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.
This is science and is clearly off topic here. Besides, coconuts float so there is no need to subject the bird to this abuse. Simply weight the coconut and compare it to a duck, that also floats and flies. If the coconut weights the same as a duck, there is no reason a swallow could not fly with a coconut tied to its leg.
Of course. And publish the results in the documentary. Why? Would you hide the results? It's a test. I have predicted the results based on my humble understanding of physics, but an engineer will be drawing up the predictions and publishing the model for the test. We won't know the results until it's complete and then I will publish them, whichever way the rocket sled slices. It's a win-win for everyone. And explosions are fun.
This is science and is clearly off topic here. Besides, coconuts float so there is no need to subject the bird to this abuse. Simply weight the coconut and compare it to a duck, that also floats and flies. If the coconut weights the same as a duck, there is no reason a swallow could not fly with a coconut tied to its leg.
Which makes his proposed rocket sled test worthless (besides 767 wings don't exactly grow on trees and that nobody's going to offer one up to be destroyed without wanting a lot of money in return).
Besides, the question (if there ever was one) of whether a jet airliner moving at sufficient speed would go through the perimeter columns was answered on 9/11/2001, twice. The planes did go through the building walls. The no-planer notion that the entire crash events were somehow faked (videos, eyewitnesses, radar data, holes in the buildings, plane parts and dead plane passengers inside the buildings) is more unbelievable by several orders of magnitude than the notion that the planes did penetrate the buildings.
How much of the wing was attached after the engines penetrated the towers and the wings holding it to the fuselage were disintegrated "WHILE" slicing steel columns?
Purdue thinks the wing would remain intact. Is that an accurate model?
How much of the wing was attached after the engines penetrated the towers and the wings holding it to the fuselage were disintegrated "WHILE" slicing steel columns?
Purdue thinks the wing would remain intact. Is that an accurate model?
I doubt he'll ever get the money or materials to do the test in the first place. That's why truther 'models' invariably end up as cardboard boxes or plastic trays or lemons or some ****.
I seem to recall a blogger claiming he had blown the 9/11 conspiracy wide open when he demonstrated that he couldn't replicate the WTC collapses with...Jenga blocks.
How much of the wing was attached after the engines penetrated the towers and the wings holding it to the fuselage were disintegrated "WHILE" slicing steel columns?
Purdue thinks the wing would remain intact. Is that an accurate model?
Why are you spreading another lie. Purdue shows the wing falling apart. Your statement shows you don't understand engineering physics, and does not mean your fantasy is true.
It was then when the second plane flew over us and slammed in to the south tower. The force of the blast knocked a couple of people standing with to the ground.
That’s when we all realized we were under attack.
My coworker looked at me and said "was that another airliner?" I said yeah, I thought it was a US Airways plane, but another coworker said it was a United plane.
Now you can start calling more people liars.
People who saw planes with their eyes - lairs in your fantasy
FAA - liars (better stop flying)
NTSB - liars in your fantasy
Military - lairs in your fantasy
Your list goes on. You called me a liar, it must be your fantasy.
All the big truther money is behind Gage. I don't think those Promethean Genesis folks or Hollywood Truthers are no-planers (well, who knows with Charlie Sheen).
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.
I think this is the fundamental idea that yankee451 completely fails to grasp. In his "school of hard knocks" view of physics, the stronger object always "wins" in a collision, because that is what frequently happens in the low velocity collisions in his experience.
In fact, the holes in the skin of wings made by bird strikes that he posted is a pretty good illustration of the principle. Although he thinks he is illustrating how flimsy aircraft wings are, what he is really demonstrating is that, given enough velocity, a squishy, flesh and bone bird can penetrate the solid aluminum of an aircraft wing, just as that same aircraft wing, given sufficient velocity, can break (not cut) the steel perimeter columns of the WTC towers.
I'm not really sure what he thinks should have happened. Most likely he expects that the planes would have bounced off, or been crushed without penetrating the walls of the buildings.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
