calls your shadowy thingy a "big gray plane, with red letters on the wing and on the tail, bearing down on me," first.

 

[Cylinder]

Jam - what do you expect to observe in a high-speed, high angle-of-attack impact of a 757 and a structure such as a WTC tower? What differs from what was observed?

The energies exerted on both the 757 and the local WTC structure so overwhelmed their design capacities that an near-instantaneous (from a human perspective) and global failure of both allowed the 757 to flow into the tower stucture.

Yes- I'm claiming the 757s flowed into the towers.

...the airplane seemed to have disappeared...

Though the quote isn't yours, that sums up the claim of anomoly, right?

Here's the rest of the quote:

Two witnesses fishing from a boat in the Everglades when flight 592 crashed stated that they saw a low-flying airplane in a steep right bank. According to these witnesses, as the right bank angle increased, the nose of the airplane dropped and continued downward. The airplane struck the ground in a nearly vertical attitude. The witnesses described a great explosion, vibration, and a huge cloud of water and smoke. One of them observed, “the landing gear was up, all the airplane’s parts appeared to be intact, and that aside from the engine smoke, no signs of fire were visible.”

Two other witnesses who were sightseeing in a private airplane in the area at the time of the accident provided similar accounts of the accident. These two witnesses and the
witnesses in the boat, who approached the accident site, described seeing only part of an engine, paper, and other debris scattered around the impact area. One of the witnesses remarked that the airplane seemed to have disappeared upon crashing into the Everglades.

ValueJet 592 impacted terrain in the Florida Everglades on May 11, 1996.

 

[jammonius]

I think maybe you'd better be "splainin'" why he calls your shadowy thingy a "big gray plane, with red letters on the wing and on the tail, bearing down on me," first.

Not at all. I claim he saw a shadow thingy and he obviously did not see a Boeing 767 having, what is it claimed now? Oh yes, here it is right above:

KE = 142,880kg x 253m/s2
KE = 142,880 x 64,009
KE = 9,145,605,920J
KE = 9,145MJ

Thank you gumboot, for your calculations. Now, what of the 500lb bomb attached to the A6M5 Reisen. Did your calculation include it?

 

[Mancman]

Provide evidence that it is doctored.

Also, please explain why, as shown in this video, the 250,000 ton WTC2 swings northwards as United Flight 175 impacts:


Please enlighten us, what was it that made 250,000 ton of mass violently jolt, were it not a 130 ton plane moving at 860 feet per second?

Jammonious has failed to explain what exactly made 250,000 tons of WTC2 violently jolt to the north......

 

[TJM]

redtail,

Thank you for your query, the answer to which is not necessarily; but, if you have to have a "yes" or a "mo' answer, then, in that event, I'll go with a "yes" and here's why:

Because we all know an argument from incredulity trumps math and physics any day of the week.

 

[The Big Dog]

Not at all. I claim he saw a shadow thingy

Gravy made a great point a few years back.

He said he doesn't debate with No Planers because he doesn't debate with the mentally ill.

Shadow thingy.

 

[I Ratant]

Jammonious has failed to will never explain what exactly made 250,000 tons of WTC2 violently jolt to the north......

.
Or anything else.
Where's Ed Felt?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Actually they're a perfect example. While you're right that US carriers did not have armoured flight decks, they were armoured as heavily as UK carriers. The difference is the US treated the entire hangar, flightdeck and tower as superstructure, and placed the armour deck at the hangar level. This allowed for a larger flight deck, larger hangars, and greater stability, but the trade off was that the hangar was unprotected.

Further, there are plenty examples of the penetrative power of Kamikazi aircraft, independent of the blast damage. I like to cite the case of the Kamikaze attack on the USS Enterprise on May 14, 1945.

A Japanese aircraft slammed into the deck of the Enterprise near the forward elevator. The aircraft penetrated the flight deck, the armoured hangar deck, and five more decks before the bomb went off and blasted the forward elevator 400' into the air.

If a lighter aircraft traveling at much lower speeds can penetrate one wooden deck, one armour plate steel deck, and five regular steel decks, a 767 will of course have no difficulty penetrating a single layer of Aluminium at substantially greater speeds.

