• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

I don't know much about the ESB plane crash, except the building survived. Look at the image below and extrapolate to a bigger airplane and the WTC. You should have seen something similar. Airplanes haven't changed that much in 70 years, and the WTC was designed with airplane impacts in mind.

Dash80 said:
The whole plane? I recall the very tail end wedged in the hole yes but are you saying the entire plane was completely intact?

It wasn't, try again.

It penetrated the building, parts of it emerged out the other side.

It did not splat against the facade like a fly.

It was also much smaller and traveling around half the speed of the planes that hit the WTC. The structural design of the ESB should also be considered. A conventional steel frame and masonry design. The WTC had open space beyond the facade, nothing more to stop the momentum of the shredding aircraft. Until the core columns that is, and many of those were destroyed or damaged.

This is basic stuff even I can understand! I don't even have a PhD and I get it! Why can't you?
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • empire state building.jpg
    empire state building.jpg
    53.2 KB · Views: 6
Conservation of momentum isn't the type of law that you can disobey, so yeah it does apply to the destruction of the WTC.

MIKILLINI said:
Momentum = mass x velocity
It is a vector quantity. Momentum is always directed in the direction of velocity.
One law of conservation of momentum states thusly:"Total momentum of an isolated system before collision is always equal to total momentum after collision."

Consider two bodies of mass m1 and m2 moving initially with velocities u1 and u2.
Total momentum before collision = m1u1 + m2u2.
Let after collision their velocities become v1 and v2.
Total momentum after collision = m1v1 + m2v2.

According to the law of conservation of momentum
m1u1 + m2u2 = m1v1 + m2v2

Therefore, conservation of momentum was a factor in the progressive collapse of the Twin Towers.
Click to expand...
 
DGM said:
How so? Now it's your turn to shine. Dazzle us with your physics knowledge. Don't forget the math.

I bet you won't (and you know you can't).


:o
Click to expand...

Any force applied in this direction ---> has an associated force <--- paired with it. This force would have destroyed any airplane upon impact with a steel building. The plane wouldn't have sliced through the steel beams that made up the exterior of the south face of WTC 2 and kept moving. Videos of the event would have depicted an impact, had one occurred. No math needed.
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
Look at the image below and extrapolate to a bigger airplane and the WTC. You should have seen something similar.
Click to expand...

We do. Bigger hole, bigger building, bigger fire, more damage due to increased speed.......

WTC Dust said:
Airplanes haven't changed that much in 70 years, and the WTC was designed with airplane impacts in mind.
Click to expand...

Oh my jesus christ on a pogo stick, what the ****?

Yeah, they haven't changed much at all.....we're still using propeller planes with regular aluminum skin.......Jet propulsion must still be in it's infancy.....
 
WTC Dust said:
Any force applied in this direction ---> has an associated force <--- paired with it. This force would have destroyed any airplane upon impact with a steel building. The plane wouldn't have sliced through the steel beams that made up the exterior of the south face of WTC 2 and kept moving. Videos of the event would have depicted an impact, had one occurred. No math needed.
Click to expand...

LMAO!!! So in Dusty's world nothing can penetrate anything...ever.



Of course no math necessary Dusty, that way you would have to validate your delusions.
 
Last edited:
BStrong said:
Not to mention she failed the psychological.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I cannot confirm or deny if she jumped around on the table and flung poo or not when asked "What do you see in this picture?"......


--------------------------------------

Oh, and not a single laugh to my bad Office Space reference? Really? I guess it's Monty Python next time....
 
I'm seriously trying to figure out the original context of this thread? Anyone here willing to dispel my confusion?

Side note: My face hurts!
 
Did you just posted a video that did not show a plane crash where bits bounced off to proof that in the WTC plane crash bits should have bounced off?
 
Train Wreck:

Trying to compare the WTC crash to a test for a plane hitting a "cement wall of a nuclear power plant".....

See also, "Moon sized rubble" and "Larry made off like a bandit..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom