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

[Jack by the hedge]

If a plane exerted a force in the northerly direction onto a steel wall,
that steel wall would have exerted a force in the southerly direction
onto the plane at the exact same time and with the exact same
magnitude of force that the plane exerted onto the building.

Do you recognise that this claim applies in exactly the same way to the case of a bullet striking a sheet of tissue paper?

This being the case, what do you think conservation of momentum tells you about which way debris should move?

 

[Dash80]

It tells me that the plane would be nearly completely destroyed at the moment of impact.

I think you might actually be getting the hang of this!

The plane would damage the building.
The building would damage the plane.

Which is exactly what happened... Keep going!

 

[DGM]

Do you recognise that this claim applies in exactly the same way to the case of a bullet striking a sheet of tissue paper?

Like I said, she will never admit that the buildings ability to resist is a factor. It kills her argument and she has no idea how to calculate it.

In her world the tissue paper stops the bullet.

 

[DGM]

So if a 100 ton aircraft travelling north at 500mph collides with a static 500,000 ton building, what does conservation of momentum tell you?

This example is a bit overkill and boarders on a strawman.

The plane did not encounter the whole 500,000 ton building. It only encountered the resistance of the wall it impacted. At first this was a very small section (as the nose impacted) and later progressed to the section impacted by the wings. There would have been no noticeable deceleration of the plane although the plane did infact transfer it's energy to the building. This is proven by the amount the building swayed and by the recordings made by the seismographs. This is the same thing as what happens when a 30 gram bullet hits a 200 lb person. The mass of the person is not really a factor.

Tracy (likely) has me on ignore but, I would bet she can't explain away this evidence.

I'd love to see her try.

 

[phunk]

Because in every collision between two objects, momentum is conserved.

If one is moving north (the plane) and the other is stationary (the building), then the net momentum is north. After the collision, the net momentum is still north, because momentum is conserved.

So please, explain how conservation of momentum means that something has to move south.

 

[swright777]

This example is a bit overkill and boarders on a strawman.

The plane did not encounter the whole 500,000 ton building. It only encountered the resistance of the wall it impacted. At first this was a very small section (as the nose impacted) and later progressed to the section impacted by the wings. There would have been no noticeable deceleration of the plane although the plane did infact transfer it's energy to the building. This is proven by the amount the building swayed and by the recordings made by the seismographs. This is the same thing as what happens when a 30 gram bullet hits a 200 lb person. The mass of the person is not really a factor.

Tracy (likely) has me on ignore but, I would bet she can't explain away this evidence.

I'd love to see her try.

Just in case. I doubt that she will/can respond coherently though.

 

[tsig]

Did you calculate the force in the northerly direction? Sincere question again.

It was cold.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

This example is a bit overkill and boarders on a strawman.

The plane did not encounter the whole 500,000 ton building. It only encountered the resistance of the wall it impacted. At first this was a very small section (as the nose impacted) and later progressed to the section impacted by the wings. There would have been no noticeable deceleration of the plane although the plane did infact transfer it's energy to the building. This is proven by the amount the building swayed and by the recordings made by the seismographs. This is the same thing as what happens when a 30 gram bullet hits a 200 lb person. The mass of the person is not really a factor.

Tracy (likely) has me on ignore but, I would bet she can't explain away this evidence.

I'd love to see her try.

Granted it was a uselessly oversimplified model, but I was trying to find some sort of common ground as we seemed to be talking entirely at cross purposes about what the conservation of momentum actually is.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If one is moving north (the plane) and the other is stationary (the building), then the net momentum is north. After the collision, the net momentum is still north, because momentum is conserved.

So please, explain how conservation of momentum means that something has to move south.

Thank you. That's what I was trying to get to and failing.

 

[George 152]

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

NO !

 

[JohnG]

It's a shame then that you don't accord the same respect to other experts in other fields, but that takes us back to the whole "contempt" thing, doesn't it?

Which PhD level research scientists are working full time on 9/11 that you call experts? If they aren't experts in 9/11, then they aren't experts. If they are experts in other fields, but they haven't spent any time on 9/11, then they have some catching up to do. It's not enough to have a degree or technical knowledge. You have to actually be doing the work to be classified as an expert in the field.

The technology you refer to does not exist.

How are you so sure? You, yourself know every single bit of technology that exists? I find this difficult to believe.


such advanced holo-technology DOES NOT EXIST.

You seem very convinced about this. Can you explain why you think this way?

If I claim that the jets hijacked on 9/11 were teleported to the planet Xooberon, you are under no obligation to debunk me. I'd be the one making the extraordinary claim therefore the onus would be on me to provide evidence of my claim, or to at least provide evidence that Xooberon and teleports actually exist. Similarly, when you claim that advanced hologram technology was used to fake jets flying into buildings, you must first prove that such technology exists. It's not enough to just shrug and say "maybe it exists".

Imaginary technology is more "feasible" to you than the possibility that you're wrong?