I stand corrected . I have no doubt that a 767 would cut right through the exterior of the WTC....thats simple physics and math.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

"a) 4,380,000,000 joules, which is equal to b) 2,093 pounds of TNT, that point does not include it being powerful enough to put a single scratch on Stanley Praimnath.

You do know that the energy in a KE impact is directional, don't you, not like TNT. He was simply lucky he was in a floor of the building hit by perhaps a wing tip and not the main body and fuel tanks.
He was just lucky, nothing moving fast hit hit him and he was not trapped by the fires......3000 others were not.

 

[beachnut]

Not at all. I claim he saw a shadow thingy and he obviously did not see a Boeing 767 having, what is it claimed now? Oh yes, here it is right above:

KE = 142,880kg x 253m/s2
KE = 142,880 x 64,009
KE = 9,145,605,920J
KE = 9,145MJ

Thank you gumboot, for your calculations. Now, what of the 500lb bomb attached to the A6M5 Reisen. Did your calculation include it?

You really don't know physics.

The 500 pound bomb is 4 times less energy than the impact kinetic energy of Flight 175. You don't pay attention when the numbers are given to you. Why can't you understand physics? This is bad, did your school fail you, or like Charlie Sheen did you skip finishing high school?

"a) 4,380,000,000 joules, which is equal to b) 2,093 pounds of TNT, that point does not include it being powerful enough to put a single scratch on Stanley Praimnath.

This seals the deal on physics, you don't have a clue.
There was no explosion when Flight 175 impacted the WTC, the impact was a kinetic energy event followed by the jet fuel fireball. If there was an explosion Mr. Paimnath would have suffered a concussion and he would be a fatality. You need to learn what explosion do and what kinetic energy is with respect to aircraft impacts.

It will be hard to beat the jet engine parts are wheel-covers but you are doing it by ignoring physics and exposing your only skill; posting delusional statements.

You can't correct errors when they are handed to you; you are easy to expose as you check nothing you post, and nothing given to you in posts. You post delusions, and you can't help yourself.

 

[BigAl]

Hello again, Pikachu

Let me double-check for accuracy of understanding. Do you claim in the above post, in words or substance, that you know more about law and about physics than I do;

Since you have shown no evidence of knowledge of physics, that sets a pretty low bar for Pikachu to exceed.

The legal comments you have made have been flat-out wrong. Pikachu wins on that count.

 

[jammonius]

Jammonious has failed to explain what exactly made 250,000 tons of WTC2 violently jolt to the north......

mancman,

In case you hadn't noticed, I do not play along with your or anyone else's version of "20 question" rhetoric. You are not the arbiter who gets to ask questions here. If there's something you are interested in figuring out, in having an answer to, then provide yourself your answer.

You are engaging in rhetoric, pure and simple. You do not even set out, let alone test the many and various unstated assumptions in your rhetorical device. Rather, you just play games.

So, "no" I am not interested in you getting to critique answers to rhetoric thaat you devise.

You know what, isn't that game a little long of tooth by now. I think you're seeking to get a thrill that is equivalent to playing 'pacman' at level 1. The state of the art for message board dialogue, like that of video games, has advanced beyond that simple-minded tactic.

 

[jammonius]

Since you have shown no evidence of knowledge of physics, that sets a pretty low bar for Pikachu to exceed.

The legal comments you have made have been flat-out wrong. Pikachu wins on that count.

Three cheers for big al. Hip, hip hooray. Hip, hip hooray. Hip, hip hooray.

Now, whenever you'd like to get back to substantive dialogue, let me know.

 

[BigAl]

Three cheers for big al. Hip, hip hooray. Hip, hip hooray. Hip, hip hooray.

Now, whenever you'd like to get back to substantive dialogue, let me know.

OK. Now.

How did your alleged fake video make the sound of a jet running flat-out at low altitude as heard by the multitudes along Manhattan Island on 9/11?

 

[jammonius]

OK. Now.

How did your alleged fake video make the sound of a jet running flat-out at low altitude as heard by the multitudes along Manhattan Island on 9/11?

Rhetoric and assumptions. You've also disregarded my earlier posts on this that demonstrate there was no sound of jet engines according to 3 witnesses I quoted and according to the lack of accounts of people suffering busted ear drums. As you have referenced "a jet running flat-out at low altitude as heard by the multitudes along Manhattan island on 9/11" I think it incumbent upon you to support your unproven assertion with reports of damaged hearing and of medical treatment for it.

I have shown witnesses, big al, and quoted them. I have also highligted that in the video form pg. 1 there was no sound of a jetliner up to the 24sec. mark in that video. The loudest sound in that video was a siren.

As you have presupposed "a jet running flat-out at low altitude as heard by the multitudes along Manhattan Island on 9/11" I here assert that I have falsified your claim in two separte and reliable ways already posted.

 

[BigAl]

Not at all. I claim he saw a shadow thingy and he obviously did not see a Boeing 767 having, what is it claimed now? Oh yes, here it is right above:

KE = 142,880kg x 253m/s2
KE = 142,880 x 64,009
KE = 9,145,605,920J
KE = 9,145MJ

Thank you gumboot, for your calculations. Now, what of the 500lb bomb attached to the A6M5 Reisen. Did your calculation include it?

A 500lb bomb contains only 200 pounds (approximately 420MJ) of explosive. It doesn't bring much to the party when compared to a 767 at 600MPH.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/mk82.htm​

 

[DGM]

You've also disregarded my earlier posts on this that demonstrate there was no sound of jet engines according to 3 witnesses I quoted

Liar!

. I never actually saw the plane, but l heard it. You could hear it coming in and then we heard the explosion and you could hear the roar of the plane coming in. At first I didn't realize it was a plane. I thought it was like the roar of fire, like something had just incinerated, like a gas tank or an oil tank. It sounded like a tremendous roar and then you heard boom and then there was a big fire, a lot of fire, a big fireball. I never actually saw a plane hit the building. I never saw that. I saw it on television, but I never saw it while I was standing there.

Stop pretending you don't know about similes.

 

[jammonius]

Liar!



Stop pretending you don't know about similes.

I think you're going to need to get a grip on yourself and upon your emotional outbursts. Look, we have a disagreement. Unless you claim a lock on the ability to discern truth from falsity, you need to moderate your tone.

I'm the one who quoted Stephen Gregory. I have also called attention to what I think was 'cherry-picking' of his statement. Stephen Gregory's statement is neither overly long nor overly complex.

If you want to read it as standing for one thing, despite his saying I never saw it while I was standing there, then good luck to you.

Let me ask you this. As you sit here, do you know where he was standing, or would you like for me to answer that question for you?

 

[Mancman]

mancman,

In case you hadn't noticed, I do not play along with your or anyone else's version of "20 question" rhetoric. You are not the arbiter who gets to ask questions here. If there's something you are interested in figuring out, in having an answer to, then provide yourself your answer.

You are engaging in rhetoric, pure and simple. You do not even set out, let alone test the many and various unstated assumptions in your rhetorical device. Rather, you just play games.

So, "no" I am not interested in you getting to critique answers to rhetoric thaat you devise.

You know what, isn't that game a little long of tooth by now. I think you're seeking to get a thrill that is equivalent to playing 'pacman' at level 1. The state of the art for message board dialogue, like that of video games, has advanced beyond that simple-minded tactic.

So you have no answer. On ignore you go, farewell.

I suggest everyone else do the same.

 

[BigAl]

Rhetoric and assumptions. You've also disregarded my earlier posts on this that demonstrate there was no sound of jet engines according to 3 witnesses I quoted and according to the lack of accounts of people suffering busted ear drums. As you have referenced "a jet running flat-out at low altitude as heard by the multitudes along Manhattan island on 9/11" I think it incumbent upon you to support your unproven assertion with reports of damaged hearing and of medical treatment for it.

You are doing what you do best; any idiot can find someone that didn't hear something. This might be because they were in a firetruck with a wailing siren or they were deep inside a tower when the second plane hit.

Here's what people heard for the impact of the first crash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ​

How did your alleged fake planes generate the that noise?