Ed All 43 videos "Second Hit"" [Explosion]at WTC 2: Plane or No Plane?

[beachnut]

The distinctions you seek to draw do not make any difference whatsoever. By melting into the WTC2, neither exploding, slowing, nor degrading, the imagery presented defies crash physics and is an absurdity.
...
all the best

The sad part is this is your best.

The fact is you don't understand physics; you are not showing signs you desire to understand physics, but show signs of supporting your insane claims with willful ignorance.

There is nothing to explode in the nose section of the 767, the fuel is in the wings; Fuel in the Wings, big hit.

The fuel igniting takes time, so until the wings hit the WTC there is no source for a fuel air jet fuel fireball. Plus you have to have ignition of the fuel, and the fuel did not stop at the shell of the WTC it forces the shell to break and the fuel entered the building due to KE, you have no clue; you have insane claims backed up with ignorance.

The only rational part of your post, proof Flight 175 smashed into the WTC. You can't do math and physics or you would have answered my questions.

I can hear on the videos of 911, the WTC floors failing faster and faster. The noise on 911 confirms it was a gravity collapse, no CD. Zero thermite product found; zero, like none, zip...

The guy inside the WTC felt the building failing and falling. oops

 

[dudalb]

I think this sums up jammonius posts on this thread:

 

[triforcharity]

The above does not make any difference whatsoever in the fact that the video segments being shown here defy crash physics. That is all that is necessary to discuss. Once again, if you want to remain firmly dedicated to the PLANE proposition you may do so.

Just because there are anamolies that you must acknowledge does not mean you cannot remain a PLANE SPOTTER.

Little do posters realize it, but by being so inflexible, not ever able to admit when clearly presented information mandates a certain conclusion, you do your own viewpoint harm. It shows a lack of objectivity.

Come on, you can do better than that.

I did. You see the post RIGHT ABOVE the one you quoted?

Here it is, in it's entirety.

Ok, let me break it down for you.

If a plane is traveling ~500 MPH, how long will it take for the entire plane to enter the building?
At that rate, the plane will travel 2,640,000 feet per hour.

There are 3,600 seconds in an hour.

Now, using simple math, that comes out to 733 feet per second.

Now, since we have that down, lets find out how long a Boeing 767-200 is.

According to Boeing, a 767-200 has an overall length of 159'2" So, to make the math easier, we will say 160"

Plane traveling at 733 FPS and the plane is 160' Overall,

At that speed, it would take about .218281036834925 seconds from the time the nose enters, till the time the last part of the tail.

Now, I don't have the tools on my home computer to find the time from complete entry till explosion, but I would venture a guess and say it was not much more than .3 seconds.

Now, how fast should it have exploded Jam?

Care to address any of the FACTS I present? Or do you want to handwave them away?

 

[jammonius]

Ok, let me break it down for you.

If a plane is traveling ~500 MPH, how long will it take for the entire plane to enter the building?
At that rate, the plane will travel 2,640,000 feet per hour.

There are 3,600 seconds in an hour.

Now, using simple math, that comes out to 733 feet per second.

Now, since we have that down, lets find out how long a Boeing 767-200 is.

According to Boeing, a 767-200 has an overall length of 159'2" So, to make the math easier, we will say 160"

Plane traveling at 733 FPS and the plane is 160' Overall,

At that speed, it would take about .218281036834925 seconds from the time the nose enters, till the time the last part of the tail.

Now, I don't have the tools on my home computer to find the time from complete entry till explosion, but I would venture a guess and say it was not much more than .3 seconds.

Now, how fast should it have exploded Jam?

You do yourself a disservice by engaging in incomplete analysis. You do not come out and say there should be no explosion upon impact. And it is good you do not do so.

However, you also do not say when an explosion should appear at the place of impact either, thus your analysis is incomplete.

The imagery of what happened at the South Tower does not support the crash of a Boeing 767 into that building. The imagery defies crash physics. Clearly, by posing a question, you have not refuted that claim. True, you argue the claim, but, once again, by leaving the matter in question stage, you don't refute it.

This is elementary, akin to the exercise in the Dick Oliver thread where the demand was made to prove a crater would form when a heavy steel object dropped to the pavement from a height of about 1000ft. Impact craters are the expected result and attempts to argue against that proposition or to demand 'proof' of it are simply an exercise in evasion.

So it is here.

The imagery shown defies crash physics as demonstrated by more than adequate analogous crashes, shown in the posts in this thread. All of them have in common, explosion on impact.

That does not happen at the South Tower.

It would do you and your position good, not harm, to admit what must be admitted; namely, the shadow thingy that crashed into the South Tower did not explode upon impact. It also did not degrade or visibly slow or shatter, either; once again, unlike anything seen in any other crash shown.

 

[Dumb All Over]

Little do posters realize it, but by being so inflexible, not ever able to admit when clearly presented information mandates a certain conclusion, you do your own viewpoint harm. It shows a lack of objectivity.

Come on, you can do better than that.

I think this sums things up quite nicely.

Thread Closed

 

[jammonius]

Let's also recall this: Noting that the jet impacted a load bearing element of the building is a red herring. The way the Twin Towers were designed, the columns bear vertical weight i.e. the force gravity exerts on the structure towards the ground. The force of the jets impacts were perpendicular to this.

On top of that, let's also remember that Ryan Mackey did a treatment of the feasibility of the jets delivering enough force to fail the perimeter columns:

http://911myths.com/images/f/f0/911physics_big.pdf

NIST published some pressure-impulse curves, and with that data, Ryan did a quick but excellent analysis. The relevant info starts at slide 16 of the above link, but the ultimate point is this: At the speeds experienced that day, the impulse that the jet fuel delivered by itself was more than sufficient to fail the perimeter columns. In fact, the amount of impulse could have been enough to fail a much stronger core column. And that is merely calculating the impulse delivered by the fuel; add the weight of the aircrafts themselves, and you most certainly have enough force to penetrate the perimeter columns.

So to truthers out there: There's no need to guess at this, nor is there any need to continue to make flawed qualitative comparisons to other events. The numbers are available, and conclusions can be drawn from them. If you want to make an argument that the jets could not have penetrated the columns, you have to make it a quantitative one. And you have to demonstrate why Ryan's figures do not apply. Otherwise, your argument fails.

</EMH's attempt to help Pinch bring some substance to an otherwise inane thread>

Lurkers,

The above post vindicates the claim I have made and posted in this thread, stating as follows:

"The common storyline is not supported by physics, crash, applied, or any other version of physics and there is no poster here and no lurker here who can show otherwise. There is no official study of what happened that is based on adequate, demonstrated physics."

That statement stands as true. Ryan Mackay has no authority, no mandate and no status, other than being a debunker to make any claims about what is clearly shown to be an image of a jetliner defying the mandate of crash physics:

The above is absurd in the uttermost and depicts conditions that are not possible for a Boeing 767 jetliner to have achieved.

You know that, posters and lurkers, and it would do you good to admit it and move on.

 

[phunk]

In what way is it impossible? Don't just say it is, say WHY, in detail.

 

[The Big Dog]

The above does not make any difference whatsoever in the fact that the video segments being shown here defy crash physics. That is all that is necessary to discuss. Once again, if you want to remain firmly dedicated to the PLANE proposition you may do so.

Just because there are anamolies that you must acknowledge does not mean you cannot remain a PLANE SPOTTER.

Little do posters realize it, but by being so inflexible, not ever able to admit when clearly presented information mandates a certain conclusion, you do your own viewpoint harm. It shows a lack of objectivity.

Come on, you can do better than that.

I admit it! I have been inflexible! Silly me.

Hell, I have not been objective either, damnit.

All this time I have been reading this silly thread about videos, and have failed to take in the big picture:

the thousands of people of who witnessed the plane hitting the Tower with their own eyes.

Thanks, jamms for reminding us how ridiculous No Planers truly are.

GREAT THREAD! TOP NOTCH!

 

[beachnut]

Lurkers,

The above post vindicates the claim I have made and posted in this thread, stating as follows:

"The common storyline is not supported by physics, crash, applied, or any other version of physics and there is no poster here and no lurker here who can show otherwise. There is no official study of what happened that is based on adequate, demonstrated physics."

That statement stands as true. Ryan Mackay has no authority, no mandate and no status, other than being a debunker to make any claims about what is clearly shown to be an image of a jetliner defying the mandate of crash physics:

The above is absurd in the uttermost and depicts conditions that are not possible for a Boeing 767 jetliner to have achieved.

You know that, posters and lurkers, and it would do you good to admit it and move on.

Pure insanity. You show an image at the exact second Flight 175 impacts the WTC, verified by RADAR it was Flight 175, and try to lie and say it is impossible. Too bad you don't understand RADAR and physics.

