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

[R.A.F.]

The equations say...

You present this "as if" you actually have "equations" that would prove your "bounce backwards" claims correct...you do not.

Please confine yourself to posting things that are actually true, ok?

Thanks.

 

[Gamolon]

Where are the plane parts bouncing back in this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk

 

[WTC Dust]

Except for all the shredded wreckage continuing out the other side of the building, some of which was still recognizable as plane debris after crashing onto the ground.

You're the one claiming an impact between a plane and a building took place at the south face of WTC 2. That's where the debris from this impact would have been seen, not someplace else.

 

[WTC Dust]

3D projection technology doesn't exist. Even in Star Trek it doesn't show up for a few hundred more years.

Cameras are not subject to trauma. They show planes impacting the buildings and their flaming wreckage continuing out the opposite side.

The Washington Post reported on this technology. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

You and I agree that the videos aren't faked.

 

[Sunstealer]

If a plane exerted a force onto the south face of WTC 2, then the south face of WTC 2 would have exerted that same force on the plane, and we would have seen evidence of this second force in the videos.

The plane would have slowed down, crumpled, twisted, broken apart, and smashed against the aluminum-cladded steel exterior beams of WTC 2, and at least SOME of the plane parts would have bounced backwards.

I'm not saying a whole plane would have bounced off the south face of WTC 2, remaining intact. Some of a plane would have penetrated the building. Just not 100% of it. Some would have bounced back, and videos don't show this. Videos also do not depict crumpling, twisting, or a noticeable decrease in velocity of the plane-like object.

This video proves you wrong. And yes I fully expect a facetious remark such as, that's not a plane.



You have zero understanding of physics.

 

[WTC Dust]

Well, that would take care of the visual impression of the last few seconds before the 'crash'. Sadly the evidence for the existence of planes is not confined to a few seconds of visual images.

If you had a magic wand you could also fake the radar data and create false memories of the pretend planes and make a large number of people believe that the pretend crew and passengers were real people who had once been their family members, colleagues or friends.

Except that it's all a fantasy. Nobody has anything which can project a 3D image of a plane in the sky, so that is not an explanation for anything.

Jack, why don't you read what has counted as testimony (since we haven't had a 9/11 trial) of the air traffic controllers. It's crap! It's all over the map! None of these unofficial, not ever presented as evidence in a trial, reports are of confusion and turning off transponders and such. For one thing, a transponder only identifies the aircraft. You still see it on radar as a blip if they turn the transponder off. None of the radar story makes sense, except what has come from Richard D. Hall.

 

[R.A.F.]

You're the one claiming an impact between a plane and a building took place at the south face of WTC 2. That's where the debris from this impact would have been seen, not someplace else.

...and you base this claim on your structural engineering "expertise"?...of course not...

Why don't actual structual engineers agree with you??...oh, that's right....they're all "in" on the conspiracy.

 

[WTC Dust]

How does this apply to "objects" composed of many smaller objects and connections?

That depends on the specific objects and connections. If the objects and their connections were weak, you'd end up with multiple impacts and each of these objects would have a strong likelihood of bouncing backwards. Some of them would have gone through the windows. Some of them would have slightly dented the steel exterior columns.

If the connections were strong between these object, but deformable, you'd have something akin to an inelastic collision. Think putty splatted up against a wall. The conservation of momentum in this case would be spreading the putty in a circlular pattern outward from the center of the collision. If you added up all the force vectors for the bits of putty, they would add up to exactly equal the force in the opposite direction.

 

[R.A.F.]

Jack, why don't you read what has counted as testimony (since we haven't had a 9/11 trial) of the air traffic controllers. It's crap!

Again...you know this because of your expertise in airports/air traffic controllers? You've demonstrated no "knowledge" of such things, yet you speak as if you do.

Please stop doing that...it really cheeses off those of us who do know what we are talking about.

 

[WTC Dust]

Equations? You are not describing conservation of momentum at all. You are describing Newton's 3rd law of motion.

