...you would get the same results. ...the plane would enter the building...prevented the whole plane passing through...try it with anything you like, a dart, a gun, a javelin as long as it has enough force and momentum it will brake the surface or enter.
A javelin will pierce a concrete wall?
Aluminium will break steel at 500 mph?
I am sorry but the onus is NOT on us non-believers to prove anything. It is the planehuggers who are the religious faithful, unable or inwilling to see that they have indeed been shown THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES.
Fact:
There is no evidence of aluminium planes ever entering steel-clad skyscrapers and emerging the other side
I think the point Andrew was making gruts, is that it matters not whether it was the plane or the tower that was traveling at 500mph and lets not start kidding ourselves we are talking about a Jenga tower now.
I don't think Andrew understands that a moving object has more energy than a stationary one....
sidlittle wrote:
I guess the towers are a feat of engineering, too strong to collapse when debating with the OCT's yet when NPT's turn up , you can blow them over?
who said anything about blowing them over?
The outer steel frame was a mesh capable of supporting its own weight and resisting a distributed wind load.
However, if you apply a massive force to a single point in that mesh - which is composed of small segments partly welded, partly bolted together - how is it supposed to resist?
The buildings were designed to cope with plane impacts - I'm sure you've also seen the video of one of the designers saying that the hole in the building would be like a pencil hole in a mosquito net - and because the steel of the perimeter and core were interlinked horizontally as well as vertically, the load could easily be redistributed.
see here for a good desciption of the perimeter structure:
"The perimeter wall structures were assembled from pre-fabricated units consisting of 3 column sections and 3 spandrel plate sections welded together. Adjacent units were bolted together: column sections were bolted to adjacent columns above and below, and spandrel plate sections were mated with adjacent sections on either side with numerous bolts."
Are you seriously claiming that the links between the individual sections of the steel frame could withstand the force of a 150 ton plane travellng at 500 mph?
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:47 am Post subject:
andrewwatson wrote:
You are really tying yourself into knots Marky.
...you would get the same results. ...the plane would enter the building...prevented the whole plane passing through...try it with anything you like, a dart, a gun, a javelin as long as it has enough force and momentum it will brake the surface or enter.
A javelin will pierce a concrete wall??
Yes, given enough momentum
andrewwatson wrote:
Aluminium will break steel at 500 mph?
Yes, given enough momentum. BUT you NPT'ers seriously need to get over the whole aluminium plane/steel building mantra you keep telling yourselves.
Go to the Boeing site or any other manufacturer of your choice and learn a little about aircraft structures including steel wing spars and other heavily engineered castings used to hold a 100 ton construction together without deforming under the forces applied at speed.
andrewwatson wrote:
I am sorry but the onus is NOT on us non-believers to prove anything. It is the planehuggers who are the religious faithful, unable or inwilling to see that they have indeed been shown THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES.
That's correct, but by the same token neither is the onus on you to blindly accept or invent outrageously smug theories and propagate them as if they could be fact.
andrewwatson wrote:
Fact:
There is no evidence of aluminium planes ever entering steel-clad skyscrapers and emerging the other side
As far as I can ascertain, it's never happened before - period. There's no precedent to fall back on.
Yawn. The uninformed informing the even less informed. That is provably not a nosecone emerging from the north face of the South Tower (did your 'engineer' think to check the dimensions? - it may not even be solid material, so the conjecture is plain wrong.
andrewwatson wrote:
It was the complete absence of an exit hole to match that capsule of gunk that shoots out in the video clips that first woke me up to TV Fakery.
NIST makes a good fist of trying to explain the mutual destruction of the plane passing through the first wall. But then you probably don't read the Books of Heresy with all that sciencey stuff.
andrewwatson wrote:
Then I realised that if they could fake that they could also fake the planes themselves.
The cut-outs don't even match the dimensions of a 767. They screwed that one up. The wing tips and tail didn't cut the beams at all.
Actually they do match, and pretty well, too. Where do you get the idea they didn't from? The lighter structures such as the fin don't cut the steel beams (too weak structurally as you would expect from smaller lighter elements like an empty tail structure) but they do totally ruin the cladding in those areas.
andrewwatson wrote:
Stefan , how do you explain the beams bent OUTWARD?
I can see folded over cladding, but outward bent beams? Nope.
Hint: the steel beams are the dark rusty columns, the decorative aluminium cladding is the bright shiny stuff. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
I don't think Andrew understands that a moving object has more energy than a stationary one....
This is nonsense. What do you mean by 'has more energy'?
Newton's third law states clearly that the force exerted by the plane and by the stationery building are identical.
However, if you apply a massive force to a single point in that mesh - which is composed of small segments partly welded, partly bolted together - how is it supposed to resist?
Which has greater mass, the plane or the building?
gruts wrote:
The buildings were designed to cope with plane impacts - I'm sure you've also seen the video of one of the designers saying that the hole in the building would be like a pencil hole in a mosquito net - and because the steel of the perimeter and core were interlinked horizontally as well as vertically, the load could easily be redistributed.
