Missile??

[Grizzly Bear]

Explain any of these to me? It hasn't been done yet.

Oh? Then why is it is every physics book that this phenomenon called "friction" is discussed? Things like energy created in the form of heat because of the friction occuring between two different materials... Is there any compelling reason why this should be ignored?

Energy from friction creates heat. For example when you rub your hands, sharpen a pencil, make a skid mark with your bike, or use the brakes on your car, friction generates heat.

Source

Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tiGbrVlptQ

Maybe if you're looking for an elementary school explanation, you could try this:

Making Heat
How do you make heat? You could burn things (chemical reactions), or you could rub things together (friction).

source

 

[tmd2_1]

Oh? Then why is it is every physics book that this phenomenon called "friction" is discussed? Things like energy created in the form of heat because of the friction occuring between two different materials... Is there any compelling reason why this should be ignored?

Source

Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tiGbrVlptQ

Maybe if you're looking for an elementary school explanation, you could try this:

source

Yeah because the flash happens before impact, and it wouldn't even begin to explain the flash/flame coming out of the A/C.

 

[dafydd]

Yeah because the flash happens before impact, and it wouldn't even begin to explain the flash/flame coming out of the A/C.

It has been explained to you,but you appear to be too obtuse to understand. How far have you got with physics at your school?

 

[bill smith]

Maybe that stuff is true but I think it hurts 9-11 truth to use it.
I dont think there would be a need (or surreptitious manner) in which to replace the perimeter columns! The fuel in the wings and the engines were the most substantial parts of the planes and at that speed tore right through those hollow perimeter columns/wall assemblies, leaving their rough outline on the buildings facade.

If I were you I would just stick to the facts that prove the use of explosives:
There is NOTHING theoretical about these facts:

-The speed and symmetry in the destruction of wtc 1,2&7
-WTC7's implosion
-The Squibs and the Explosiveness of wtc 1&2 which literally erupted creating massive debris fields, pulverizing most of the 160 tons of concrete and blasting it, the superstructures and perimeter wall assemblies and building contents all over the surrounding streets! The streets were strewn with thousands of body parts. And despite a two years search for human remains (at Freshkills Landfill, SI) there remained no discernible genetic trace of 1100 human beings. They remain: 'unaccounted for.'
-The witness and first responder testimony.
-The 99 day fires. With excessive heat *up to 2800f days after 9/11 (see Bechtel and NASA readings even weeks late).
-The elemental iron microspheres
-the Molten metal: See: fema bpat http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm
-NIST's refusal to even test for explosives despite the procedural mandate to do so. And what their spokesperson said when asked. 'why not?' 'Its a waste of time to look for something that isn't present" they replied.
-Danish hero Dr Niels Harrit et al's study is undeniable proof of the presence of advance-engineered thermitic explosives in the WTC dust. Like the Anthrax attacks of the same time period, it leads right back to US military labs and contractors.
And the highly revealing clip used in The NORTH TOWER EXPLODING VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

There's more.. but this should be enough for most reasonable people to realize that, at the very least, a proper investigation (you know, one that actually considers the evidence and does not begin with it's conclusions) is needed.

I agree with most of what you say but I do not believe, and am not willing to assume that the delicate aircraft slid through the steel wall of the WTC as if you could slip your hand into a mirror. That is impossible.

So that leaves me with the choice of believing in no-planes (for which there is ample evidence it must be said) and looking at the possibility that the columns in the impact area were replaced with something much weaker than steel to facilitate the entrance of the aircraft into the building in the manner we saw.

I know which of these two choices would be easist for the perps to implement. Do you agree ?

 

[The Platypus]

I agree with most of what you say but I do not believe, and am not willing to assume that the delicate aircraft slid through the steel wall of the WTC as if you could slip your hand into a mirror. That is impossible.

So that leaves me with the choice of believing in no-planes (for which there is ample evidence it must be said) and looking at the possibility that the columns in the impact area were replaced with something much weaker than steel to facilitate the entrance of the aircraft into the building in the manner we saw.

I know which of these two choices would be easist for the perps to implement. Do you agree ?

I know an easier choice that makes even more sense... You are wrong.