Physics! The impact is equal to 2093 pounds of TNT, this is why the aircraft and the WTC act the way they do. 175 is going 865 feet per second, the shell of the WTC fails to stop it. IT is called physics, and you are not capable of physics.

Sorry, you can't say it is impossible and run away waving your hands! You have to supply numbers! It was shown in a study the WTC would repel an aircraft at 200 mph, but above that the WTC would fail and the plane would enter. So you now need to show with numbers and physics why a 767 can't break into the WTC at 590 mph with 277,580 pounds of mass.

 

[MattTheTubaGuy]

Jammonius, can you please explain to me what physics education you have?

and relating to the truck, e = 1/2*m*v²if you double the speed, the kinetic energy quadruples!

also, please refer to my signature

 

[jammonius]

I admit it! I have been inflexible! Silly me.

Hell, I have not been objective either, damnit.

All this time I have been reading this silly thread about videos, and have failed to take in the big picture:

the thousands of people of who witnessed the plane hitting the Tower with their own eyes.

Thanks, jamms for reminding us how ridiculous No Planers truly are.

GREAT THREAD! TOP NOTCH!

In the Dick Oliver threads, it was demonstrated there were more, reliable, verifiable witnesses who said NO PLANE posted up than there were reliable, verifiable witnesses who said PLANE SPOT.

Did you miss it?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Pure insanity. You show an image at the exact second Flight 175 impacts the WTC, verified by RADAR it was Flight 175, and try to lie and say it is impossible. Too bad you don't understand RADAR and physics.

Physics! The impact is equal to 2093 pounds of TNT, this is why the aircraft and the WTC act the way they do. 175 is going 865 feet per second, the shell of the WTC fails to stop it. IT is called physics, and you are not capable of physics.

Sorry, you can't say it is impossible and run away waving your hands! You have to supply numbers! It was shown in a study the WTC would repel an aircraft at 200 mph, but above that the WTC would fail and the plane would enter. So you now need to show with numbers and physics why a 767 can't break into the WTC at 590 mph with 277,580 pounds of mass.

Another thing to point out, Beechnut, is that a truther attacking Ryan is indulging in irrelevancy. Any real response would be to examine the numbers Ryan gives. Because as you, I, and the rest of the rational folks here realize, Ryan's not making an authoritative argument, he's making a mathematical one. Therefore, the only real rebuttal is to deal with the impulse figures he gives.

The bottom line is that a calculation of the impulse taken from mass of fuel available and the speed it was traveling at must exceed the impulse that a column can handle in order to make it fail. If that impulse is insufficient, the column survives. In the two cases discussed here, the columns would not have survived. That's the end of the story, and it doesn't pay any heed to who does the math.

 

[jammonius]

Jammonius, can you please explain to me what physics education you have?

and relating to the truck, e = 1/2*m*v²if you double the speed, the kinetic energy quadruples!

also, please refer to my signature

If there is something you can post that will prove or demonstrate that what is shown here is consistent, rather than inconsistent with crash physics, then, hadn't you ought to come on how and show it?

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...posting/355-3a-meltintailout.png?t=1274127818

Edited by LashL: 

Removing spammed image

The shown image defies crash physics. You have not, cannot and will not ever show otherwise. Facts are facts.

Face it and move on.

 

[MattTheTubaGuy]

well, you have not, in any way at all, explained why it defies crash physics.

 

[The Big Dog]

In the Dick Oliver threads, it was demonstrated there were more, reliable, verifiable witnesses who said NO PLANE posted up than there were reliable, verifiable witnesses who said PLANE SPOT.

Did you miss it?

well, i wouldn't say I miss it...

HA!

Now, jammonius, you are not intentionally confusing WTC1 with WTC2, are you?

Because that would be very wrong!

I know you wouldn't intentionally fib, would you? You actually believe all this **** don't you?

Good for you, No Planer!!

Now study up on your physics for a second or two will ya? Because you are really making a dog's breakfast out of your own thread. Here's a hint, YOU are wearing the Milk Bone underpants, buddy.

 

[jammonius]

Another thing to point out, Beechnut, is that a truther attacking Ryan is indulging in irrelevancy. Any real response would be to examine the numbers Ryan gives. Because as you, I, and the rest of the rational folks here realize, Ryan's not making an authoritative argument, he's making a mathematical one. Therefore, the only real rebuttal is to deal with the impulse figures he gives.

