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

[Craig4]

All these videos are missing exactly what I've been talking about that is missing. Clear evidence of a plane impact.

Why are you showing evidence of planes hitting the buildings and calling it no evidence of planes hitting buildings. Would it not be more effective to show a building without a plane hitting it?

 

[phunk]

There are some differences between a solid concrete wall and a wall made of steel columns.

There are some differences between the f4 jet in the video and a passenger plane.

Still, an impact at about 500MPH between these two different types of planes and two different types of walls should be similar in effect. Namely, the plane would be destroyed at the precise moment that it impacted the wall, and videos of this event would show plane debris bouncing backwards off the wall.

I've watched the f4 video you linked and I can't find any airplane parts bouncing backwards, and that's a close up high speed camera.

 

[WTC Dust]

Why are you showing evidence of planes hitting the buildings and calling it no evidence of planes hitting buildings. Would it not be more effective to show a building without a plane hitting it?

I'm not doing that. What looks like a plane in the videos isn't a plane.

 

[WTC Dust]

I've watched the f4 video you linked and I can't find any airplane parts bouncing backwards, and that's a close up high speed camera.

The stuff that's flying in all directions? That's the stuff. It is bouncing backwards off the concrete wall.

The trajectory of the individual pieces isn't exactly opposite in direction of the
path of the jet, but the pieces are all moving slightly backwards as they
fly off in various directions.

If you add up all the vectors of the various pieces, the sum of the vectors
is exactly, precisely opposite in direction and equal in magnitude to the
forward vector.

 

[Dash80]

I'm not doing that. What looks like a plane in the videos isn't a plane.

Tell that to the families of those who died aboard these "not-planes"

 

[phunk]

The stuff that's flying in all directions? That's the stuff. It is bouncing backwards off the concrete wall.

The trajectory of the individual pieces isn't exactly opposite in direction of the
path of the jet, but the pieces are all moving slightly backwards as they
fly off in various directions.

If you add up all the vectors of the various pieces, the sum of the vectors
is exactly, precisely opposite in direction and equal in magnitude to the
forward vector.

The stuff that's flying in all directions except straight away from the wall looks a lot like crushed concrete, not airplane parts. Replace that wall with one made columns of 1/4" steel sheet and there wouldn't be much crushed concrete, would there?

That's from a camera thousands of feet closer than any camera was on 9/11, and not one airplane part is seen flying backwards from the wall.

 

[phunk]

If you add up all the vectors of the various pieces, the sum of the vectors
is exactly, precisely opposite in direction and equal in magnitude to the
forward vector.

Oh and this is completely wrong. The momentum backwards is NOT equal in magnitude to the forward momentum. That would violate the conservation of momentum you love to bring up.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If you add up all the vectors of the various pieces, the sum of the vectors
is exactly, precisely opposite in direction and equal in magnitude to the
forward vector.

No. Sorry, but you are mistaken. You are still confusing CoM with perfectly elastic collisions.

Consider what would have happened if you threw a ball of soft clay at the wall, and it splatted against the wall and stuck. Before the impact it was going forwards at, say, 20m/s. After the impact it sure as heck isn't coming back towards you at 20m/s. Why not?

 

[OCaptain]

Something similar to (but not identical to) what took place in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM8E-CogkYE

So, here's what I learned from that video:

1. It was super-slomo
2. It was multiple angles
3. Those angles were up close (so as to gather useful data for analysis later)
4. The Phantom was crashing into a wall fortification designed to protect nuclear power stations.
5. The WTC towers were not made from fortifications designed to protect nuclear power stations.
6. The plane still penetrated the fortification

I question how relevant that video is, Tracy.

 

[OCaptain]

You can take a look at any of the videos of 9:59AM on 9/11/2001. It doesn't matter. They all show the same thing: nothing that appears to be plane debris.

I would not expect to see identifiable plane debris cascading down at the moment of impact. I would expect the debris to be comprised of plane bits, tower bits, people bits, etc. Especially when you consider how low-res the majority of these videos from the day are.

 

[WTC Dust]

Tell that to the families of those who died aboard these "not-planes"

Do you know any?

