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

[Garrison]

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.

And guess who didn't read the article which mentions that the jets works without abrasives as well? To quote the very first sentence:

A water jet cutter, also known as a waterjet,[1] is a tool capable of slicing into metal or other materials (such as granite) using a jet of water at high velocity and pressure, or a mixture of water and an abrasive substance.:

It's the kinetic energy that gives the jet its primary cutting power, the abrasives just make it more effective on certain materials.

 

[Mikeys]

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.

Good reasoning. do you know of examples of soft fast moving objects passing through hard flexible solid objects in a blast.

 

[JohnG]

Lurking Truthers everywhere, I give you...your spokesman!

Mexicans can do anything for a buck.

Embarrassing, isn't it?

 

[DGM]

Good reasoning. do you know of examples of soft fast moving objects passing through hard flexible solid objects in a blast.

Like a bullet though steel?

 

[beachnut]

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.

LOL, the aircraft mass cuts through the WTC shell, because it has enough mass and energy, which you agree with when you say water and abrasive cuts steel.

The water and abrasive is like the aircraft shot at the steel. The plane is continuous, it is call newton's first law.

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

Oops, we have continuous until the external force, the building stops the motion; you don't do physics, so this will not stop you from posting more woo. ... the more you post, the more you diverge from reality and physics.

Have you done the math? Have you solved for 175, using E=1/2mv²
You don't respect the v squared.

 

[DGM]

Lurking Truthers everywhere, I give you...your spokesman!




Embarrassing, isn't it?

Best they have. It's easier if they flunk out of school first.

 

[Mikeys]

Like a bullet though steel?

Do they cut steel by blast of air?

 

[000063]

I can't I am just a pony. ....

The one trick kind, apparently.

 

[000063]

Why only some.

The same reason a high school English class doesn't discuss every word of every page of To Kill a Mockingbird.

You see, there was no impact on WTC7, just mystery.

If you can't prove conspiracy on the towers, you can't prove conspiracy on 7. Unless you're claiming that 7 was only rigged after 1 fell on it. Which is even more impossible than rigging one of the towers.

Fire has made steel buildings collapse before.

The speed was 500mph in both cases.

Really? The plane in the video was going at that speed? Where is it stated? Maybe I missed it. You are aware that an increase in mass is an exponential force increase, even if the objects in comparison are traveling at the same speed? You are aware that WTC was not a concrete wall?

 

[DGM]

Do they cut steel by blast of air?

Who cares? Everything you've claimed so far is based in la-la land. Seriously, did you graduate high school (yet)?

 

[beachnut]

Good reasoning. do you know of examples of soft fast moving objects passing through hard flexible solid objects in a blast.

A duck breaking the cockpit window and breaking the pilots shoulder.

It makes no sense. What blast?

The kinetic energy blast, the one you deny.

 

[Mikeys]

Look guys, you have to make a decision what made that hole.
a. aluminum shell
b. explosion
c. air blast
d. superman
It has to be some kind of matter.

 

[DGM]

Look guys, you have to make a decision what made that hole.
a. aluminum shell
b. explosion
c. air blast
d. superman
It has to be some kind of matter.

Why no "airplane" option? Is that to straight forward for you to understand?

 

[beachnut]

Look guys, you have to make a decision what made that hole.
a. aluminum shell
b. explosion
c. air blast
d. superman
It has to be some kind of matter.

Flight 175 at 590 mph. You failed to do your research and don't use science to form rational claims, posts, and conclusions.

RADAR proves it was an aircraft, exactly Flight 175.
The plane is more than an Al shell, it is people, luggage, steel, titanium, stainless steel, Kevlar, fiberglass, 66,000 pounds of jet fuel, etc.

It was Flt 175, 277,580 pounds at impact, 125,908 kg, going 590 mph, 865 kph, impact energy of 2093 pounds of TNT; do you need that in Joules?

 

[Mikeys]

Flight 175 at 590 mph. You failed to do your research and don't use science to form rational claims, posts, and conclusions.

RADAR proves it was an aircraft, exactly Flight 175.
The plane is more than an Al shell, it is people, luggage, steel, titanium, stainless steel, Kevlar, fiberglass, 66,000 pounds of jet fuel, etc.

It was Flt 175, 277,580 pounds at impact, 125,908 kg, going 590 mph, 865 kph, impact energy of 2093 pounds of TNT; do you need that in Joules?

These are impressive numbers. So impressive they even ignore Newtonian laws. When you look at the videos and run them in slow motion you will notice there was no deceleration right after the impact. The plane continued at its former speed. Collision with the wall? No such thing happened. That's why it flew so smoothly through a rigid steel wall that was not there.

 

[Garrison]

Look guys, you have to make a decision what made that hole.
a. aluminum shell
b. explosion
c. air blast
d. superman
It has to be some kind of matter.

One more time its about energy. The combined elements of the aircraft contained a huge amount of kinetic energy, a large amount of which was transferred to the building structure with catastrophic results. Then on top of this the chemical energy of the fuel and other flammable materials was transferred to it by combustion. Now if you can't understand some of those terms you shouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Garrison]

These are impressive numbers. So impressive they even ignore Newtonian laws. When you look at the videos and run them in slow motion you will notice there was no deceleration right after the impact. The plane continued at its former speed. Collision with the wall? No such thing happened. That's why it flew so smoothly through a rigid steel wall that was not there.

So now the outer wall was composed of sheet steel? And how did you make the measurements to determine there was no deceleration? How much deceleration did you calculate there should have been in such an impact?

 

[DGM]

These are impressive numbers. So impressive they even ignore Newtonian laws. ..................

So, what's the deal Mikeys? Did the boyfriend get his hours cut a Burger King again? Can't afford to take you out so you post here for company?

It's obvious.

No one is this stupid.

Newtonian laws? Tell you what, if you can explain what laws were broken (and how*) , I'll never post again.

*it actually has to be Newtonian laws, not you're understanding of them.


I'm not in the least bit worried.

 

[BrianH]

...a rigid steel wall that was not there.

Well, he has something right at least.

 

[Mikeys]

One more time its about energy. The combined elements of the aircraft contained a huge amount of kinetic energy, a large amount of which was transferred to the building structure with catastrophic results. Then on top of this the chemical energy of the fuel and other flammable materials was transferred to it by combustion. Now if you can't understand some of those terms you shouldn't be having this conversation.

I admit I don't understand combustion. Is it some form of compost?
Why not just say that fire melted the frame and we will have another straw man laughing at the absurdity of such a thing.