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

[Animal]

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg[/qimg]

**** this. I give up. You guys take it from here. I'm out.

He is obviously part of the ranks of troofers that is willfully ignorant.
As others have posted, he seems to only want to drive traffic to his lame video.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Wood stoves?

Pelicans?

Dr. Bronner, is that you?

I thought you were dead!

 

[aggle-rithm]

So you think not only can the wing cut a car in half, it can also cut 37 wood stoves in half too?

You must be a pilot too.

I'm just curious: Why do you think pilots are authorities on the physics of crash dynamics?

My father in law is a pilot, he sure as hell doesn't know any physics.

 

[aggle-rithm]

So you think not only can the wing cut a car in half, it can also cut 37 wood stoves in half too?

A teddy bear can cut 37 wood stoves in half, given the right conditions.

One thing you may not be getting is that when a structurally weak object destroys a structurally strong object, BOTH OBJECTS ARE DESTROYED. When the planes crashed into the buildings on 9/11, they did a lot of damage to the buildings, but they were cut to pieces as well. It didn't matter, though, because it didn't change the mass or the momentum, and the energy needed to disassemble the planes was a fraction of the total energy released by the collision. The rest went into wreaking havoc on the buildings.

I doubt you will understand this, though.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Will the wing cut the car in half because only velocity and mass matter? Density, hardness of materials and the construction of the impacting bodies mean nothing in the equation, right?

Mass and velocity is all that matters.

Anyone disagree?

Density, hardness of materials, and construction make a difference in the velocity required for one structure to penetrate another. The stronger the construction of the moving object, the lower the velocity required.

However, it makes NO difference to the simple fact that for any moving object A hitting stationary object B, there is a velocity V that will generate enough momentum for A to penetrate B.

You can do the math. If you know how much force is needed to penetrate object B, then it's fairly easy.

PS: In extreme cases (and I'm talking EXTREME, like what it would take for a speck of dust to go all the way through the planet Earth), you would get into relativity. Even though the speck is limited to the speed of light, there is still no limit to how much momentum can be achieved by going faster, because as it approaches c its mass increases.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Yeah, I know this is a waste of time. I know he's trolling. I just have this compulsion to tidy things up when someone tries to obfuscate simple physical principles to win an argument.

 

[tsig]

Yeah, I know this is a waste of time. I know he's trolling. I just have this compulsion to tidy things up when someone tries to obfuscate simple physical principles to win an argument.

Trolls can only exist because of the decency of others.

Ask not for whom the bell trolls, it trolls for you.

 

[yankee451]

Density, hardness of materials, and construction make a difference in the velocity required for one structure to penetrate another. The stronger the construction of the moving object, the lower the velocity required.

However, it makes NO difference to the simple fact that for any moving object A hitting stationary object B, there is a velocity V that will generate enough momentum for A to penetrate B.

You can do the math. If you know how much force is needed to penetrate object B, then it's fairly easy.

PS: In extreme cases (and I'm talking EXTREME, like what it would take for a speck of dust to go all the way through the planet Earth), you would get into relativity. Even though the speck is limited to the speed of light, there is still no limit to how much momentum can be achieved by going faster, because as it approaches c its mass increases.

Why then, if it is fairly easy and if we have murdered hundreds of thousands of people over this, has no one done 'the math' to justify such barbarism?

Without having done 'the math', it boils down to 'it was on the TeeVee' and 'lots of people say its true'.

If it's so easy, why don't you show me?

Why doesn't R Mackey?

 

[yankee451]

Any idea how fast a feather would need to travel to cut a car in half?

I see a lot of assumptions that state "speed kills" and density, construction and drag mean nothing when compared to mass and velocity, so if a speed exists for a wing to cut a car in half, surely such a speed exists for a feather too?

The math is fairly easy.

 

[LSSBB]

You know, if you really want to promote peace, I can think of much better uses for your money than running airplane wings into buildings. Just sayin'.

Ghandi? No airplanes into buildings. MLK, same thing. Cold war ended with no airplanes into buildings.

By the way, you know American troops have already pulled out of Iraq, right? They're trying to pull them from Afghanistan too. Didn't take any airplanes running into buildings for those to troop withdrawals happen.

Now they're putting American troops near Mali, not a whole lot, though. Did they fake any airplanes for that one? Maybe Timbuktu is a hologram.

How about putting that money to real peaceful uses. Education in poor countries is a good start.

They could learn physics.

 

[yankee451]

A teddy bear can cut 37 wood stoves in half, given the right conditions.

One thing you may not be getting is that when a structurally weak object destroys a structurally strong object, BOTH OBJECTS ARE DESTROYED. When the planes crashed into the buildings on 9/11, they did a lot of damage to the buildings, but they were cut to pieces as well. It didn't matter, though, because it didn't change the mass or the momentum, and the energy needed to disassemble the planes was a fraction of the total energy released by the collision. The rest went into wreaking havoc on the buildings.

