Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

[beachnut]

revised calculation

- 67,000 pounds of fuel (10k gal @ 6.7 lbs per gallon) which is approx 30,000 kg.

- 0.5 * mv^2 with m=33,000 kg of fuel and speed = 200m/s :=

600000000 joules in the wings alone. Excluding the chemical energy stored in the fuel.

So the wings moving at 200m/s loaded with fluid is hardly a empty aluminium box.

Also, wings travveling at that speed with that much energy are not going to break off and fall to the floor. They are going to go right through the towers, probably mostly through the windows. They are not going to fold back and break off.

http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~johnm/Three-Lightbursts/Flammable767.JPG

Think NIST had some fuel summaries.

These two truther can't comprehend physics, and will not drop the fantasy.

 

[Kid Eager]

No. I am trying to discuss it. You are avoiding a simple question.

How fast was the leading edge of the wing of the 767 that was observed to impact the tower moving when it was observed to impact the tower?

I am interested in probing your claim. Your claim, your onus.

Hi - it would appear that we're not going to get an answer.

Never fear, though - here are the calculations from the previous thread on the same topic: ("No Planer calls for Scientific Study")

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8977443#post8977443

Call me crazy, but I'm bringing some math to a speculation thread.

Earlier on I tool the OP to task on the one-at-a-time depiction of the wing hitting the pylons comprising the side of the WTC and asked if he had any idea of how quickly that would have happened.

Anyhow, I did the math. The entire wing impacted the side of the WTC in 0.04 of a second. The hits on each pylon therefore occurred around 2/1000 of a second apart.

Assumptions:
Impact velocity 240 m/sec
Wing length perpendicular to fuselage: 20.6 metres
Wing rake: 31.5 degrees
Pylons hit by wing: 24

I'm not really sure what this proves other than it happens pretty quick.

 

[yankee451]

They are not going to fold back and break off.

Verily, even when the wing root they are attached to has disintegrated, they still maintain their velocity through steel.

There's that magic loogie again.

 

[beachnut]

It is sad anyone falls for or makes up lies as silly as missiles or CD.

Real science takes time for some, yet some lay people understand things naturally.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
oops, science wasted on 911 truth pushers of woo.

Radar debunks the no plane fantasy.
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Rec_Radar_Data_Study_all_aircraft.pdf

Simple to understand, yet 911 truth can't do it.

Sad to see people who are anti-education.

 

[BadBoy]

Hi - it would appear that we're not going to get an answer.

Never fear, though - here are the calculations from the previous thread on the same topic: ("No Planer calls for Scientific Study")

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8977443#post8977443

The entire wing impacted the side of the WTC in 0.04 of a second

Wow.

Its as if the truthers cant comprehend the amount of energy involved. It's like a poster said earlier- too many James Bond movies.

 

[beachnut]

Wow.

Its as if the truthers cant comprehend the amount of energy involved. It's like a poster said earlier- too many James Bond movies.

If 911 truth no plane believers could do physics, they could do this.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf
But they are anti-science, anti-education, anti-reality.

The dumbest claims are nukes, missiles, CD, DEW, and thermite. All these are based on ignorance, and no logic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo Physics, what no plane believer can't do.

In truther world mass goes away at impact, thus shot guns don't work, hollow point bullets don't kill, and ping pong balls don't rip through wooden paddles.

 

[Reactor drone]

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
I would appreciate you posting one, if not several,"...videos of the jet crashes where the wings snap off [sic] on impact...".

From the top of my dome:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScszbMeAl6s

Now what was the speed of the leading edge?

Probably more accurate to say the fuselage broke up than the wings snapped off. This wings still seems quite securely attached to part of the fuselage.

http://news.xin.msn.com/en/silverlight-gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=4292010&page=5

 

[yankee451]

Probably more accurate to say the fuselage broke up than the wings snapped off. This wings still seems quite securely attached to part of the fuselage.

http://news.xin.msn.com/en/silverlight-gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=4292010&page=5

Okay, so about the gash...

 

[BadBoy]

Verily, even when the wing root they are attached to has disintegrated, they still maintain their velocity through steel.