You are coming from a strong standpoint that it couldn't happen, and
I really wonder why.

No, I'm actually coming from a viewpoint that there's no evidence that your scenario happened. I did laundry a couple of nights ago and I'm missing a sock. There are all sorts of things that could have happened to explain the sock's disappearance, including the sock being, I don't know, stolen by the CIA. Only a perverse idiot though would immediately assume CIA involvement when there are any number of more likely explanations.

If your aim is to commit the crime of the century and yet you have no desire to go down in history as a cross between Guy Fawkes and Lex Luthor, you don't carry out your crime in a way that makes it clear that you are the guilty party.

No problem with this statement.

And yet you and other 9/11 CTists believe that the inside job perps planted all sorts of obvious clues that they were behind the crime, including intact passports, supposedly impossible aeronautic maneuvers and slips of the tongue from Bush's staff. All in aid of some dimly defined "smoke and mirrors/shock and awe/big lie" mind game. Are they deliberately drawing attention to their part in the crime or aren't they?

 

[Jim_MDP]

I've seen those images, and they aren't images of the south face of WTC 2 at the supposed moment of impact at 9:59AM.

That's the time and place I expect plane parts, because that's the time and place a plane was said to have crashed.

Doc, you've posted the bolded part, I believe, about four times in the last week alone. A simple slip but would you please stop?

At the very least I think we can all agree with you that there was no plane impact at 9:59 that morning.

That said... can anyone link to any pics of the street area below that crash between impact and collapse? I expect they would show a crap ton of broken glass etc. blown back during the explosion and perhaps some shredded aircraft skin and whatnot.

It was the second impact, so I doubt there were many civvies allowed in the area to take pics, but I thought I would ask.

 

[BCR]

If a plane exerted a force in the northerly direction onto a steel wall,
that steel wall would have exerted a force in the southerly direction
onto the plane at the exact same time and with the exact same
magnitude of force that the plane exerted onto the building.

A few topics you might want to googleinvestigate for yourself before discussing force vectors.

Elastic/Inelastic collisions
Conservation of momentum
Ballistic impact

 

[phunk]

Doc, you've posted the bolded part, I believe, about four times in the last week alone. A simple slip but would you please stop?

At the very least I think we can all agree with you that there was no plane impact at 9:59 that morning.

That said... can anyone link to any pics of the street area below that crash between impact and collapse? I expect they would show a crap ton of broken glass etc. blown back during the explosion and perhaps some shredded aircraft skin and whatnot.

It was the second impact, so I doubt there were many civvies allowed in the area to take pics, but I thought I would ask.

Screencap from the video Gamolon posted earlier. I wonder how Dr Dust has ruled out any of that being debris from the plane.

 

[phiwum]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_188615164d76667fef.jpg[/qimg]

Screencap from the video Gamolon posted earlier. I wonder how Dr Dust has ruled out any of that being debris from the plane.

It doesn't look like a plane. Duh.

 

[swright777]

Doc, you've posted the bolded part, I believe, about four times in the last week alone. A simple slip but would you please stop?

At the very least I think we can all agree with you that there was no plane impact at 9:59 that morning.

...

I think she's intentionally saying that the plane had to crash at 9:59 because that's when the tower started to collapse.

 

[WTC Dust]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_188615164d76667fef.jpg[/qimg]

Screencap from the video Gamolon posted earlier. I wonder how Dr Dust has ruled out any of that being debris from the plane.

I haven't ruled it out 100%, but it does not appear to be plane debris. Rather, it appears to be debris from the explosion. If you watch the videos closely, the plane-like object moves smoothly and fully into WTC 2, then an explosion happens. The explosions were undoubtedly real. The buildings are no longer there. Stuff did fall to the ground. Just not when it appeared that a plane was crashing into the south wall of WTC 2. There wasn't plane debris bouncing off, or even falling down, at the south face.

 

[WTC Dust]

Do you recognise that this claim applies in exactly the same way to the case of a bullet striking a sheet of tissue paper?

This being the case, what do you think conservation of momentum tells you about which way debris should move?

Some of it should have been moving south. Not all. Some. At the moment of "impact", not after.

 

[OCaptain]

I haven't ruled it out 100%, but it does not appear to be plane debris. Rather, it appears to be debris from the explosion. If you watch the videos closely, the plane-like object moves smoothly and fully into WTC 2, then an explosion happens. The explosions were undoubtedly real. The buildings are no longer there. Stuff did fall to the ground. Just not when it appeared that a plane was crashing into the south wall of WTC 2. There wasn't plane debris bouncing off, or even falling down, at the south face.

Tracy,

What would plane debris falling from impact with a 110+ storey skyscraper have looked like? Images please.

 

[Blaupunkt69]

Tracy,

What would plane debris falling from impact with a 110+ storey skyscraper have looked like? Images please.

smaller plane-shaped debris with little wings, a tail, cockpit - duh!