What is it with 911 kooks that they can't ever be mature enough to admit that they could be wrong about anything. Why is it so much easier to believe in lies, even as ridiculous as "no planes", than it is to admit to yourself that you don't understand some things and that you don't know everything. Weird...

 

[bill smith]

I know an easier choice... You are wrong.

What is it with 911 kooks that they can't ever be mature enough to admit that they could be wrong about anything. Is it so much easier for you to believe in lies, even as ridiculous as "no planes", than it is for you to admit to yourself that you don't understand physics. Weird...

That's the very point. Replacing sections of the perimeter columns in the impact areas with fake columns of a weaker material than the original steel is much LESS exotic than the no-planes theory.

 

[The Platypus]

That's the very point. Replacing sections of the perimeter columns in the impact areas with fake columns of a weaker material than the original steel is much LESS exotic than the no-planes theory.

That you are wrong about the entire scenario to begin with and that you just don't understand physics enough, is the most plausible and the least exotic theory.

 

[Blaupunkt69]

Well there's several scenarios I can think of, but Airport security at the highest levels would have had to have been involved. Security at all 3 airports just happened to be run by the same company at the time. Coincidence I'm sure. If airport security was involved it is possible. For me to give scenario's would only be speculation on my part. This thread was started as a question, I was looking for an explanation for the flash(es) so far I have only seen one that seems to be possible at all. But seems extremely unlikely, and that's static discharge.

Airport security was involved in this conspiracy too? How many people would that be roughly? What is the total number of people needed to pull off your conspiracy fantasy? Is it the more the merrier or do conspiracies work better when you have fewer people in on it?

 

[leftysergeant]

So that leaves me with the choice of believing in no-planes (for which there is ample evidence it must be said) and looking at the possibility that the columns in the impact area were replaced with something much weaker than steel to facilitate the entrance of the aircraft into the building in the manner we saw.

This is more plausible than THIS.

It is also equally probably that Elvis has been hiding out in the Hindu Kush for thirty years waiting for a chance to live in an actual Christian nation some day.

There is no way to replace the steel columns with another material unobserved. It is also impossible to break them in the manner observed other than to hit them with a solid object shaped like the hole seen in the side of the buildings.

The only thing in the world shaped like that, and of the appropriate size, is an passenger aircraft about the size of a 757.

Sorry, no cigar.

 

[leftysergeant]

I agree with most of what you say but I do not believe, and am not willing to assume that the delicate aircraft slid through the steel wall of the WTC as if you could slip your hand into a mirror. That is impossible.

Did you know that it is possible to blow your brains out with a paper bullet?

ETA: I am NOT suggesting that any bleedin drongo try this, because I know that they will succede, and I will get blamed for it.

 

[WildCat]

Well there's several scenarios I can think of, but Airport security at the highest levels would have had to have been involved. Security at all 3 airports just happened to be run by the same company at the time. Coincidence I'm sure. If airport security was involved it is possible. For me to give scenario's would only be speculation on my part. This thread was started as a question, I was looking for an explanation for the flash(es) so far I have only seen one that seems to be possible at all. But seems extremely unlikely, and that's static discharge.

Your incredibly huge list of co-conspirators gets even larger...

 

[tjlance1]

It's truly a waste of time trying to rationally speak to truthers..as ten years have gone by, the more their claims are proven wrong, the wilder the claims become. It's a snowball effect. Unconsciously, they realize that what they believed isn't true, so in order to perpetuate their belief, a new theory is developed. Unfortunately for truthers, there is NOTHING that supports their belief...

 

[Dash80]

Yeah because the flash happens before impact, and it wouldn't even begin to explain the flash/flame coming out of the A/C.

*points and laughs*

Oh tmd you do make me chuckle. Physics wasn't my best subject but even I understand friction!

 

[dafydd]

Tmd is confusing friction and fiction.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yeah because the flash happens before impact, and it wouldn't even begin to explain the flash/flame coming out of the A/C.

The flash happens upon first contact with the wall, and it creates enough friction to generate sparks as it does so. Friction between two objects releases heat energy, as you know full well. The "other flash" you refer to is not apparent in any other video shot of the aircraft and frankly you've done nothing but speculate when the answer to your question was a simple look into a physics book.

