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

[Dash80]

WTC Dust:

At 9:40 a.m., the plane crashed into the north side of the Empire State Building, between the 78th and 80th floors, carving an 18ft (5.5m) x 20ft (6.1m) hole in the building where the offices of the National Catholic Welfare Council were located. One engine shot through the opposite the impact and flew as far as the next block, landing on the roof of a nearby building and starting a fire that destroyed a penthouse. The other engine and part of the landing gear plummeted down an elevator shaft. The resulting fire was extinguished in 40 minutes. It is still the only fire at such a height that has ever been successfully controlled.

Building damage estimated at $1,000,000 ($13,000,000 current
dollar adjustment)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Empire_State_Building_crash#section_1

A much smaller slower plane penetrated the ESB and caused significant damage, what do you expect a larger faster plane to do to the WTC?

Also consider:

The fires inside the ESB were fought and put out in only 40 minutes, the fires in the WTC were not fought.

The differences in structure and fireproofing.

 

[fess]

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.

Although I can be classed as an older individual, I passed my FAA physical without glasses. But even with good eyesight, it would be almost impossible to spot damage occurring to an aircraft when it slams into an object at around 700ft/sec.

 

[Michal]

is this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgQ3ekcvyRA

bringing anything to the discussion?

 

[Wolrab]

In the list of combustibles don't forget the people.

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

I asked about the fuel. Wire isn't a fuel.

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

No. This ... "plane" ... was said to have impacted the south face of WTC 2. That's where the damage to the plane would have taken place.

 

[WTC Dust]

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

You don't understand conservation of momentum, then.

In a collision between two objects...

Force ------> equals exactly
<------ Force

In the scenario being discussed, an airplane imparting a force in the northerly direction (having impacted the south face of WTC 2 as it was moving north) would have resulted in plane parts and debris traveling in the southerly direction. This was not seen.

Conservation of momentum doesn't mean the plane keeps going.

 

[WTC Dust]

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

In this video, note 2:25, where debris travels in the opposite direction.
QED

 

[WTC Dust]

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?

Not at all. What I'm saying is that videos would have shown
SOME plane debris heading in the opposite direction of the flight
path, had a plane crashed into the south wall of WTC 2 heading
north. We should see SOME plane debris heading south, and we
don't. Therefore, a collision did not take place between a plane
and WTC 2. Unless all the videos are wrong, and I don't think they
are. Those videos are excellent evidence.

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

Wrong again. The plane is said to have crashed into the exterior wall
of WTC 2. If that's where an impact took place, that's where debris
traveling south would have been seen.

 

[WTC Dust]

Although I can be classed as an older individual, I passed my FAA physical without glasses. But even with good eyesight, it would be almost impossible to spot damage occurring to an aircraft when it slams into an object at around 700ft/sec.

LOL.

You could just slow the videos down and examine each of them
frame-by-frame, as I have.

 

[WTC Dust]

is this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgQ3ekcvyRA

bringing anything to the discussion?

Yes. The debris bounced backwards (meaning in this case upwards),
but the space shuttle was also moving upwards, so the debris
moves out and down BUT you can still see debris, unlike this
object said to have been a plane that crashed into the WTC.

 

[WTC Dust]

In the list of combustibles don't forget the people.

People are also made of hydrocarbons.
Any other fuel source that any of you could
suggest, other than hydrocarbons?

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

Force is a vector quantity. Direction is important.

 

[Retrograde]

You don't understand conservation of momentum, then.

In a collision between two objects...

Force ------> equals exactly
<------ Force

It's been decades since I took physics - required at my university for all science majors, including biologists and chemists - but the basic formulae are stuck in my mind.

momentum = mass X velocity
force = mass X acceleration

Acceleration and velocity are two different things, as one can see from basic dimensional analysis. Conservation of momentum in its simplest form states that
m₁v₁ = m₂v₂. So if a low-mass object traveling at high speed impacts a high-mass object traveling at a very, very low speed, one would expect....

Honestly, we need to give all theorists a simple test. If they can identify and show that they understand some simple formulae and concepts (F=ma=mGh, KE = 0.5mv², PV=nRT, conservation of momentum, conversion of potential to kinetic energy, etc) then I'll consider reading their arguments.

 

[Wolrab]

LOL.

You could just slow the videos down and examine each of them
frame-by-frame, as I have.

Hmm...733 fps
60 frames per second (if you are lucky)
733/60=12.2 feet

So in each frame the plane has entered the building 12 feet.

As I doubt you have access to the original source material and you are the worst kind of truther, I bet you watched 80th generation youtube videos.

You call yourself a scientist?

 

[Sunstealer]

Wrong again. The plane is said to have crashed into the exterior wall
of WTC 2. If that's where an impact took place, that's where debris
traveling south would have been seen.

The plane penetrated the exterior "wall". Although it wasn't a wall at all - it was a series of steel box columns clad in aluminium holding glass windows, that could in no way resist the force of impact of a 757 travelling at 500mph.

It's not our problem that you don't have the capability of object permanence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence

 

[Sunstealer]

LOL.

You could just slow the videos down and examine each of them
frame-by-frame, as I have.

Have you got videos from inside the building? Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean the object doesn't exist. Children aged 2 can work this out.

 

[Sunstealer]

People are also made of hydrocarbons.
Any other fuel source that any of you could
suggest, other than hydrocarbons?

When you worked for a very brief period at John Thomas after Wayne Kaufman laughably said

"I thought, 'Maybe this is a person who could help us understand these early-stage biotech companies that financial people just don't always understand,'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/tracy-postert-occupy-wall-street_n_1130342.html

what sort of material, that could burn, were you surrounded by in your office?

I know that detail is not your fortitude, but perhaps you could describe in detail all the material in that office that would burn in the event of a fire.

Hint: wiring isn't just bare metal, there is more often than not plastic sheathing protecting the metal. I'm assuming you are posting using a computer in your own home. Perhaps you might like to examine the power lead to that computer or the network cable going to your router.

 

[dafydd]

You call yourself a scientist?

She does, but shows no signs of being a scientist.