Conservation of momentum is not "Force-----><------Force", it's m₁v₁ + m₂v₂ = m₁v₁' + m₂v₂'

Equations can take many forms.

"Force------><------Force" is most certainly an equation, it just uses a different notation and is a different way to express the concept.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Jack, why don't you read what has counted as testimony (since we haven't had a 9/11 trial) of the air traffic controllers. It's crap! It's all over the map! None of these unofficial, not ever presented as evidence in a trial, reports are of confusion and turning off transponders and such. For one thing, a transponder only identifies the aircraft. You still see it on radar as a blip if they turn the transponder off. None of the radar story makes sense, except what has come from Richard D. Hall.

Your thorough grasp of Newtonian mechanics gives me full confidence in your radar interpretation expertise.

Oh, no, wait...

 

[GlennB]

If you think that human beings aren't largely composed of hydrocarbons, think again ... You can't honestly think that I don't know what human bodies are made of?

Apparently you don't. All proteins contain nitrogen, some also sulphur iirc. This rules them out as hydrocarbons.

Probably best if you stop talking about anything in public, eh, since it seems you no longer even know your own subject.

 

[R.A.F.]

Equations can take many forms.

Not in this context....not even close...

"Force------><------Force" is most certainly an equation, it just uses a different notation and is a different way to express the concept.

Obviously, you've never had to do any type of physics "homework", because turning in such garbage would get you an instant F.

 

[Gamolon]

That depends on the specific objects and connections. If the objects and their connections were weak, you'd end up with multiple impacts and each of these objects would have a strong likelihood of bouncing backwards. Some of them would have gone through the windows. Some of them would have slightly dented the steel exterior columns.

If the connections were strong between these object, but deformable, you'd have something akin to an inelastic collision. Think putty splatted up against a wall. The conservation of momentum in this case would be spreading the putty in a circlular pattern outward from the center of the collision. If you added up all the force vectors for the bits of putty, they would add up to exactly equal the force in the opposite direction.

Again.

Where is the bounce-back of plane parts in this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk

 

[R.A.F.]

Your thorough grasp of Newtonian mechanics gives me full confidence in your radar interpretation expertise.

Oh, no, wait...

The list of things WTC doesn't know is getting longer, while the list of things WTC does know is getting shorter.

...kinda an inverse learning curve.

 

[WTC Dust]

How many times must the "burden of proof" be explained to you?...you're making the unevidenced, speculative claims, therefore YOU have the burden of proving yourself correct.





Irrelevant...

Whatever is suggested by anyone must account for the evidence of lack of plane debris in the videos.

 

[WTC Dust]

Find a video of a baseball being thrown at a glass window. How much of the baseball bounces backwards?

And you're still confusing Newton's second law with his third.

Actually, that's not right. His second law is about momentum, but isn't conservation. You're confusing conservation of momentum with Newton's third law of motion.

Nope. Newton's third law is about conservation of momentum in a collision.
Newton's second law is about force. Newton's first law is about inertia.

 

[WTC Dust]

You present this "as if" you actually have "equations" that would prove your "bounce backwards" claims correct...you do not.

Please confine yourself to posting things that are actually true, ok?

Thanks.

Momentum is conserved in every collision.

 

[WTC Dust]

I guarantee you that if a car was crashed into the WTC at 500 miles per hour NONE of it would "bounce backwards". It's ridiculous!

You wrong about this.

 

[WTC Dust]

This video proves you wrong. And yes I fully expect a facetious remark such as, that's not a plane.



You have zero understanding of physics.

Bits of the ball fly backwards. Yeah, they remain attached to the rest of the ping pong ball, but they do move in the backwards direction. I wouldn't call it a bounce, but this not all collisions result in a bounce. All collisions conserve momentum, though, and some times this momentum is conserved by deforming the objects, as it was in this case. Bits of the screen also move in the opposite direction of the path of the ball.