There's that magic loogie again.

The side of the building wasnt a flat block of steel. It was mainly glass.
As has already been stated the amount of energy, just in the wings (the fuel) was enormous. Where do you think all that energy went?

 

[Reactor drone]

Okay, so about the gash...

You mean the gash caused by the impact of a plane or do you still insist it was caused by invisible missiles that don't exist?

 

[beachnut]

Hi - it would appear that we're not going to get an answer.

Never fear, though - here are the calculations from the previous thread on the same topic: ("No Planer calls for Scientific Study")

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8977443#post8977443

Answers, these guys are in full blown fantasy-land. yankee451 says education is for fools.

And now, without evidence, the fantasy makers have to make up a lie and say radar data is fake. Without effort, a lie, it is fake. Lies and fantasy.

The problem with 911 truth no plane fantasy believers, they think the aircraft are soft. With alloys as strong as steel, they make up lies about impacts to keep their failed fantasy.

Oops, 911 truth fails, water crushes car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5EuuHR9yiQ

Guess 911 truth no planers can't grasp 66,000 pounds of jet fuel at 500 mph will no stop at the WTC shell. So they make up lies.

Then they make up lies about paper, and they don't do physics.

 

[threadworm]

Here's a couple of 8x10 glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one

I have nothing to add for the moment, but felt that this deserved proper recognition. Well done sir, well done.

 

[threadworm]

yankee451 says education is for fools.

And yet he shares the same cognitively dissonant (t's the new buzz phrase amongst CTs, have you noticed?) attitude of loathing academia and its processes and the qualifications it confers while at the same time desperately trying to find an academically qualified person who agrees with him.

 

[beachnut]

Some truther make silly remarks about papers, think they have debunked science, and end up making fools of themselves.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf

No plane missile fantasy pushers think silly comments debunk science. It takes physics to debunk physics, and 911 truth can't do the work. Never have, never will.

People blame the government for their failure, and make up wild fantasies of missiles.

http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/31114

http://www.wai.com/articles_pdf/webAS_abboudlevy_wtc_asceforensic_2003.pdf

The no plane fantasy is born in disrespect and deep seeded ignorance. They can't debunk reality, have to say everyone is a liar, video is a liar, radar is a liar, and they miss their no plane claim is a lie. They call science bogus which dovetails with their disdain of education.

 

[332nd]

LOL! Keep running from the physics yankee.

Edit: Oh wait! You'll try to ignore this too!

revised calculation- 67,000 pounds of fuel (10k gal @ 6.7 lbs per gallon) which is approx 30,000 kg.- 0.5 * mv^2 with m=33,000 kg of fuel and speed = 200m/s :=600000000 joules in the wings alone. Excluding the chemical energy stored in the fuel.So the wings moving at 200m/s loaded with fluid is hardly a empty aluminium box.Also, wings travveling at that speed with that much energy are not going to break off and fall to the floor. They are going to go right through the towers, probably mostly through the windows. They are not going to fold back and break off.

(Psst!) This is where you run again.

 

[tsig]

What happens when you compare apples to break dancing?

Apple salsa?

 

[DGM]

I don't, why do you perpetuate official lies?

But you do, it's why you need to reinforce the jet.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hi - it would appear that we're not going to get an answer.

Never fear, though - here are the calculations from the previous thread on the same topic: ("No Planer calls for Scientific Study")

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8977443#post8977443

Mr. Eager:

Thanks for this. In a socratic inquiry, it is often more important who provides an answer than what the answer provided is. I know the figures; you know the figures. The purpose of asking yankee451 the question is to get him to demonstrate how observed reality cannot be poured into his sci-fi fantasy scenario.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Verily, even when the wing root they are attached to has disintegrated, they still maintain their velocity through steel.

There's that magic loogie again.

What was the velocity of the leading edge of the wing of the 767 that was observed to impact the tower, when it was observed to impact the tower?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Okay, so about the gash...

How fast was the leading edge of the wing of the 767 that caused the gash when it was observed to impact the tower moving, when it was observed to impact the tower?