 

[WTC Dust]

So, here's what I learned from that video:

1. It was super-slomo
2. It was multiple angles
3. Those angles were up close (so as to gather useful data for analysis later)
4. The Phantom was crashing into a wall fortification designed to protect nuclear power stations.
5. The WTC towers were not made from fortifications designed to protect nuclear power stations.
6. The plane still penetrated the fortification

I question how relevant that video is, Tracy.

There's not THAT much difference between steel and concrete
in terms of "can this wall withstand a plane crash?".
There's not THAT much difference between the material that
makes up an F4 and the material that makes up a passenger plane.

Tell me what you think the differences are. Don't tell me that a
plane squeezed through the WTC windows without hitting the
steel, though. LOL

 

[OCaptain]

Yeah. You're right. I messed up. I'm not talking about 9:59AM. Gah!
I meant 9:03AM.

I find it amazing the things you'll admit to being wrong about, and the things you won't admit being wrong about.

Simply amazing!

 

[WTC Dust]

I would not expect to see identifiable plane debris cascading down at the moment of impact. I would expect the debris to be comprised of plane bits, tower bits, people bits, etc. Especially when you consider how low-res the majority of these videos from the day are.

It would smash similar to the F4 into concrete, with parts flying
all over the place (with a net backwards motion).

 

[OCaptain]

There's not THAT much difference between steel and concrete
in terms of "can this wall withstand a plane crash?".
There's not THAT much difference between the material that
makes up an F4 and the material that makes up a passenger plane.

Tell me what you think the differences are. Don't tell me that a
plane squeezed through the WTC windows without hitting the
steel, though. LOL

The major difference is that the cladding on the exterior was largely aluminum (like the exterior of the plane), the steel structural members inside provided little resistance, AND, once having penetrated the aforementioned structure, the floors inside were 95% open air until the plane reached the core.

 

[OCaptain]

It would smash similar to the F4 into concrete, with parts flying
all over the place (with a net backwards motion).

Was the Phantom fully-fueled? I bet not, so as to minimize the obscuring effects of any explosions from ignited fuel upon impact.

 

[DGM]

Do you know any?

I do.

 

[SUSpilot]

I agree with you on this. The videos DO show what happened. I don't think these videos are faked. I think they are genuine videos of the events of 9/11 as they took place.

Since there does not appear to be an impact between a plane and a building in these videos (because of the lack of plane debris), what they show is a faked plane image passing through the south face of WTC 2, followed by explosions.

The explosions are undoubtedly real. The WTC was, in fact, destroyed.

By two airplanes.

 

[Skibum]

It would smash similar to the F4 into concrete, with parts flying
all over the place (with a net backwards motion).

Would it? You do realize you are trying to compare a 40,000lb plane running into a 12 foot thick solid concrete wall, to a 400,000lb plane running into a wall made of steel beams, and between those steel beams is a lot of much weaker aluminum siding and glass?

My neck is starting to hurt from having to shake my head so much reading your nonsense.

 

[beachnut]

There's not THAT much difference between steel and concrete

Nonsense you made up. BS.

in terms of "can this wall withstand a plane crash?".

The WTC can take a 200 mph hit from an aircraft; 911 the planes were going 470 and 590 mph. You can't do physics so you make up lies, spread them, and fail. E=1/2mv²
You can figure out physcis because you ignore the v²;

There's not THAT much difference between the material that makes up an F4 and the material that makes up a passenger plane.

Wrong again. However, you can't do the research to figure out what a 767 is made of.

But the important part of this is the mass. Can you do the math?

Tell me what you think the differences are. Don't tell me that a plane squeezed through the WTC windows without hitting the steel, though. LOL

E=1/2mv² You are not using physics for you nonsense, you are using nothing.

The steel in the WTC shell was thin, but strong. 767 greater than 200 mph would not stop until inside. Sorry, but it is physics, and you do fantasy, and lies without supporting your claims with evidence.

Show the math and physics to support your claim. Wait, forget that your claims is a fantasy. You are stuck with no evidence. Better luck with your fantasy dust, you lost this point.

RADAR proves Flight 11 and 175 impacted the WTC towers, you can't refute the science.