Merged No Planes At WTC (Split from: WTC Dust)

[dafydd]

You're mistaking me for someone who is confused.

I might be wrong, but I'm not wrong on the science involved in a collision.

You are confused and you are wrong. You appear to know nothing about physics. What about the ESB crash that you got so wrong?

 

[dafydd]

Since there were no hijackings, I don't have an answer to this question.
No planes means no planes.

Don't be silly. We all saw the planes. There were real people on those planes, you are an insult to their memory. Can't you find another hobby that will garner the attention that you so obviously need?

 

[WTC Dust]

I only read the first page of this thread. I apologize for being so lazy. But I am shocked in the lack of basic comprehension of physics, or simple logic...

The reason something like an aluminum jet airliner could do as much damage to the WTC, depends on many variables. We did not witness a piece of aluminum equal in matter to a piece of steel on 9.11.2001.. We saw a Boeing 767 full of aviation full slam into a uniquely designed steel tower at high speed.

Variables....

Why does a relatively light Kevlar vest stop a copper plated lead bullet [traveling faster than the speed of sound], when a half inch thick steel plate cannot stop that same projectile? Steel > Kevlar.. I am talking: Variables. Exactly what we saw on 9/11.

I can spend all day explaining the physics behind it. Or, the 9/11 twoofers who believe an aluminum body jet airliner should have bounced off a building [with no solid core] could take five minutes of their lives to search Google for the OBVIOUS answer.

You are one of the many people who are flipped around on this subject.

I'm talking about damage to a plane, not a building.
If a plane had crashed into the WTC on 9/11, the plane would have
gotten damaged. Videos of the event would have shown the
damage to the plane.

If your reply mentions damage to the building again instead of
damage to a plane, then you're still not paying attention.

You're talking about a building's core? You're not saying the plane
crashed into the core of a building. You're saying a plane crashed into
the south face of WTC 2, AND we have many videos of this event
taking place, yet none of the videos show any damage to the
plane-like object.

It wasn't a plane. No planes means no planes.

 

[Skibum]

Specifically, though. What material do you think was the fuel?

For starters...paper. Many tons of it. Thousands of desks, cubicles, phones, computers, carpet, building wiring, and many many building materials while they are fire resistant they are not fireproof.

 

[WTC Dust]

Why would you expect there to be given the high speed that the plane the tower?

Because momentum is conserved in a collision between two objects.

It doesn't matter how fast the objects are traveling when they
collide. Momentum is always conserved.

 

[WTC Dust]

Why are you being intentionally ignorant here? Don't say you're not...These pictures are very obvious as to what they depict and what is happening at the time they were taken. You are either the most clueless person on the 'net craving the attention or you're posting as "Medical Marijuana Barbie".

Your reply did not include an answer to the question.

 

[dafydd]

You are one of the many people who are flipped around on this subject.

I'm talking about damage to a plane, not a building.
If a plane had crashed into the WTC on 9/11, the plane would have
gotten damaged. Videos of the event would have shown the
damage to the plane.

If your reply mentions damage to the building again instead of
damage to a plane, then you're still not paying attention.

You're talking about a building's core? You're not saying the plane
crashed into the core of a building. You're saying a plane crashed into
the south face of WTC 2, AND we have many videos of this event
taking place, yet none of the videos show any damage to the plane-like object.
It wasn't a plane. No planes means no planes.

You are not being serious. You didn't notice the big explosion?

 

[WTC Dust]

For starters...paper. Many tons of it. Thousands of desks, cubicles, phones, computers, carpet, building wiring, and many many building materials while they are fire resistant they are not fireproof.

The paper didn't burn, or at least much of it did not.

But lets say some of the paper burned. And what else? Desks, cubicles,
phones, computers, and carpeting. All are legit. All are primarily
composed of hydrocarbons, and the energy of combustion is known
for hydrocarbons.

Building wiring? How is that a fuel? And "building materials"? What
specifically do you mean by this? Steel, concrete and glass?
Since when are these materials considered "fuel"?

By the way, the question wasn't about fire resistance.
It was about what fuel might have been located inside the WTC
that could have produced this fire. Being fire resistant doesn't
mean that an object fuels a fire. It means the opposite.
When something is "fire resistant" it doesn't burn, or it resists
burning, so it does not serve as a fuel.

So far you've only mentioned hydrocarbons. Anything else?

Continue.

 

[dafydd]

Because momentum is conserved in a collision between two objects.

It doesn't matter how fast the objects are traveling when they
collide. Momentum is always conserved.

So a plane crashing into a building would enter it like a dart with the plane sustaining no damage? That is what you thought happened in the ESB crash. You said the 'passengers' got out and caught the elevator to the ground floor. Why are you trolling this forum? Surely you've had enough attention by now? No more from me, on ignore you go.

 

[Skibum]

The paper didn't burn, or at least much of it did not.

But lets say some of the paper burned. And what else? Desks, cubicles,
phones, computers, and carpeting. All are legit. All are primarily
composed of hydrocarbons, and the energy of combustion is known
for hydrocarbons.

Building wiring? How is that a fuel? And "building materials"? What
specifically do you mean by this? Steel, concrete and glass?
Since when are these materials considered "fuel"?

By the way, the question wasn't about fire resistance.
It was about what fuel might have been located inside the WTC
that could have produced this fire. Being fire resistant doesn't
mean that an object fuels a fire. It means the opposite.
When something is "fire resistant" it doesn't burn, or it resists
burning, so it does not serve as a fuel.

