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

[MRC_Hans]

Why is it every truther theory sounds like it was dreamed up by a not particularly bright 5th Grader?

On behalf of the 5th graders, I protest. Most are far smarter than that.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Which means that there WERE floors where the planes impacted the towers. Which in turn indicates that the 'planes' are computer graphics insertions, because real planes would not glide effortlessly like a laser sword through several floors of concrete and steel.

Of course there were floors. Don't you recon the people working there would have, you know, sort of noticed, if several floors were missing? I don't know if you realize this, but the WTC were not a computer game; they were real life *) buildings, with real life people working in them.

Of course they can't glide effortlessly through. In fact they were completely disintegrated in the process.

Hans

*) 'Real life' is the thing you will find if you venture outside your front door.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Not the same material as this plane then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0

So you imagine the towers were made of six ft. thick concrete?

Hans

 

[Animal]

Which means that there WERE floors where the planes impacted the towers. Which in turn indicates that the 'planes' are computer graphics insertions, because real planes would not glide effortlessly like a laser sword through several floors of concrete and steel.

Pretty interesting computer graphics insertion

 

[Sunstealer]

what would it do then. Calculate.

Same thing a soft Pb bullet does when penetrating hardened steel plate.

It always makes me laugh when truthers try to talk in a technical language about the plane's structure. Aluminium composite? What for the wing structure? Nonsense. If you had ever had the experience of working at an aircraft manufacturer as I have (Airbus in Filton, Bristol) you'd know how massive the wing structures are and how solid they are. You'd also know that they are made from a number of different alloys and not a sandwiched aluminium composite in the 757/767.

Your only experience of aluminium alloys is when you buy a can of diet coke. You also parrot truther sites nonsense about hardness without any understanding.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Where? Not in the text you quoted:

"http://911review.org/brad.com/fake_video/FAKE.html
i created this to show just how easy it is to fake a video. Many of the 9/11 videos were released days, or even years later (the original for this one, was released YEARS after September 11 !)
This original in my opinion is a complete fake.Remember, MANY of the videos you see about 9-11 have NOT been authenticated, and were either submitted by ANONYMOUS people, or the people who submitted them work for the government, Such as one video by SCOTT MEYERS computer programmer for the NIST. "

Where in that text does it say editing out of plane?

Psst, Anders: The videos of planes hitting the towers, while dramatic and compelling, are not important evidence that planes hit the towers.

As is obvious, individual videos can be faked, although the sheer number of independent videos and still shots made by countless individual people, including photographers from independent foreign media would be an astronomic challenge.

The important evidence is that the planes were tracked to the area, and did not leave. The important evidence is the thousands of people who watched directly. The important evidence is the remains of planes and passengers recovered on the site.

And the important evidence is, of course, the damage inflicted on the buildings, for which nobody, least of all you, have ever offered an even remotely plausible alternative explanation.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

The video I posted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLPeuJ4ni8U

If you examine the flash more closely, you will see that it's not an editing artifact. Could the flash have been edited in afterwards? Not likely.

Let me get this straight: You claim that a plausible-looking moving plane was edited into dozens of individual videos from multiple sources, all from different angles, compiling into a consistent 3D trajectory and plane image, but a diffuse light spot on the side of a building lasting a couple of frames could not possibly have been faked?

For your claim to hold, you need to have the flash to be either edited in or being an artifact of editing and/or video compression. And you need that to be repeated for several camera angles, and for both towers. Good luck with that claim.

No the flash is a real phenomenon.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Of the plane? You are adding 'a plane' by implication when such implication may not be valid. So the original WITH a plane was a fake?

Since the original video did have a plane in it, that appears to be a compelling conclusion.

And then that fake was turned into another fake without a plane?!

Well, its silly, but that's what the guy says. I think his point is that when he can edit out the plane, it could just as easily been edited in. (Which incidentally is not quite true; copying surrounding background over an object is far easier than making an edited-in object appear plausible.)


Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

But ask yourself: What do YOU think the white dot is? You wrote something about a nose cone earlier. Do you believe the white dot is a part of the nose cone?

The white dot is the explosive release of energy as the nose of the plane, moving at the speed of a revolver bullet, contacts the surface of the building. In the preceeding milliseconds, the pressure-wave normally travelling in front of the plane has built up in the narrowing gap between the two objects. The white spot probably begins already shortly before the actual impact, due to shock-wave condensation effects. Also, window panes may have begun to shatter from the pressure.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I know this is a waste of typing, but, being his own worst enemy, it is so tempting to provide momentum for AL to dig his hole ever deeper.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

But again, you ignore the evidence from several different camera angles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRL_IptUYTA

Ok, I will let you off the hook. It's not easy to debunk this, I know.

There is no hook. No debunking is needed.

Here is a high-speed film of a similar impact (subsonic, kinetic impact):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9YyMh1lICI&feature=related

Notice the flashes and white clouds, "long before" the actual fireball evolves (there is obviously no HE warhead installed in this missile).

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

and you have no clue why an aircraft can enter a building going 590 mph, but can't at 200 mph.

Slight correction, here: The idea was in fact that a plane could enter the building, crash through a floor, and exit (as wreckage, of course) on the other side, thus transferring as little energy to the building as possible. This basically worked as intended on 911, except that the bigger and faster planes inflicted far more damage on the structure (but it still held), and the amount of fuel on the planes we much higher than calculated (calculations expected a plane coming in for landing at a nearby airport, relatively low on fuel). The increased damage and the resultant fires did the trick.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

So you admit the planes were swallowed by the towers.

Admit? Everybody knows the planes entered the buildings. In fact, a considerable portion of them came right out the other side.

That's the issue we are discussing here. The photos clearly show the plane entering the building, cutting through it like knife through butter.

Certainly not. If that was the case, the planes would have come out the other side still largely intact, and the buildings would have come down immidiately.

I suspect your believes stem from videos rather than science.KE enough to smash a rigid steel frame is not enough to destroy the plane on impact.

Perhaps you are not aware of how the towers were constructed. Think of them a grid pylons of steel frames with platforms inserted and a fairly thin outer cladding. The planes sliced through the cladding (consisting of thin metal plates and glass panes, and impacted the grid members disintegrating against them and severing some of them. During the impact, kinetic energy equivalent to a considerable amount of explosives (calculated numerous times, elsewhere) was released causing extensive secondary damage (imagine the blast from the Phantom jet hitting the concrete block happening inside a building, only far bigger), and finally, the fuel loadblew up in a huge fireball, igniting widespread fires.

How that plane could make its own imprint in a rigid steel frame and tell the tale afterwards?

Tell the tale? Could you perhaps point to where one of the planes (or anybody on board it) "tells the tale"?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Fully laden with air.

Call it what you will, but it weighs well over 100tons. I'd like to see your suggestion for a structure that could keep ot from penetrating when hitting at 500mph. - Just for your information, the Phantom jet you see disintegrating against a solid concrete block only weighs about 15 tons.

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.

And you state this with which authority? The authority that failed to notice that a considerable portion of your "steel wall" consisted of window panes, perchance?

Hans

 

[Dcdrac]

They did not, who ever they are, did not use thermite to destory the buildings, the terrosits used big planes.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Forget the fuel. It ignited after the wall was severed.
A blast of air...

A blast of air. How do you suggest the buildings came down? Explosives? Now tell us, what are explosions, except a blast of air?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

Snowball, window pane. And, as just mentioned water jet, steel plate. Anything can penetrate a solid object. It is only a matter of kinetic energy.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Do they cut steel by blast of air?

Certainly. It is called explosives.

Hans

 

[Dcdrac]

I am no ballistics expert and do not pretend to be however it strikes me that if you fly two very large planes at high speed, while full of air fuel into big buildings, that is going to make one hell of an explosion, and you do not need an equation to prove that.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

See, now you are actually, I assume inadvertently, approaching the enlightment zone. Yes, there was no peceptible deceleration of the aft part of the airplane, while the front part was blasing through the outer parts of the building. Why is that so?

Well, that is exactly the secret of high velocity impacts, and the reason you could, in principle, shoot a wet rage through a steel plate, if you could accelerate it enough:

Even though the objects have a considerable structural strenght, this strenght is based on forces being distributed and dispersed through the structure by elastic deformation of the individual parts.

Take a bamboo stick and large cardboard box. place the box on a table and press the bamboo stick against its side. You can easily push the box with no damage to either part. Now, instead hit the side of the box smartly with the stick (fast enough so you can hear the stick whistle trough the air). It will cut into the cardboard!

How does this happen? Well, the thing is that when the fast object hits, so much energy is applied so quickly that the structure cannot redistribute it fast enough. Instead it breaks or disintegrates.

Look at the film with the Phantom jet impacting the concrete block (just because here we all know exactly what goes on): Now, the F4 Phantom is a very sturdy bird. It can withstand the forces of MACH 2.2, which is somewhat faster than your average rifle bullet. It can also withstand combat maneuvres with a full ordnance load (total over 20 tons). Yet it disintegrates against that concrete block without slowing down, and without buckling of being deformed perceptly.

It really makes sense: Would you really really think the rear half of a jet liner could be stopped, or even slowed down in some 30 yeards, from 500mph?

Hans