Merged No Planer calls for scientific study / Missiles of 9/11

Are you winding me up or yourself? Can you elaborate on this equation? Resist in what form?

So you are arguing about the impact but you are unfamiliar with the basic equation of Kinetic Energy? I don't know about the US education system but that was part of the O-Level Physics syllabus I took between the ages of 14-16, in other words pretty basic stuff. To put it simply for you assuming all else is equal the energy of a moving object increases as the square of its velocity 500 mph is about 2.8 times 180 so the 500mph impact has about about 7.7 times as much energy as a 180mph one would.

In even simpler terms an building designed to survive a 180mph impact hasn't a snowball in hell's chance against a 500mph impact.
 
How that plane could make its own imprint in a rigid steel frame and tell the tale afterwards?

Erm, are you seriously saying you don't understand how a fully laden passenger jet moving at ~500mph penetrated a steel, glass and aluminum facade?
:confused:
 
Erm, are you seriously saying you don't understand how a fully laden passenger jet moving at ~500mph penetrated a steel, glass and aluminum facade?
:confused:


Truthers believe that the jet should have bounced off the side of the building with a loud "BOING!" and then wafted gently to the ground like an autumn leaf.

OK, that's a bit of s strawman but only a bit.
 
So you are arguing about the impact but you are unfamiliar with the basic equation of Kinetic Energy? I don't know about the US education system but that was part of the O-Level Physics syllabus I took between the ages of 14-16, in other words pretty basic stuff. To put it simply for you assuming all else is equal the energy of a moving object increases as the square of its velocity 500 mph is about 2.8 times 180 so the 500mph impact has about about 7.7 times as much energy as a 180mph one would.

In even simpler terms an building designed to survive a 180mph impact hasn't a snowball in hell's chance against a 500mph impact.
Your equation will work on solid objects only and then you have to think about their densities. You can not plug into an equation numbers freely willy and go home happy as a clam. It was an aluminum shell bubble vs steel wall. You have been told the shell somehow cut neatly through that crate of hardened steel and was given general physical expression as explanation. An impact like that would result in anything but what you saw in the videos. There was no way the aluminum shell could cut through the wall without anything done to that wall prior to the impact or at east during the impact. It would have been pancaked, turned to dust, incinerated, and that at any high speed and above. There was no debris coming down the wall. There was no explosion on contact, no fire, the plane was just swallowed. It was swallowed not because of the kinetic energy with which it hit the wall, but because most likely the columns had been undone in the place of impact, not a big deal.
 
Erm, are you seriously saying you don't understand how a fully laden passenger jet moving at ~500mph penetrated a steel, glass and aluminum facade?
:confused:
Fully laden with air. The frontal part of the plane cut through steel as easily as the section where the engines were. The engines were the only heavy solids of the plane that could go through that wall.
 
Your equation will work on solid objects only and then you have to think about their densities. You can not plug into an equation numbers freely willy and go home happy as a clam. It was an aluminum shell bubble vs steel wall. You have been told the shell somehow cut neatly through that crate of hardened steel and was given general physical expression as explanation. An impact like that would result in anything but what you saw in the videos. There was no way the aluminum shell could cut through the wall without anything done to that wall prior to the impact or at east during the impact. It would have been pancaked, turned to dust, incinerated, and that at any high speed and above. There was no debris coming down the wall. There was no explosion on contact, no fire, the plane was just swallowed. It was swallowed not because of the kinetic energy with which it hit the wall, but because most likely the columns had been undone in the place of impact, not a big deal.
You're joking or you flunked out of high-school.
 
Your equation will work on solid objects only and then you have to think about their densities. You can not plug into an equation numbers freely willy and go home happy as a clam. It was an aluminum shell bubble vs steel wall. You have been told the shell somehow cut neatly through that crate of hardened steel and was given general physical expression as explanation. An impact like that would result in anything but what you saw in the videos. There was no way the aluminum shell could cut through the wall without anything done to that wall prior to the impact or at east during the impact. It would have been pancaked, turned to dust, incinerated, and that at any high speed and above. There was no debris coming down the wall. There was no explosion on contact, no fire, the plane was just swallowed. It was swallowed not because of the kinetic energy with which it hit the wall, but because most likely the columns had been undone in the place of impact, not a big deal.

That was a very long winded way to admit you don't understand the concept of Kinetic Energy.
 
Your equation will work on solid objects only and then you have to think about their densities. You can not plug into an equation numbers freely willy and go home happy as a clam. It was an aluminum shell bubble vs steel wall. You have been told the shell somehow cut neatly through that crate of hardened steel and was given general physical expression as explanation. An impact like that would result in anything but what you saw in the videos. There was no way the aluminum shell could cut through the wall without anything done to that wall prior to the impact or at east during the impact. It would have been pancaked, turned to dust, incinerated, and that at any high speed and above. There was no debris coming down the wall. There was no explosion on contact, no fire, the plane was just swallowed. It was swallowed not because of the kinetic energy with which it hit the wall, but because most likely the columns had been undone in the place of impact, not a big deal.

You truly have no idea what you are saying do you?

Simply answer is yes an airline traveling at around 500mph would cut through the facade. With a sledgehammer you yourself could make a hole in a wall.

Could you draw a vector diagram showing exactly how debris (I assume you mean from the plane) actually could fall down the wall at impact?

I could draw a diagram showing why debris would not fall down the wall but I will describe it for you. An arrow pointing at the wall, smaller arrow pointing in opposite direction. The only way debris could fall down is if they had some component of it's velocity pointing down orvaway from the direction of the plane. If the plane hit a solid wall like in the video then on impact the debris would fall away from the wall.

But as you saw on the day the plane passed through the facade, the debris maintained forward momentum. Just like a ball passing through a window.

Of course the explosion of the jet fuel would change the situation a little, possible blowing light debris (low inertia) out of the whole, but the explosion itself is going to have no good effect on the building anyway.

When impact happens it isn't like video games where you bounce of.

Seriously try the car impacting on wall experiment I described earlier, let us know how it turns out for you.

It's a win win for you. You'll learn about energy and inertia, and if you are lucky enough to break through the wall you will understand how fast moving objects can pass through solid objects.

Do you have and science or engineering background at all?
 
Last edited:
It was swallowed not because of the kinetic energy with which it hit the wall, but because most likely the columns had been undone in the place of impact, not a big deal.

"the columns had been undone" ?

What, the window-washer guys came down in their cradle and "undid" the columns? And nobody in the offices noticed? Then the plane hit exactly the right spot?

If you want to embarrass yourself please do it in private in future.
 
A plane-shaped 500 mph blast of air would have penetrated the tower. Think of the plane as the delivery mechanism for the air (and thousands of gallons of jet fuel).

Forget the fuel. It ignited after the wall was severed.
A blast of air...
 
And to illustrate the point about kinetic energy Mikeys if you think Aluminium couldn't cut through Steel then how the heck do they cut metal with water?:

Water jet cutter

You need to understand its not about the materials its about the energy.
 
"the columns had been undone" ?

What, the window-washer guys came down in their cradle and "undid" the columns? And nobody in the offices noticed? Then the plane hit exactly the right spot?
Mexicans can do anything for a buck.
 
Fully laden with air. The frontal part of the plane cut through steel as easily as the section where the engines were. The engines were the only heavy solids of the plane that could go through that wall.

How much mass is in the air? LOL, you can't do the simple math and science to make a rational claim; you make no claims at all. An anti-science 911 truth believer.
 
How much mass is in the air? LOL, you can't do the simple math and science to make a rational claim; you make no claims at all. An anti-science 911 truth believer.
I don't negate that the total weight of the plane and velocity could destroy the section of the wall but how it happened.
 
Your equation will work on solid objects only and then you have to think about their densities. You can not plug into an equation numbers freely willy and go home happy as a clam. It was an aluminum shell bubble vs steel wall. You have been told the shell somehow cut neatly through that crate of hardened steel and was given general physical expression as explanation. An impact like that would result in anything but what you saw in the videos. There was no way the aluminum shell could cut through the wall without anything done to that wall prior to the impact or at east during the impact. It would have been pancaked, turned to dust, incinerated, and that at any high speed and above. There was no debris coming down the wall. There was no explosion on contact, no fire, the plane was just swallowed. It was swallowed not because of the kinetic energy with which it hit the wall, but because most likely the columns had been undone in the place of impact, not a big deal.

You keep proving you have no clue what physics is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM9FeEgI0Eo

I love it when people make up what they think physics should be, instead of showing their work.

There is no explosion on impact, there is nothing to exploded in the nose. The fuel can't ignite until it hits parts of the Engine that are on fire, or hotter than 450C. You forgot to do the research required to be rational on 911. You picked up nonsense you made up, or plagiarized from 911 truth and spread it like gospel, your religion of woo.
 
And to illustrate the point about kinetic energy Mikeys if you think Aluminium couldn't cut through Steel then how the heck do they cut metal with water?:

Water jet cutter

You need to understand its not about the materials its about the energy.

they add abrasive mixes to water and the pressure applied is continuous. They don't just blast an aluminum bubble filled with water against the cutting object at high speed.
 
I don't negate that the total weight of the plane and velocity could destroy the section of the wall but how it happened.
You make no sense. What are you trying to say?

The aircraft did the damage seen, all by itself, no help needed. The impact was more energy than some cruise missiles; If a missile was used, it would be pathetically small. We don't use aircraft as weapons because they COST too much. A 767 going 590 mph carrying 10,000 gallons (66,000 pounds) of fuel is more energy than 75 cruise missiles. And you don't have a clue why.

The center section of the plane is very strong, and the mass is enough to destroy the shell, and destroy part of the core columns. It is called physics, math and science; what 911 truth avoids.

I don't negate that the total weight of the plane and velocity could destroy the section of the wall but how it happened.
You mean no one can fly into a building? It is easy to fly a jet, and the 767 is easy to fly.
RADAR proves it was Flight 175, from takeoff to landing. Is RADAR something you understand?

Are you a missile did it? If so you failed to realize a missile would have orders of magnitude less kinetic energy. A cruise missile has 22 times less kinetic energy than Flight 77. That is significant. The missile did it 911 truthers are unable to do physics, math, and rational research.

Have you retracted 767s are made of aluminum foil? You have been fooled by nuts who made up lies about 911, lies, and they call themselves 911 truth. irony
 

Back
Top Bottom