Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[bardamu]

Pilots land in a specific zone on the runway. Most airline pilots land within a few feet of center line on runways as small as 150 feet wide. The WTC towers were 207 feet wide, the Pentagon was the biggest target and the 70 foot tall sides are twice as tall as the runway threshold crossing height typical of some jets.

Most airline pilots land at 500mph, while banking to the left, immediately after a 20,000ft power dive.

 

[332nd]

Most airline pilots land at 500mph, while banking to the left, immediately after a 20,000ft power dive.

The funny part is that you've convinced yourself that the speed matters here, but doesn't when it comes to talking about the damage.

 

[bardamu]

The funny part is that you've convinced yourself that the speed matters here, but doesn't when it comes to talking about the damage.

That's because it's an indisputable fact that speed matters when it comes to the ease or difficulty of steering a vehicle.

 

[BigAl]

That's because it's an indisputable fact that speed matters when it comes to the ease or difficulty of steering a vehicle.

Don't fly much?

 

[triforcharity]

Steering a car and flying a plane are two totally different processes.

There is a reason you have months and months of intensive training for pilots, and only an 8 hour course for driving.

 

[bardamu]

Oops... you are right. That was episode three... which is about SCALE and momentum... still things you need to learn.
Episode one and episode two are about why the jets could and would do what they did.

episode 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...ysics+of+9/11&hl=en#docid=2636718609916624673

episode 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...YwgPQ6uDLAw&q=hardfire+physics+of+9/11&hl=en#

feel free to debunk the physics. I eagerly await your thesis.

First off, I need to ask you a simple question to check you can follow the maths and stay with me. How does Mackey get the figure of 120" for the length of his slug of fuel?

 

[beachnut]

That's because it's an indisputable fact that speed matters when it comes to the ease or difficulty of steering a vehicle.

The faster it goes the easier it is. So? The harder to change direction quickly. Never flew planes have you?

Continued support of the nose-out delusion is called failure. Is this why you are tangentially spewing nonsense?

 

[beachnut]

Most airline pilots land at 500mph, while banking to the left, immediately after a 20,000ft power dive.

What 20,000 foot power dive?

Hani had pulled the power back so his decent was a power off power dive? lol

Landing and hitting buildings is the same; aim point. Landing safely includes the landing attitude so the wings do not bang the ground, the nose does not hit first and the plane can land at speeds the tires can handle, less than 180 to 200 knots for most planes. But hitting buildings is no special attitude. too bad

Hitting buildings is too easy, we only have to aim. We can hit a any speed up to the magic plane don't like speed for big airliners with big fan engine of nearly MACH 1.
So landing we have precise controlled speeds, hitting buildings who cares up to nearly MACH 1.
Landing we have to have a precise attitude, but hitting buildings we can hit upside down in a crab, who cares.
Landing we have to slow down, and with that crosswinds and air turbulence will affect our flight path more, but hitting buildings and going fast the wind effects are less.

I conclude it is easy to hit a building much easier than the skills needed to land a plane! Who has reasons I am wrong based on more than 35 years of flying experience? Not you.

If you mention p4t pilots you lost the debate 8 years ago.

Nose out scam is a delusions made up by failed truthers why do you defend the insane idea?

 

[fullflavormenthol]

My observation is that the "nose out" nonsense fails specifically on a SFX level, and every no-planer that pushes the composite theory is ignorant about the video compositing software out there.

 

[TruthersLie]

Most airline pilots land at 500mph, while banking to the left, immediately after a 20,000ft power dive.

Are arguments from incredulity and ignorance all you have?

Really?

<snort>

You really should work on that.

 

[TruthersLie]

First off, I need to ask you a simple question to check you can follow the maths and stay with me. How does Mackey get the figure of 120" for the length of his slug of fuel?

no, no, no. BAD TRUTHER. Try to stay on topic.

Please let us know where the physics he outlines is wrong. Not just a dodge.

Post your math Ace. Do your worst. I eagerly await your thesis.

 

[332nd]

That's because it's an indisputable fact that speed matters when it comes to the ease or difficulty of steering a vehicle.

Not in the way you think but that's already been mentioned.

Are you saying here that speed does not matter when it comes to the damage that a vehicle can cause?

 

[bardamu]

no, no, no. BAD TRUTHER. Try to stay on topic.

Please let us know where the physics he outlines is wrong. Not just a dodge.

Post your math Ace bardamu. Do your worst. I eagerly await your thesis.