Bill Smith I see from the quotes is being his usual self; suggesting the columns themselves must have been replaced to make them weaker. The sheer stupidity of that idea is only matched by the thinking that a passenger airliner was firing a missile into the building with nothing to show for evidence except for a frame artifact in a single video out of hundreds

 

[Dash80]

That's the very point. Replacing sections of the perimeter columns in the impact areas with fake columns of a weaker material than the original steel is much LESS exotic than the no-planes theory.

Ok bill whatever you say. Replacing a large number of exterior column assemblies on New York's two tallest buildings... without anyone noticing. Sure, very plausible!

Even killer cream pies sounds more sane than that.

 

[Animal]

That you are wrong about the entire scenario to begin with and that you just don't understand physics enough, is the most plausible and the least exotic theory.

Why is it such a hard concept to accept for troofers, that the horizontal loading caused by the impact of the aircraft far exceeded the failure points of the steel columns that were never design for such loads?

 

[Dash80]

Why is it such a hard concept to accept for troofers, that the horizontal loading caused by the impact of the aircraft far exceeded the failure points of the steel columns that were never design for such loads?

Because they prefer ignorance?

It's funny, the famous Frank De Martini quote concerning the ability of the towers to survive "multiple jet impacts" also contains the information that they would still penetrate the structure. Truthers (mostly no planers/missile loons) trot out the survival quote and ignore the rest.

 

[djlunacee]

First of all this is not a "theory" it is a question. I certainly don't base the whole collapse of the towers on whether or not that was missile. Far from it. A question that no one has really given much of a plausible answer to. In fact only one is at all possible. Although I have found no evidence of any discharge looking anything like what we see.

So your JAQqing off? Then why refuse to listen to the answers given by those who are professionals in the relevant fields?

No I don't mean the U.S government. I mean a relatively small criminal cabal inside of it, a cabal that also includes people from other countries, as well as some other "elite".

Really? Who?

I've never once claimed hushaboom bombs or anything like that. First of all there are numerous eye witnesses that say they heard explosions. So I do not know what may have or may not have been used.

Progress! Admitting you don't know something! Maybe you might try to listen to those here who do.

Why would they want to eliminate fall back? Simple they would want as little of the plane to be found as possible. Because the parts may not match what they should have been.

This may be one of the silliest things I have ever heard. Please reread and think about what you are saying here.

Now I know you will say, parts were found, this is true. But it may surprise you to know (and this has all been covered in this thread previously) that no parts serial numbers have been publicly declared to match what they should have been. It doesn't even look like it was done at all. See here
http://911blogger.com/node/14406

You have contacted the insurance companies who paid out millions in insurance claims to American and United Airlines? I am sure they would be interested to know there is a possibility they paid out when they didn't need to, right? Or could it be they had no doubt, that the planes identified as flights 11,175,77,93 were paid out on the proper insurance claims?

Now you can say there is no doubt as to what the planes were, so there is no need to look into it. Well I can give several answers. First this is not a very difficult thing to do. You get the serial, and enter into a database to see which plane it belongs. Or you can look at the serial numbers it should have been through that database, and see if they match the numbers found. It's not like DNA testing which is expensive and timely. Also there's recorded evidence that the flight was still in the air according to flight explorer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdXGSefI6pM

Do you understand what happens when a planes transponder is turned off?

 

[fess]

Well there's several scenarios I can think of, but Airport security at the highest levels would have had to have been involved. Security at all 3 airports just happened to be run by the same company at the time. Coincidence I'm sure. If airport security was involved it is possible. For me to give scenario's would only be speculation on my part. This thread was started as a question, I was looking for an explanation for the flash(es) so far I have only seen one that seems to be possible at all. But seems extremely unlikely, and that's static discharge.

Nice dodge.

Since when did airport security have anything to do with servicing the aircraft? So far, the only ones that “Trutherville” hasn’t implicated in this conspiracy are the parking lot attendants.

You cannot continue to speculate about this missile being used if you can’t show how this missile was attached to the aircraft to begin with.

Like I said, it’s very simple. Just show who, what, where, how, and when.