Warring No planer factions- Shansksville and Pentagon no-planers vs WTC no planers

Anders Lindman said:
It's a simple illustration. To do accurate and complete analytical analysis of the physics involved is very complicated. Requiring advanced finite element analysis using computers or other such tools.
Click to expand...

Then why did you link to a video that didn't do any of that?
 
Craig4 said:
You have a very unsophisticated understanding of how the world actually functions.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Anders, you may think you have it all figured out, but the above prevents you from actually having anything figured out.
 
No plane people suffer from delusions.

When they hear of evidence which ruins their fantasy, they fight back with facts which prove they have idiotic fantasies and they present evidence to debunk themselves.

... birds hit the nose or wings.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_AD-C162SG3w/SenL2do-9PI/AAAAAAAAvIU/rXo1IuDpg4o/s400/tarom.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtMN7jhmAFU
Click to expand...
Here we have a person with the no-plane delusion and they offer up bird-strikes as defense of nothing, just throw it on the table and run for cover.
How does water crush car?

How does a wing cut a strong cable which holds a cable car without making the plane crash? Looks like only birds, or super-bird, is able to damage a plane; wait, the planes that were hit by birds, the planes kept flying. What point is 911 truth making when they use the bird scam?

We see on the massive bird strikes, fiberglass, plastic, dented and cracked.

Fiberglass? Yes Virginia there is a fiberglass nose on aircraft so the RADAR can see through it. BINGO

Like planes flying at 400 to 600 mph do massive damage to buildings based on kinetic energy, birds do damage to planes based on the kinetic energy related to the relative velocity of impact.

What we have again, repeated constantly, is the inability of 911 truth no-planer fantasy believers to do physics, or understand physics. 911 truth no-planer will say things like,
"To do accurate and complete analytical analysis of the physics involved is very complicated.".
Click to expand...

Yes Virginia, for 911 truth no-planers, F=ma, F=1/2mv2 are too complicated to understand. What some engineers can do with a pen and a napkin, 911 truth no-planers have to lie and say it is, "very complicated", and they run away crying, "inside job".


Think hard, no plane...
1Flight175.jpg

RADAR has this same object on RADAR at the same time a camera picks up the same plane; using RADAR it can be found this object was Flight 175. How does the suck-an-aircraft-silhouette-bomb work? That hole in the WTC looks like an airplane stuck it.


Truther's post proof they have delusions, and their no-plane nonsense is a lie.
"At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor."

From: http://history1900s.about.com/od/194...mpirecrash.htm
Click to expand...

tons? - WARNING/CAUTION Physics required, "very complicated"
10 - the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed
141 - the one hundred forty one ton, 767 airliner smashed with 72 times more energy
138 - the one hundred thirty eight ton, 767 airliner smashed with 112 times more energy

The B-25 weighed 21,000 pounds, and would have not made much impact on the WTC, maybe a dent, like a bird on a plane. The WTC were strong enough to stop airliners going 200 mph, the little B-25 would be 1/10 the impact of the design spec Robertson had, and was verified by engineers. The impact of 911 were 72 and 112 times the imact of the B-25 at the Empire State Building. Remember, 911 truth can't check these numbers because the "very complicated" use of physics was involved!
Energy911.jpg

The reason fuel streamed down the ESB, was due to the low energy of impact. Flight 11 and 175 were going so fast they entered the building because they had 7 to 11 times the energy it took to break the shell of the WTC. 911 truth no-plane believers can't figure this out because very complicated physics was used. Physics was used to make the graph above, a "very complicated" graph no-planers will fail to comprehend, and remain in ignorance spreading lies.
 
Anders Lindman said:
That the fireball explosions should have started directly at impact, with lots of jet fuel splashed across the facade of the towers. For example the floors would have constituted an enormous horizontal resistance, and the wings hit the facades at an angle, intersecting several floors.
Click to expand...

Both aircraft entered into the towers, you know it, and so does everyone else. The evidence is overwhelming.

You do know that Jet A fuel is a combustible liquid and not a flammable liquid… right? You do understand the terms LEL and UEL… right? Good, then start over and try again. But, this time do better.
 
tsig said:
Then why did you link to a video that didn't do any of that?
Click to expand...

Because the video showed examples real life crashes. Calculations and simulations can be very inaccurate, as the simulation of the flight 175 crash showed. That's my gut feeling.
 
beachnut said:
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Energy911.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Wow. This shows imo that the plane, if it had been a real plane, would have exploded against the facade of the building, not inside the building.
 
fess said:
Both aircraft entered into the towers, you know it, and so does everyone else. The evidence is overwhelming.

You do know that Jet A fuel is a combustible liquid and not a flammable liquid… right? You do understand the terms LEL and UEL… right? Good, then start over and try again. But, this time do better.
Click to expand...

I'm quite certain that the fuel of real planes would have splashed a lot across the facade of the towers. Sure, a lot of fuel would have splashed into the buildings too, but not all of it.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Because the video showed examples real life crashes. Calculations and simulations can be very inaccurate, as the simulation of the flight 175 crash showed. That's my gut feeling.
Click to expand...

Your gut feeling is irrelevant.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Much less than the building. Like a mosquito against an express train.
Click to expand...
So how does an armour piecing bullet penetrate tank armour? The round is like a mosquito against an express train no? Your as dumb as you are ignorant as shown by your statement.
 
Sunstealer said:
So how does an armour piecing bullet penetrate tank armour? The round is like a mosquito against an express train no? Your as dumb as you are ignorant as shown by your statement.
Click to expand...

Airliners are not built with depleted uranium.
 
Redtail said:
Your gut feeling is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Here are some more hard data, related to this:

"A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability

Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow

The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?"

From: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/911_Aircraft_Speed_Deets.html
 
Anders Lindman said:
This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots.
Click to expand...

These are recommended maximum velocities for the safe operation of the aircraft, not maximum achievable limits. Exceeding these velocities may result in damage to the airframe which will, in the long term, compromise the safe operation of the aircraft. They can very easily be exceeded without losing control. Since the hijackers weren't interested in keeping the aircraft in a safe condition, they weren't too worried about exceeding safe operating velocities. Deets has had this pointed out to him repeatedly on this forum.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
These are recommended maximum velocities for the safe operation of the aircraft, not maximum achievable limits. Exceeding these velocities may result in damage to the airframe which will, in the long term, compromise the safe operation of the aircraft. They can very easily be exceeded without losing control. Since the hijackers weren't interested in keeping the aircraft in a safe condition, they weren't too worried about exceeding safe operating velocities. Deets has had this pointed out to him repeatedly on this forum.

Dave
Click to expand...

Even at so low altitude?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom