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

LashL said:
Nominated. :)
Click to expand...



Thanks, but all my best stuff is in AAH;)

To be clear, I don't believe Mikeys was in a "comma" or a "coma". My comment was meant to be playfully snarky, not cruel.

If he really was in a years-long coma (like Judy Wood), then he has my sympathy, but my estimation of his cognitive abilities will suffer for it.

Mikeys: If you are telling the truth about your comma and you'd like to see what it's like to get some "good attention", rather than "bad attention" for a change, then you are really "burying the lead" with all this Truther nonsense! Have you considered starting a thread about your experience in say, "Community" or "Science, Mathematics, Medicine and Technology"? I for one would find it fascinating. Think about it:)

If on the other hand you're lying about your coma and you're just another in a long line of sad, ridiculous trolls who infest the internet, then carry on. It's clearly working.
 
Mikeys said:
Who saw it coming?
Click to expand...

Just so I'm clear; you are asking about who saw AA Flight 11, which struck the north tower, coming? Because the planes were tracked on radar after one of the hijackers accidentally hit the ATC switch instead of the Intercom. They even sent fighters, though it was already too late.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11
Witnesses saw the plane flying at low altitude over Manhattan and thought the aircraft was in distress. Lieutenant William Walsh of the FDNY (who appears in the documentary film 9/11) witnessed the aircraft: "We were under the impression – he looked like he was going down, but we didn't hear any mechanical difficulty. We couldn't figure out why an American Airlines plane would be so low in downtown Manhattan. We sort of expected him to veer off and go into the Hudson. But he just rose a little bit, his altitude, leveled off, and he was headed straight for the Trade Center. So just before he got to the Trade Center it seemed as though he gained power. We were just watching this airplane on target for the World Trade Center. All of a sudden, boom! He disappears into the Trade Center."[35]
Click to expand...
 
000063 said:
Stundie.
Click to expand...
ok badly phrased. Indeed a stundie. It does not change the fact that Gravity makes the difference when you need to estimate tensile strength of a section of wall.

False. There are many, many factors.
Click to expand...
Which are?


No, you're the one asserting that the plane should've bounced off regardless of how fast it was going or the size and strength of what it hit. Straw man.
Click to expand...
Where, show me
Strange how your intuition is utterly infallable, but that of others isn't. Also strange how you seem to confuse actual evidence backed math and intuition. Projecting much?
Click to expand...
Show me the math behind the impact.
 
Mikeys said:
Point to what is incorrect

It means that weight is a measure of gravity. It also means that the more weight you have above the stronger a structure below is. This of course is correct when you use right materials and build it to engineering specifications. If you put a bucket with water on fluff, it won't work. Fluff lacks density and it will crumple.
Click to expand...
You seem to think that the Egyptians should have built their pyramids upside down.

There is a limit to the amount of weight you can place on any structure. Stone will crush itself at some point. This is the reason why very tall buildings are not made of stone. They would fall down because the base loses it's structural integrity.

You also don't seem to realise that skyscrapers will use less steel and therefore weight at the top than they do at the bottom for similar reasons. Can you show me a modern tall building where the weight of the top half is greater than the weight of the bottom half?

In your world we should just be able to design buildings by simply adding more weight until we reach the moon.


Mikeys said:
I've seen many times how sturdy they are on impact.
Click to expand...
And how many of those impacts have been skyscrapers with the same construction as the WTCs?

Mikeys said:
I am doomed.
Click to expand...
to permanent ignorance.

Mikeys said:
Where did I say that? You are welcome to quote the post.
Click to expand...
Your witterings on the relative hardness of materials implies it.

Mikeys said:
How do you know that I can't. Where did I say that?
Click to expand...
When you said you knew more physics than anyone here. Here is the quote. Many people on this forum have qualifications in physics and have engineering degrees which use physics.

Mikeys said:
Do you have something more to say aside from this line. I know as much physics as most here and that's most likely gross understatement. That's why I don't use it as an argument.
Click to expand...
 
Mikeys said:
You think people who could do 9/11 would have trouble smuggling the right kind of gear into the site. Not a big deal. I neither love it nor hate it. It's irrelevant. Where did I say the engines with lots of momentum couldn't have done damage?
Click to expand...
Well you're right about one thing...the people "who could do 9/11" ie. the hijackers "smuggled" that gear in there the simplest way possible. You know, sort of flew the planes into the ******* buildings?
It's also irrelevant to the big picture presented. They would hit locally, and the damage made should be easily seen.
Click to expand...
So I guess those gaping holes in the sides of the towers were signs of...what...maybe a metal eating moth infestation?:rolleyes:
 
Mikeys said:
ok badly phrased. Indeed a stundie. It does not change the fact that Gravity makes the difference when you need to estimate tensile strength of a section of wall.
Click to expand...

Gravity most certainly makes a difference if you are trying to estimate the LOAD on a member. Not all loads are gravitational, however. And load-bearing walls are better described as being under COMPRESSION.

All else being equal, the only advantage having more mass gives you against transverse loads is a larger inertia.
 
Sunstealer said:
There is a limit to the amount of weight you can place on any structure. Stone will crush itself at some point. This is the reason why very tall buildings are not made of stone. They would fall down because the base loses it's structural integrity.
Click to expand...
Not really. Strength alone wouldn't prohibit from using hard stones like granite to raise tall structures, and even common brick could be used to raise structures higher than they are. A frame design is needed and stone can't do that.
You also don't seem to realise that skyscrapers will use less steel and therefore weight at the top than they do at the bottom for similar reasons. Can you show me a modern tall building where the weight of the top half is greater than the weight of the bottom half?
Click to expand...
You could build one if you wished to make a point. The problem is in balance rather that steel properties. The weight of steel towards the top of the WTC was still enough, don't worry about that.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom