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

[R.A.F.]

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

Why do you have this "expectation" that you should see plane debris??

 

[The Big Dog]

Momentum is conserved in every collision.

Oh cripes, nevermind...

 

[twinstead]

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.

Well, the plane impacts into the WTC didn't result in a bounce either, but for some reason you expect them too. Why do you expect a bounce for them, but not for the ping pong ball?

 

[WTC Dust]

Where are the plane parts bouncing back in this video?

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

At 0:20, bits of the plane bounce off the wall in all directions. If you added up the force vectors for all these bits of plane debris, the net would be exactly equal to the force that the wall exerted onto the plane (which is exactly equal to the force that the plane exerted onto the wall).

 

[Sunstealer]

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.

No parts of the ping-pong ball travel backwards and "bounce" of the bat. You as usual don't pay attention. You can clearly see 4 small particles that are travelling behind the ball, they are in shot before the ball makes contact with the bat. A couple of those pieces are deflected. The rest of the material that waves about is the plastic clear coating on the bat.

One the one hand you claim that the airplane should have parts that bounce and in the same breath you state "not all collisions result in a bounce".

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility and topicality.

 

[WTC Dust]

Again.

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

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

At 0:20.

 

[WTC Dust]

Why do you have this "expectation" that you should see plane debris??

Several things. The strength of steel compared to aluminum. Every video ever taken of plane crashes and car crashes. The laws of physics.

 

[WTC Dust]

No parts of the ping-pong ball travel backwards and "bounce" of the bat. You as usual don't pay attention. You can clearly see 4 small particles that are travelling behind the ball, they are in shot before the ball makes contact with the bat. A couple of those pieces are deflected. The rest of the material that waves about is the plastic clear coating on the bat.

One the one hand you claim that the airplane should have parts that bounce and in the same breath you state "not all collisions result in a bounce".

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility and topicality.

Actually, bits of the ball do fly backwards. The ball does not maintain a spherical shape throughout. The ball deforms, and bits of the ball fly backward, although they do remain attached to the rest of the ball.

When it comes to an airplane crashing into a steel wall, I say that bits of the plane would bounce backwards. If you threw silly putty against the wall, I'd say that bits would fly nearly horiztonally outward in a circle around the point of impact, with a slight backwards vector for all the bits. If you added up the force vectors for all the bits of silly putty, they'd equal the force in the opposite direction.

 

[twinstead]

Several things. The strength of steel compared to aluminum. Every video ever taken of plane crashes and car crashes. The laws of physics.

Is there anybody on Earth who could tell you that you are mistaken who would make you think twice, or do you pretty much think you know more than just about every physicist on the planet?

 

[Sunstealer]

Is there anybody on Earth who could tell you that you are mistaken who would make you think twice, or do you pretty much think you know more than just about every physicist on the planet?

In Dr Dusty's world bullets can't penetrate steel plate. We know they do. There is even video on youttube. Still won't make any difference to the "straight A student".

 

[beachnut]

Several things. The strength of steel compared to aluminum. Every video ever taken of plane crashes and car crashes. The laws of physics.

What?

Two plane were used as KE weapons to impact the WTC, because the aircraft were going over 200 mph, they entered the WTC. (physics, engineering, not woo)

You failed to use physics to figure this out. You failed. Two aircraft tracked by RADAR from takeoff to impact hit the WTC. We know who was on the aircraft, how fast they were going, and rational people can figure out why the thin shell of the WTC failed to stop two speeding planes. You can't figure it out and you make up silly steel turned to foam lies; icing on your ridiculous claims.

 

[WTC Dust]

In Dr Dusty's world bullets can't penetrate steel plate. We know they do. There is even video on youttube. Still won't make any difference to the "straight A student".

Missing the point again. A bullet wouldn't penetrate steel without damaging itself in the process. Any slow motion replay of this would show the bullet being damaged.

Same for a plane. Perhaps a plane could penetrate partially into a steel building, if it were flying pretty fast. But it would destroy itself in the process, and videos of this event would show that this was happening.

 

[George 152]

Missing the point again. A bullet wouldn't penetrate steel without damaging itself in the process. Any slow motion replay of this would show the bullet being damaged.

Same for a plane. Perhaps a plane could penetrate partially into a steel building, if it were flying pretty fast. But it would destroy itself in the process, and videos of this event would show that this was happening.

Unbe/Australian word/leivable..
A 120 ton mass is a 120 ton mass.
At 500 knots that mass is going to be inside the building as it disintegrates
And that is be/Australian word/leivable..

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Missing the point again. A bullet wouldn't penetrate steel without damaging itself in the process. Any slow motion replay of this would show the bullet being damaged.

Same for a plane. Perhaps a plane could penetrate partially into a steel building, if it were flying pretty fast. But it would destroy itself in the process, and videos of this event would show that this was happening.

I think you ought to consider that a normal speed video of a bullet striking a steel plate is not going to show damage to the bullet when you slow it down. The whole event is going to be over in a fraction of a single frame.

Perhaps that's not what you meant. If you meant you have closeup video of the WTC taken with a special high speed camera, then that would certainly show the damage to the plane as the crash progressed. Something tells me you don't actually have that, though.

 

[Resume]

There weren't any hijacked planes.

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

There were four of them. Three hit buildings, one hit a field. It was all over the media; where were you? Seriously, how did you end up thinking this way? All of the evidence points towards the hijacking scenario while none of the evidence points towards crazy mixed up attention-seeking folderol.

 

[R.A.F.]

The strength of steel compared to aluminum.

Ok...what about the strength of steel vs the strength of aluminum?

How is it in any way relevant to the fact that planes were flown into the towers?

Every video ever taken of plane crashes and car crashes.

Again...how is that in any way relevant? There is no video that disproves what happened on 911, so don't bother implying that there is.

The laws of physics.

Do you have a related physics background, or are you "trying to bluff" your way through this argument, because that just ain't working for ya.

 

[Wolrab]

"Force------><------Force"

Cool, I don't ever need a plane, train, or automobile. All I need is a shotgun and a box of shells. I turn my back to where I need to go, fire the shotgun and fly a few hundred yards. Repeat till I arrive where I need to be!

 

[WTC Dust]

Unbe/Australian word/leivable..
A 120 ton mass is a 120 ton mass.
At 500 knots that mass is going to be inside the building as it disintegrates
And that is be/Australian word/leivable..

Not 100% of it would have made it into the building. Some of it would
have bounced backwards off the WTC.

 

[WTC Dust]

Ok...what about the strength of steel vs the strength of aluminum?

How is it in any way relevant to the fact that planes were flown into the towers?


If two things collide, the structurally weaker one is more heavily damaged.
Steel is an almost miraculously strong material, and aluminum is much weaker.
It's why a bug gets smashed and not the windshield. It's why an egg
breaks if you throw it against a wall. It's why you don't want to play
chicken with a semi-truck if you're driving a Kia.


Again...how is that in any way relevant? There is no video that disproves what happened on 911, so don't bother implying that there is.


The videos don't disprove what happened. They do the opposite.


Do you have a related physics background, or are you "trying to bluff" your way through this argument, because that just ain't working for ya.

Just college physics.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Just college physics.

Notice how R.A.F. formatted the post you replied to, i.e. with multiple quote boxes? That's how it's done right. You're doing it wrong.

The way you've been doing it makes your replies virtually unreadable from a formatting standpoint alone, but lime font(!) was the last straw. As Jams used to say, please do better.