Are you seriously claiming that the links between the individual sections of the steel frame could withstand the force of a 150 ton plane travellng at 500 mph?
if so, please explain how.
A misleading analogy. A pencil is more massive than netting. Aluminium is not more massive than steel.
You could just as easily say:
Quote:
Are you seriously claiming that a 150 ton plane could withstand the force of a 500 000 ton building travelling at 500 mph?
This is nonsense. What do you mean by 'has more energy'?
You're talking nonsense and clearly don't understand the laws you're quoting.
let's say I were to gently lob a table tennis ball at your head from the other side of a room.
it would just gently bounce off wouldn't it?
but what if I fired it at your head at 500 mph?
andrewwatson wrote:
gruts wrote:
However, if you apply a massive force to a single point in that mesh - which is composed of small segments partly welded, partly bolted together - how is it supposed to resist?
Which has greater mass, the plane or the building?
what on earth are you talking about?
the plane that hit the tower broke through the joints between the individual sections of the outer frame. the question is whether a 150 ton object travelling at 500 mph could break through a point where 2 pieces of the steel frame were held together by bolts. are you seriously claiming that it couldn't?
andrewwatson wrote:
A misleading analogy. A pencil is more massive than netting. Aluminium is not more massive than steel.
You could just as easily say:
Quote:
Are you seriously claiming that a 150 ton plane could withstand the force of a 500 000 ton building travelling at 500 mph?
It's not a misleading analogy at all. you're just talking rubbish again.
first of all - according to one of the wtc's designers, the twin towers were designed to absorb plane impacts. are you claiming that he is wrong (cos presumably you're better informed than he was - lol) or that he is lying?
secondly - the plane weighs 150 tons and is travelling at 500 mph.
it encounters a steel frame, consisting of small sections that had been joined together - in which each perimeter column in the upper part of the wtc comprised of steel 1/4 inch thick, shaped into square hollow sections of 13.5" x 13.5".
it's not hard to see that an object with such huge momentum could break through the weakest points in that structure on impact, just like a pencil piercing netting.
unless of course, you're trying as hard as you can not to see it....
Sid,
I don’t see an answer to my questions in Madge’s response there. The question were:
How could a bomb inside the building cause precise slicing in the aluminium cladding?
How could a bomb inside the building cause steel beams to bend inwards towards it?
Madge deflected the questions by trying to bring the conversation into whether or not steel beams were sliced. Snowygrouch has actually dealt with how beams could be broken from continued pressure, not sliced through as soon as they hit, I think I was right to say that you cannot tell from the photographs if that diagram is correct. All we can see is that the aluminium WAS sliced. How could a bomb manage that, if you say steel was sliced as well; fine, now explain how a bomb could do that as well- it’s exactly the same question.
You say you don’t know, Madge has vaguely suggested some kind of plane shaped DEW. Can you understand how this does not do it for? All this argument seems to have going for it is a religious faith that a plane could not cause this damage. Any analysis to go with that? Nope; just an endless repeating of a mantra.
Andrew,
You ask how beams could bend outwards – well first you need to demonstrate that they did. I see portions of the aluminium cladding hanging off the steel where it broke away; this is not steel bending outwards, I cannot see any beams bending outwards at all.
Putting aside Madge’s super-vauge “oh some kind of energy weapon did it” notion, since we know you think a bomb inside the building did it, how could a bomb do this? This is a pattern of damage that perfectly matches a plane hitting the building in every way. What kind of pattern of explosives could achieve this? _________________
...you would get the same results. ...the plane would enter the building...prevented the whole plane passing through...try it with anything you like, a dart, a gun, a javelin as long as it has enough force and momentum it will brake the surface or enter.
A javelin will pierce a concrete wall?
Aluminium will break steel at 500 mph?
I am sorry but the onus is NOT on us non-believers to prove anything. It is the planehuggers who are the religious faithful, unable or inwilling to see that they have indeed been shown THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES.
Fact:
There is no evidence of aluminium planes ever entering steel-clad skyscrapers and emerging the other side
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:22 pm Post subject: Slicing again
Stefan wrote:
Madge deflected the questions by trying to bring the conversation into whether or not steel beams were sliced.
Cheeky! It was you Stefan who first introduced the 'slicing' question as a dig at NPT-ers:
Stefan wrote:
If you look at the hole the plane did not leave a perfect shape of it's self - the continual pressure of it hitting the same beams as it broke apart did break the bolts of some of them, if you look at the hole some of the beams of the left were never broken, just the aluminium cladding broke away, some were bent inwards, some broken clean. It didn't "slice through them" as NPT proponents continually repeat- the continued pressure as the plane slammed into the outer building knocked steel sections away from those they were connected to.
And in reply to that I posted the image of the damage, even though it doesn't accord with the videos of the plane disappearing into the building. But I'm still not clear whether you're saying that you don't agree with NIST's estimation of the damage pattern, which indicates that it was not just at connection points that the steel broke.
