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

[Mikeys]

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?

It finally decelerated when it hit the inner grid and platforms. In fact, it did what it should have done when it met the outer wall, that is stop and explode. It returned to the real world and started following Newtonian laws, which is something I wish believers did one day.

 

[beachnut]

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.

Wrong! No Newton laws were broken on 911, you got that from the failed nuts at 911 truth; a plagiarized claim based on ignorance.

LOL, you don't do physics. Flight 175 decelerated as soon as the engines stopped putting out 126 thousand pounds of thrust. You forgot the plane was flying into the WTC at full throttle - you failed again.

Rigid? The WTC swayed in the wind. Rigid? Try to get something right.

Until the engines are destroyed they are producing thrust, pushing the plane into the WTC. Called physics, what you don't know.

With the KE of 2093 pounds of TNT, Flt 175 has over 10 times the energy required to break into the WTC. 10 times - do you do math? NO

... what made that hole.
a. aluminum shell

An aircraft is more than an Al shell, which you think is foil. Even the wings have enough mass to do major damage. You left out Flt 175 doing it! The reality based answer you left out.

... what made that hole.
b. explosion

An explosion can't make the walls suck into the WTC. This is the dumbest answer, only an idiot would pick it after seeing what really made the "hole" where all on board 175 died - the event you make fun of by spreading nonsense and exposing a growing ignorance of science.

... what made that hole.
c. air blast

You left out the reality answer, why not make more fun of 911 victims.

... what made that hole.
d. superman

In your fantasy world this is as good as your explosion and air-blast nonsense.

... what made that hole.
It has to be some kind of matter.

Flight 175.

 

[Montag451]

It finally decelerated when it hit the inner grid and platforms. In fact, it did what it should have done when it met the outer wall, that is stop and explode. It returned to the real world and started following Newtonian laws, which is something I wish believers did one day.

You have to be trolling. Nobody of right mind would actually write what you just did.

It finally decelerated when it hit the inner grid and it did in fact also stop and explode at the outer wall.

Do you have any idea of what Newton's Laws actually are?

I'll paraphrase them for you

1. An object will stay at rest or at a constant velocity unless acted on by an external force.
2. Force is proportional to the acceleration for a constant mass
3. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction

Now you know the basics could you describe how these laws will suddenly stop a plane dead at impact and explode. The only way is if the facade Is of sufficient strength for it to resist the impact without failing.

Are you really suggesting that the facade of the towers was strong enough to resist the impact with no failure and the hole is the result of an external explosion?

 

[Montag451]

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.

Why use the word melted if you have no understanding of thermodynamics?

Put a candle in you window on a hot day and watch it flop over without melting.

Steel loses tensile strength with heat, the same as the candle, no melting has to be involved.

 

[beachnut]

It finally decelerated when it hit the inner grid and platforms. In fact, it did what it should have done when it met the outer wall, that is stop and explode. It returned to the real world and started following Newtonian laws, which is something I wish believers did one day.

The exterior of the WTC towers at that height could only repel a plane going 200 mph. It is math and physics. I cheated, I also asked the structural engineer who built the WTC towers, and then his work, what he said was confirmed by other engineers; 200 mph was the magic number for the WTC as built. Guess what, thicker steel would stop an aircraft - all you need to do is calculate it. The design was based on an accidental impact, an aircraft lost in the fog low on fuel, landing pattern speed. But then you don't care, you spread delusional claims based on nonsense.

The impact was all Newton's laws. You never took physics, aircraft design, and building design. It shows. Yet, it only takes a grade school education to debunk your failed claims.

You failed to show your work for your no deceleration claim, where is it?

... it should have done when it met the outer wall, that is stop and explode. ...

This is nonsense based on your own gullibility and ignorance of physics.

How can the aircraft stop when it has 10 times the energy required to break the WTC shell? Please show your math.

 

[Mikeys]

Rigid? The WTC swayed in the wind. Rigid? Try to get something right.

so...

Until the engines are destroyed they are producing thrust, pushing the plane into the WTC. Called physics, what you don't know.

pushing a bubble filled with air through a damn strong wall.

With the KE of 2093 pounds of TNT, Flt 175 has over 10 times the energy required to break into the WTC. 10 times - do you do math? NO

Was this energy compacted into a solid as is the case with bullets? If not, analogy does not apply.

Even the wings have enough mass to do major damage.

to a flock of birds(at a risk)

An explosion can't make the walls suck into the WTC. This is the dumbest answer, only an idiot would pick it after seeing what really made the "hole" where all on board 175 died - the event you make fun of by spreading nonsense and exposing a growing ignorance of science.

I think it was the only plane that hit anything that day in America. And I don't think it had passengers on board.

In your fantasy world this is as good as your explosion and air-blast nonsense.

These are not mine suggestions. I saw them on this thread. Your special buddies out to help.

 

[Montag451]

Have you ever been on a plane?

Is a bus or train a bubble of air?

Do you think if the whole plane was compressed into a solid mass it would have been able to break through?

Please answer these simple questions, they may help me understand your reasoning.

 

[Montag451]

Oops double post

 

[beachnut]

so... .

How rigid were the towers? How much did they sway? You don't do reality based answers, or what?

pushing a bubble filled with air through a damn strong wall. .

Flight 175, not a bubble based on your failed concept of reality. Real people killed by real terrorists that you apologize for.

A 300,000 pounds bubble.

Was this energy compacted into a solid as is the case with bullets? If not, analogy does not apply.

Once again, proof you don't do physics.
Oh, now shotguns don't work. Good one, you lack of science is showing.

to a flock of birds(at a risk)

The wings are very strong, or they would fall apart at high speed. You don't understand engineering, and aircraft. This is the best you can do, or are you saving more delusional lies for your finally. Why are you so gullible?

I think it was the only plane that hit anything that day in America. And I don't think it had passengers on board.

Why not spread a lie based on your ignorance? Have you told the relatives and families of those killed? Have you told your lies to anyone in their face? You like to spread lies, apologizing for terrorists.

These are not mine suggestions. I saw them on this thread. Your special buddies out to help.

You posted the dumbest answers possible, you are doing a parody of a failed 911 truth follower?

Funny how you waited to do your 911 lies; standard junk for someone who has failed before. A sleeper account; did you loose your password in 2009? lol, you never took physics, and recycle failed claims from 911 truth.

Got the numbers yet for your proof 175 did not decelerate?
Your numbers yet for why 175 would stop at the shell?
Got math?

 

[Redwood]

The material only really changes how quickly the energy (and inertia) disperses. Granted aluminum is softer than steel, but so is lead. If the lead is moving fast enough it will break through a steel sheet. It gets deformed in the process but the inertia carries it through.

Often harder materials are less easily able to withstand impact. They are hard because their structure does nit tend to allow their crystalline structure (as in the case of steel) to flow and deform around an impact. This is one reason we use steel instead of cast iron these day.

I once tested some 1/2" cast iron plate against .30 caliber light-armor piercing rifle ammunition and standard, soft core, expanding hunting-type ammunition. The steel-jacketed, steel core AP bullet approximated an elastic collision, bouncing off and leaving only a shallow crater. The soft core bullet acted inelastically, flattening itself against the iron plate and transferring the rest of its energy to the target, and blew a hole about twice its own diameter through the cast iron.

 

[Mikeys]

Have you ever been on a plane?

Is a bus or train a bubble of air?

Do you think if the whole plane was compressed into a solid mass it would have been able to break through?

Please answer these simple questions, they may help me understand your reasoning.

Does it get dark at night in southern hemisphere?

 

[Montag451]

Does it get dark at night in southern hemisphere?

I'll take it that means yes to all of them then?

 

[atavisms]

'No planes' claims are disinformation. You know, 'nonsense as a weapon.'
But look at the FACTS and you will find the demolition theory is far and away the most satisfactory in explaining observations. Why do you think that no investigators tested for explosives, ever!?
A skyscraper implodes symmetrically, two others -nearly the largest on earth, are converted into powder and pieces of steel it islogical to think explosives may have beeninvolved.

Despite that fact that historically the level of destruction at any bombing or fire site has been used as the determinant in such situations, that was not done here.
Despite regulations indicating it should have been done, as the firefighters at firefighters for 911 truth so aptly point out.

 

[Mikeys]

How rigid were the towers? How much did they sway? You don't do reality based answers, or what?

More flexible construction does not make it weaker. It makes it stronger and better when absorbing impact, so i don't see where you are heading here.

Why not spread a lie based on your ignorance? Have you told the relatives and families of those killed? Have you told your lies to anyone in their face? You like to spread lies, apologizing for terrorists.

"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists". That's my favorite, it really is.

Got the numbers yet for your proof 175 did not decelerate?
Your numbers yet for why 175 would stop at the shell?
Got math?

The shell of the plane and surely not the front part could travel through that wall at any speed. It's an illusion. You have been hypnotized.

 

[Montag451]

The shell of the plane and surely not the front part could travel through that wall at any speed.

Why?

 

[atavisms]

so...

pushing a bubble filled with air through a damn strong wall.

Was this energy compacted into a solid as is the case with bullets? If not, analogy does not apply.


to a flock of birds(at a risk)


I think it was the only plane that hit anything that day in America. And I don't think it had passengers on board.


These are not mine suggestions. I saw them on this thread. Your special buddies out to help.

such baseless claims as these are absurd and only hurt the cause of 911 truth.
I have never seen so many disinformaiton victims in my life! No wonder people are so confused about 9/11

Here this: comes from Government scientists:
'The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment ...that liquefied the steel. The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.'
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Talk to people about that! not baseless and offensive claims pretending to represent 9/11 truth. No people - one plane? wow.
To the people who read; this guys claims have NOTHING to do with 911 truth which is based in well documented facts. Many of them.
Not baseless and offensive (!) assertions

 

[Montag451]

Hells teeth Mikeys, even other truthers think your ideas are whacko.

 

[atavisms]

A Bubble?? For your information the two planes that hit the Towers were half-loaded with fuel for their cross country trips, meaning they each had approximately 11000 gallons of fuel in the wings. At 8 pounds per gallon, the fuel, the massive engines, and landing gear were the most substantial parts of the plane and moving at such rapid speed created tremendous force. You can see how the South Tower strike a piece of the plane flies right through the building and how those fire balls exploded so massively outside and inside of the buildings. Nothing bubble-like about it except your uniformed opinions and baseless assertions.

 

[Mikeys]

Why?

because it couldn't. Aluminum composite the plane was made of would burst into dust right at the point of impact. What else do you expect?

 

[Redwood]

Originally posted by Mikeys

We were already down that road. Kinetic energy could do the trick of crashing the wall on impact. Why not. It would also immediately turn the shell into nothing. So, what made the little hole on the other side of the building It could not have been the bow of the plane. It had been destroyed on impact.

Why would this be? Have you heard the phase "mater can not be created or destroyed"? How about Sir Isaac Newton, ever hear of him? He was smart.

In TrutherUniverse, when an object loses its structural integrity, its mass drops to zero.