I doubt you will understand this, though.

Well, so far the concensus is "the right speed" or the right conditions.

No one wants to hazard a guess about what that speed is, but its somewhere over the speed of sound from what I understand. So a jet's wing wouldn't cut the car in half until it reached the right speed.

Isn't that speed 450-550 MPH? Isn't that what we saw on 911? Surely if two jets can slice through steel buildings at such slow speeds, they'd be able to handle a car without having to get up to the speed of sound.

Why is everyone 'guessing' anyway, isn't this established science? Or did we go to war because the proof is on the TeeVee and a lot of really smart experts said so?

 

[yankee451]

You know, if you really want to promote peace, I can think of much better uses for your money than running airplane wings into buildings. Just sayin'.

Ghandi? No airplanes into buildings. MLK, same thing. Cold war ended with no airplanes into buildings.

By the way, you know American troops have already pulled out of Iraq, right? They're trying to pull them from Afghanistan too. Didn't take any airplanes running into buildings for those to troop withdrawals happen.

Now they're putting American troops near Mali, not a whole lot, though. Did they fake any airplanes for that one? Maybe Timbuktu is a hologram.

How about putting that money to real peaceful uses. Education in poor countries is a good start.

They could learn physics.

It is the people rich countries who are bombing people just like them in poor countries who need the educations.

Why would a jet's wing need to accelerate beyond the speed of sound to cut a car in half, when on 9/11 two of them cut buildings in half?

Is this the new math in Randi World?

 

[000063]

Any idea how fast a feather would need to travel to cut a car in half?

I see a lot of assumptions that state "speed kills" and density, construction and drag mean nothing when compared to mass and velocity, so if a speed exists for a wing to cut a car in half, surely such a speed exists for a feather too?

The math is fairly easy.

And yet, you refuse to or cannot do it, and prefer to gainsay those who can, repeatedly demanding "evidence" you won't assess.

It is the people rich countries who are bombing people just like them in poor countries who need the educations.

Why would a jet's wing need to accelerate beyond the speed of sound to cut a car in half, when on 9/11 two of them cut buildings in half?

Is this the new math in Randi World?

Except that no one asserts that the buildings were "cut in half", or even close to it. The planes damaged the buildings. Fire damaged them some more. Then they collapsed. Pay attention.

 

[yankee451]

And yet, you refuse to or cannot do it, and prefer to gainsay those who can, repeatedly demanding "evidence" you won't assess.



Except that no one asserts that the buildings were "cut in half", or even close to it. The planes damaged the buildings. Fire damaged them some more. Then they collapsed. Pay attention.

It's a figure of speech meaning if the jet was fast enough to slide through a steel building, why does it need to increase the speed to a 'guessed' speed faster than mach 1 to cut a much smaller car in half?

 

[Animal]

It is the people rich countries who are bombing people just like them in poor countries who need the educations.

Why would a jet's wing need to accelerate beyond the speed of sound to cut a car in half, when on 9/11 two of them cut buildings in half?

Is this the new math in Randi World?

No it is the old math and physics that you are incapable of grasping.

It all goes back to mass and velocity no matter how many times you try to shift the goal posts, misdirect, ignore the facts etc. etc. etc.

 

[LSSBB]

It is the people rich countries who are bombing people just like them in poor countries who need the educations.

Why would a jet's wing need to accelerate beyond the speed of sound to cut a car in half, when on 9/11 two of them cut buildings in half?

Is this the new math in Randi World?

What buildings were cut in half? A bunch of columns, maybe, but no buildings. They fell after the fires and damaged columns conspired to bring the upper sections down a floor, then gravity did the rest.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Why then, if it is fairly easy and if we have murdered hundreds of thousands of people over this, has no one done 'the math' to justify such barbarism?

No amount of emotion can change the physics.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Why would a jet's wing need to accelerate beyond the speed of sound to cut a car in half, when on 9/11 two of them cut buildings in half?

Is this the new math in Randi World?

Why would YOUR strawmen be the new math in Randi World?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Any idea how fast a feather would need to travel to cut a car in half?

It's not a question of speed, the feather is not big enough to cut a car in half. It would have to be either a very small car or a very large feather.

Either way, the answer would be: Pretty durn fast.

 

[CORed]

Have you got details of the engineering required for this experiment?

The engineering document will cost me several thousand dollars, but that's just the first step needed to get a written estimate from a test center. Once that occurs I can price out the project and attempt to get the rest of the funding.

The rest of your questions can be answered by the FAQ

http://911crashtest.org/faq/

Funding, of course is where the project will fail. In the unlikely event that this guy isn't blowing smoke from the get-go, this test is going to cost a lot of money. I don't think the couple of hundred or so remaining truthers are going to be able to find that much under the cushions of the couches in their moms' basements.