I see. Your wife can help you with your English but not with maths. Don't worry, I'll tell you the answer.

If you look at page 86 of NCSTAR 1-2B, you'll see that the fuel tank in the wing tapers from 166" near the fuselage to 46" near the tip, so the figure of 120" for the length of the slug of fuel is the difference between the length of each end.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-2index.htm

Now read the next couple of pages (for comprehension), and you'll find that the fuel tank in each wing was split approximately into two halves. According to NIST and the airline companies, only the inboard half contained fuel at the time of the alleged collision with the south tower.

In the schematic of observed damage to the wall on page 238, you can see that columns were cut by the outboard section of the left wing, where the fuel tank was empty. Not only that, many of the columns that would have been hit by the full tank would have already been destroyed by the engines. In other words, where fuel was needed to break the columns, there was none. And where fuel was available to break the columns, it was redundant.

This suggests that Mackey's calculations are a waste of time and the slug of fuel model is a con trick.

 

[bardamu]

Not in the way you think but that's already been mentioned.

Are you saying here that speed does not matter when it comes to the damage that a vehicle can cause?

It depends what it's colliding with.

 

[TruthersLie]

I see. Your wife can help you with your English but not with maths. Don't worry, I'll tell you the answer.

If you look at page 86 of NCSTAR 1-2B, you'll see that the fuel tank in the wing tapers from 166" near the fuselage to 46" near the tip, so the figure of 120" for the length of the slug of fuel is the difference between the length of each end.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-2index.htm

Now read the next couple of pages (for comprehension), and you'll find that the fuel tank in each wing was split approximately into two halves. According to NIST and the airline companies, only the inboard half contained fuel at the time of the alleged collision with the south tower.

In the schematic of observed damage to the wall on page 238, you can see that columns were cut by the outboard section of the left wing, where the fuel tank was empty. Not only that, many of the columns that would have been hit by the full tank would have already been destroyed by the engines. In other words, where fuel was needed to break the columns, there was none. And where fuel was available to break the columns, it was redundant.

This suggests that Mackey's calculations are a waste of time and the slug of fuel model is a con trick.

Just like a twoof.

Instead of a thesis with support you handwave away what you can't explain.

I have showed you this video repeatedly... yet you keep making me do so.

Here it is again


columns weren't broken. The bolts holding columns together were. wah wah wah....

It is really rather simple to see why and how it works twoof. Try again.

I do know that reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit (see momentum, gradual, explosions, architectural footprint and the rest) and now we know you don't have any math or research skills either.
Thank you for playing.

 

[TruthersLie]

It depends what it's colliding with.

You are so right.

I mean this plate steel colliding with an car.. the car should win right? I mean it is MUCH more massive than the 2 inch plate steel.



The car is much heavier than the plate steel. So speed has NOTHING to do with it (oh we are back to momentum... did you ever bother to look that up?)

 

[bardamu]

Just like a twoof.

Instead of a thesis with support you handwave away what you can't explain.

I have showed you this video repeatedly... yet you keep making me do so.

Here it is again


columns weren't broken. The bolts holding columns together were. wah wah wah....

It is really rather simple to see why and how it works twoof. Try again.

I do know that reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit (see momentum, gradual, explosions, architectural footprint and the rest) and now we know you don't have any math or research skills either.
Thank you for playing.

Do you believe a youtube video or NIST?

 

[carlitos]

You are so right.

I mean this plate steel colliding with an car.. the car should win right? I mean it is MUCH more massive than the 2 inch plate steel.



The car is much heavier than the plate steel. So speed has NOTHING to do with it (oh we are back to momentum... did you ever bother to look that up?)

So, how do you explain the HOOD OF THE CAR ENDING UP ON THE WRONG SIDE??@!?!?!?!1/ That violates Newton's Law of something@2@2!!1`~~ And didn't you see how it spun around, clearly showing evidence of a thermite rocket!1!!!1

sorry.

 

[BigAl]

Do you believe a youtube video or NIST?

The video is reality unless it's been manipulated or taken out of context. What is wrong is apt to be the voice-over or caption that wants to make me believe more than is shown in the video.

If it conflicts with NIST or the laws of Physics or the historical record, the voice-over looses.

 

[twinstead]

Ah, the YouTube Generation. Generation D'oh. An armchair investigator's ignorant proclamations about a low-resolution video posted on an internet site trumps the work of dozens, maybe hundreds of bona fide experts in their fields, dozens of peer-reviewed papers, and the largest criminal investigation in US history.

What is wrong with our public schools, anyway?