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

[Dash80]

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.

Can you address this post please Doctor Dust?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9131034#post9131034

 

[thebicyclist]

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.

You are confusing conservation of momentum with Newton's third law conservation of energy.

I'll go with a medium you understand, YouTube

Notice how when the single moving ball in the Newton's cradle strikes the others it comes to almost a complete stop and conservation of moment is demonstrated by the free ball at the end beginning to move in the same direction.

It is not until the balls reach to top of their swing that any backwards motion is seen.

As an aside, the energy applied to the plane by the building in the collision is demonstrated by the destruction of the plane, and the reduction of the plane's remains velocity from several hundred miles per hour to zero in a couple of seconds.

 

[fess]

LOL.

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

My thanks to Wolrab for already addressing this post, but…
With all of the expertise that you claim to have, maybe you could post two consecutive screen shots of your “slowed down” video so we can see how far the aircraft traveled in those frames.

While you’re at it, maybe you could post a screen shot of aircraft parts bouncing off of the tower.

 

[fess]

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

In a fire, anything that is combustible becomes a fuel.

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

You didn't really provide a test for me.

 

[WTC Dust]

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

You say this ... plane ... penetrated the WTC 2, but don't forget that
you are also saying that it collided with the south wall of WTC 2 before
it penetrated the building.

Videos of 9:59AM don't depict any evidence of a collision.

 

[WTC Dust]

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

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.

OK. Add the plastic cover to the wiring. Plastic is a hydrocarbon.
Anything that isn't a hydrocarbon?

 

[WTC Dust]

You are confusing conservation of momentum with Newton's third law conservation of energy.

I'll go with a medium you understand, YouTube

Notice how when the single moving ball in the Newton's cradle strikes the others it comes to almost a complete stop and conservation of moment is demonstrated by the free ball at the end beginning to move in the same direction.

Ah yes, but don't forget that momentum was conserved in the
original collision (because the first ball comes to a stop).

It is not until the balls reach to top of their swing that any backwards motion is seen.

As an aside, the energy applied to the plane by the building in the collision is demonstrated by the destruction of the plane, and the reduction of the plane's remains velocity from several hundred miles per hour to zero in a couple of seconds.


Videos of 9:59AM do not depict this destruction to the ... plane ...
where the impact was said to have taken place, at the south
face of WTC 2.

You are misinterpreting my responses as coming out of confusion.

 

[WTC Dust]

In a fire, anything that is combustible becomes a fuel.

So what are you saying was the fuel that fueled what you're calling
a fire at the WTC? Other than hydrocarbons, of course.

 

[WTC Dust]

My thanks to Wolrab for already addressing this post, but…
With all of the expertise that you claim to have, maybe you could post two consecutive screen shots of your “slowed down” video so we can see how far the aircraft traveled in those frames.

While you’re at it, maybe you could post a screen shot of aircraft parts bouncing off of the tower.

NONE of the videos of 9:59AM on 9/11 show aircraft parts bouncing
off the tower. Exactly zero.

 

[DGM]

NONE of the videos of 9:59AM on 9/11 show aircraft parts bouncing
off the tower. Exactly zero.

Good thing. That would defy the laws of physics.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

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?

Cosigned, I'd love for dusty to tell a widow "Hey your husband is really alive, I know this because there were no hijackings, isn't that great?!"

Shameful utterly shameful.

 

[Dash80]

You say this ... plane ... penetrated the WTC 2, but don't forget that
you are also saying that it collided with the south wall of WTC 2 before
it penetrated the building.

Videos of 9:59AM don't depict any evidence of a collision.

Ahem...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9131034#post9131034

 

[twinstead]

NONE of the videos of 9:59AM on 9/11 show aircraft parts bouncing
off the tower. Exactly zero.

If you honestly expect to see aircraft parts bouncing off the tower, then you have no business debating this subject, your claim of being a 'scientist' notwithstanding.

 

[Dash80]

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.

It did, the plane shredded.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

OK. Add the plastic cover to the wiring. Plastic is a hydrocarbon.
Anything that isn't a hydrocarbon?

PVC insulation isn't a hydrocarbon. The clue is in the C, which here doesn't stand for carbon.

People also contain a lot of hydrogen and carbon, yet they too are not a hydrocarbon.

 

[JohnG]

You say this ... plane ... penetrated the WTC 2, but don't forget that
you are also saying that it collided with the south wall of WTC 2 before
it penetrated the building.

Videos of 9:59AM don't depict any evidence of a collision.

Do you find it odd that your perpetrators thought it was a good idea to fake airplane crashes when it would have been easier and "safer" (from their POV) to actually crash planes into the buildings?

Do you find it odd that their scheme somehow managed to fool virtually all acknowledged experts in the relevant fields (architecture, demolition, aeronautics, etc.) but didn't fool people with little to no expertise in said fields?

You set great store by your own training and expertise. Do you find that the general public tends to know more about biochemistry than those (like you) who have actual training and experience in that field?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

Oh, sure, that's where the damage to the plane and the tower began.

As the impact continued, and more of the plane piled in on top of the already shredded front portion, the wall of the building was also broken up and the mass of broken stuff moved inwards, due to (guess what?) conservation of momentum.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

You don't understand conservation of momentum, then.

You appear to be describing a simple elastic collision between two equal masses rather than applying the conservation of momentum to the scenario being discussed.

Conservation of momentum means the combined centre of mass of the tower plus the plane does keep going. If the tower wasn't fixed to the ground, they would have kept on going.

 

[beachnut]

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.

You don't understand physics.

911 truth can't do physics, they don't do reality. You have been fooled by nuts who make up lies about 911.

How do bullets work?

Steel wins in a contest of aluminum vs. steel, at the supposed velocity of the plane and the actual thickness of the metals involved.

An aluminum plane might be able to puncture through a paper thin sheet of steel and keep on trucking, but the exterior steel beams of the WTC were much thicker than that.

You don't understand physics. You are wrong.