So far you've only mentioned hydrocarbons. Anything else?

Continue.

Building wiring as in the miles of wire insulation on electric wires cat 5 cable etc...
Building
Materials such as the paper facing on drywall, flexible hvac lines, wood studs used as backing in the walls, paper facing on insulation, I can go on for quite awhile, but honestly it isn't worth the time to explain the obvious to you.

No, flame resistant does not mean it will not burn.

I predict you are about to drag out the "hydrocarbon fires are not hot enough to weaken steel" argument.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If a plane had crashed into the WTC on 9/11, the plane would have
gotten damaged.

Yes. It did get damaged. Smashed, shredded and destroyed.

Videos of the event would have shown the
damage to the plane. [...] we have many videos of this event
taking place, yet none of the videos show any damage to the
plane-like object.

No. Wrong. Although they do show parts ejected from the far side of the building, videos would not show the breakup of the plane as it only broke up as it smashed its way into the building at 500 mph. The destruction would only be visible inside the building. The videos only show what's happening outside the building.

 

[thebicyclist]

Because momentum is conserved in a collision between two objects.

It doesn't matter how fast the objects are traveling when they
collide. Momentum is always conserved.

that is correct, which is why the plane continued into the building after the collision.

 

[Dash80]

I had a detailed well thought out response to WTC Dust in my head, then I realized it would be wasted.

So I went with this:

 

[Garrison]

Yes. It did get damaged. Smashed, shredded and destroyed.


No. Wrong. Although they do show parts ejected from the far side of the building, videos would not show the breakup of the plane as it only broke up as it smashed its way into the building at 500 mph. The destruction would only be visible inside the building. The videos only show what's happening outside the building.

Impacts at that speed simply destroy objects in such a way that no human eye or ordinary camera will be able to record. This experiment by the Mythbusters involving a car and rocket sled amply demonstrates this sort of destruction:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSVfYwdGSsQ

 

[Sunstealer]

Dr Dust simply hasn't managed to attain the skill of Object Permanence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence

If she can't see something it ceases to exist therefore never existed. Most people aged 2 have mastered this ability.

 

[beachnut]

Because momentum is conserved in a collision between two objects.

It doesn't matter how fast the objects are traveling when they
collide. Momentum is always conserved.

Does this mean bullets can't kill? You are full of BS.

So? Like a bullet, the WTC were struck by aircraft which entered the WTC because the energy required to break the shell was 7 and 11 times less than the energy each plane had.

You are not using science you are using a delusional fantasy; failure.

 

[threadworm]

Because momentum is conserved in a collision between two objects.

It doesn't matter how fast the objects are traveling when they
collide. Momentum is always conserved.

No.

The total amount of energy involved in the collision is conserved - energy is transferred between the object moving and the object being hit, and the total energy involved is balanced. This would include the momentum of large fragments of building blasted out of the towers, as well as the movement recorded in the entire structure from the impact, and the destruction of the airplane.

I haven't touched a physics book in 30+years, and it took me no time at all to work that out.

 

[Dash80]

No.

The total amount of energy involved in the collision is conserved - energy is transferred between the object moving and the object being hit, and the total energy involved is balanced. This would include the momentum of large fragments of building blasted out of the towers, as well as the movement recorded in the entire structure from the impact, and the destruction of the airplane.

I haven't touched a physics book in 30+years, and it took me no time at all to work that out.

I am a pretty dim bulb compared to many on this forum and even i can work it out.

Is she really trying to say an airplane traveling around 500 mph should just stop dead, and bounce off when it meets the perimeter wall?

 

[thebicyclist]

I am a pretty dim bulb compared to many on this forum and even i can work it out.

Is she really trying to say an airplane traveling around 500 mph should just stop dead, and bounce off when it meets the perimeter wall?

Next she'll be claiming that the plane (which didn't exist anyway) couldn't have hit the building because it would violate Zeno's Law

 

[Sunstealer]

I am a pretty dim bulb compared to many on this forum and even i can work it out.

Is she really trying to say an airplane traveling around 500 mph should just stop dead, and bounce off when it meets the perimeter wall?

She has trouble understanding that the reason she can't see the damage to the plane is because the plane is out of view - it's inside the building being smashed into pieces.

Now we know that the plane is not going to survive intact or simply have superficial damage to it, it's effectively going to be destroyed in the impact and subsequent explosion. Dusty for some reason thinks that this can't happen.

If you've ever played with a baby you can replicate this inability by playing with a ball and then hiding it behind your back. In effect the baby has no concept that the ball is still in existence because they can't see it. When they get older and have more experience, understanding and brain development they will understand that the ball does exist, it's behind you and they'll make a move to find it.

Many truthers suffer from this deficiency that is normally grown out of by age 2. When the towers collapse a large amount of dust is produced which obscures the tops of the collapsing buildings. Because truthers can't see the tops of the buildings they automatically assume those parts no longer exist.

Where did the towers go? is a classic truther statement that backs this up. Can't see the solid part of the building then it must have been exploded or turned to dust.

Remember the baby analogy? What do you say when you hide the ball? Yes, you hold you palms out and say, "where did it go? Where did the ball go? Rhetorical questions. If the baby could talk they would say, "It doesn't exist". A large number of truthers simply haven't reached this stage in child development.