The bottom line is that a calculation of the impulse taken from mass of fuel available and the speed it was traveling at must exceed the impulse that a column can handle in order to make it fail. If that impulse is insufficient, the column survives. In the two cases discussed here, the columns would not have survived. That's the end of the story, and it doesn't pay any heed to who does the math.

The above is false and completely so. Ryan has not posted in response to the visual information posted here and Ryan is not a recognized authority in crash physics; and, even if Ryan were, the mere claim that Ryan had shown how on earth what is impossible could, nonetheless happen, would still amount to no more and no less than an opinion. Plus, coming from an agenda-laden debunker, Ryan's opinion is not entirely credible; or, put more charitably, is still only an opinion.

Declarations about the existence of proof of a proposition are not the same as the posting of actual proof, Elmondo.

You are slipping.

 

[beachnut]

If there is something you can post that will prove or demonstrate that what is shown here is consistent, rather than inconsistent with crash physics, then, hadn't you ought to come on how and show it?

Edited by LashL: 

Removed spammed image

The shown image defies crash physics. You have not, cannot and will not ever show otherwise. Facts are facts.

Face it and move on.

You can't do the math to prove your point and the math shows the energy of the impact made it possible to enter the WTC tower. Bet you can't do the math to support your lie. Why do you make up lies based on your ignorance.

Impact energy is 4,380,000,000 joules, now show me why that energy is not enough to enter the WTC with math. You can't.

 

[jammonius]

well, i wouldn't say I miss it...

HA!

Now, jammonius, you are not intentionally confusing WTC1 with WTC2, are you?

Because that would be very wrong!

I know you wouldn't intentionally fib, would you? You actually believe all this **** don't you?

Good for you, No Planer!!

Now study up on your physics for a second or two will ya? Because you are really making a dog's breakfast out of your own thread. Here's a hint, YOU are wearing the Milk Bone underpants, buddy.

The Dick Oliver threads morphed into consideration to both WTC 1 and WTC 2. In addition to easily out numbering reliable, verifiable witnesses who saw no plane at WTC 1, the actual subject of the Dick Oliver threads, it was also shown there were more, and better situated, no plane witnesses for WTC 2 as well. Keep in mind, what you saw on teevee does not make you a witness.

As it was with WTC 1, so it was with WTC 2, people saw and heard an explosion.

That is the way it is.

 

[jammonius]

You can't do the math to prove your point and the math shows the energy of the impact made it possible to enter the WTC tower. Bet you can't do the math to support your lie. Why do you make up lies based on your ignorance.

Impact energy is 4,380,000,000 joules, now show me why that energy is not enough to enter the WTC with math. You can't.

Your post does nothing other than state a number. Your post is an absurd failure to contradict that what is visually seen defies crash physics and is, therefore, thrououghly indicative that no jetliner crashed into the South Tower. We are talking about the information revealed by the videos.

People believed what they saw on teevee, at first glance. We are now taking a look at what was seen, in detail, and we are seeing, quite plainly, video in and video out, one by one, that those videos show that whatever may be thought to be taking place is simply NOT a jetliner hitting the South Tower.

That is what we are seeing.

The videos are, in fact, quite revealing, each one in its own right.

Look at them.

You are engaging in the same non sequitur here as you do with blips on a screen and the claim of "radar."

Do better.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Jammonius, can you please explain to me what physics education you have?

and relating to the truck, e = 1/2*m*v²if you double the speed, the kinetic energy quadruples!

In terms of the fuel: NIST modeled 66,100 pounds for Flight 11 and 62,000 lbs for UA175. In terms of totals, the combined fuel plus aircraft weights ended up being modeled as 283,600 and 277,580 lbs respectively. In terms of speed: The models actually were run with several different parameters, but the simple figures that NIST gives centers around 443MPH for Flight 11 and 542MPH for UA175.

All of this can be found in NCSTAR 1-2B. I'll also point out that Ryan's math based on those figures shows that only 185 MPH was necessary to penetrate the Towers. When you consider those masses at those speeds, that's what it would've taken. Yet the jets were travelling far faster than that.

The simple fact remains that attempts to refute the conclusions have so far been limited to video comparisons of far different masses travelling at far lower speeds impacting far different "structures". That's not even apples to oranges.

Bottom line: To address this issue, a person must look at the impulse figures and compare them to the P-I curves given for columns in NCSTAR 1-2B. If they exceed the points on the curve, then failure results. It's a simple and substantive concept, really, but conspiracy addicts tend to not indulge in substance.