Stefan wrote:
Madge has vaguely suggested some kind of plane shaped DEW.
Ah, a bit of a problem there. I know I'm not a scientist, but I don't think beams of directed energy have to be projected in the shape of the destruction pattern they will result in.
If it's any consolation, I can easily say that I don't know what caused the holes, and I think that's implicit in saying, as I did, that it could have been bombs, missiles or/and DEWs of some sort. But that not knowing how it was done does not invalidate the fact that it could not have as the official theory claims.
I remember now being a bit disappointed Stefan that in your (very well done) pamphlet on the BBC Conspiracy Files programme, you didn’t mention the model they showed for the Pentagon hit. (I can't remember if you mentioned it in your presentation.) Because even the person watching the BBC programme with me had to concede that it was ludicrous the way the computer model started the action with the plane already inside the building, without showing how it could possibly have got there through that little hole. I now see there are some similarities with your position on the WTC plane hits – the need to fast-forward over how the plane managed to get inside at all.
You seem to be saying on the one hand that we must explain the plane-shaped hole if it wasn't a plane that caused it, and on the other hand that the hole wasn't really plane-shaped after all.
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:48 pm Post subject: Re: Slicing again
MadgeB wrote:
Stefan wrote:
Madge deflected the questions by trying to bring the conversation into whether or not steel beams were sliced.
Cheeky! It was you Stefan who first introduced the 'slicing' question as a dig at NPT-ers:
Stefan wrote:
If you look at the hole the plane did not leave a perfect shape of it's self - the continual pressure of it hitting the same beams as it broke apart did break the bolts of some of them, if you look at the hole some of the beams of the left were never broken, just the aluminium cladding broke away, some were bent inwards, some broken clean. It didn't "slice through them" as NPT proponents continually repeat- the continued pressure as the plane slammed into the outer building knocked steel sections away from those they were connected to.
And in reply to that I posted the image of the damage, even though it doesn't accord with the videos of the plane disappearing into the building. But I'm still not clear whether you're saying that you don't agree with NIST's estimation of the damage pattern, which indicates that it was not just at connection points that the steel broke.
Applogies madge, I did indeed bring up the question of whether or not steel was sliced, what I meant was focusing on that was a deflection from what my actual what my question was, my question was how the damage could have been done by anything but a plane.
Quote:
Stefan wrote:
Madge has vaguely suggested some kind of plane shaped DEW.
Ah, a bit of a problem there. I know I'm not a scientist, but I don't think beams of directed energy have to be projected in the shape of the destruction pattern they will result in.
Well I wasn't neccesarily refuting that they could be, although I appreciate the clarification.
Quote:
If it's any consolation, I can easily say that I don't know what caused the holes, and I think that's implicit in saying, as I did, that it could have been bombs, missiles or/and DEWs of some sort. But that not knowing how it was done does not invalidate the fact that it could not have as the official theory claims.
Well this brings us to the point; why claim that a plane did not hit at all?
Sure if we go with the "we don't know what technology they have, we can't say it's impossible line" then of course anything can be possible. But I still have not seen any reason to discard the most obvious solution that they were hit by planes.
You say NPT wouldn't be a problem if people within the movement didn't "unneccesarily" refute it. Well this movement is just a cross section of society, it is refuted because it is not believed.
Snowygrouch has written very comprehensivley on how a plane would cause exactly that damage, but I haven't seen anything of the same quality to refute his research. A phyicist within the movement views the idea with equal regard.
Like you, I am not a scientist, but it seems that this is an idea those who are find it very hard to swallow.
Quote:
I remember now being a bit disappointed Stefan that in your (very well done) pamphlet on the BBC Conspiracy Files programme, you didn’t mention the model they showed for the Pentagon hit. (I can't remember if you mentioned it in your presentation.)
Were you at that evening? Did we meet? Sorry I'm terrible with names and faces.
The booklet was trying to focus on what I considered to be the strongest points, in the case of the Pentagon it is the Flight Data of AA77.
There is a reason I don't talk about the damage done to the Pentagon; I am not entirley convinced that it could not have been done by a boeing (although I should temper that with stating I do not believe in the least it was).
A good while before I even found out there was a 9/11 Truth Campaign in the UK I was debating this issue, both in person and on fairly charged debate forums. My position is if you cannot win a debate on an issue, there is no point mentioning it at all, forget whether you believe it or not, whether it will win you someones ear or not is all that matters.
Now I'm a pretty fierce debater but one of the posters at a forum was able to put forward a scenario whereby the plane could have caused that damage, a pretty one in a million shot sort of scenrio, but I had to concede that it was not, as I had claimed, impossible and concede defeat to her in that one case.
It was not until the flight data came out that I thought it was worth our while talking about the Pentagon at all. I have a very high standard on what is worth talking about and what isn't, if there is even a 1% chance it can be defeated in argument; forget it.
Quote:
Because even the person watching the BBC programme with me had to concede that it was ludicrous the way the computer model started the action with the plane already inside the building, without showing how it could possibly have got there through that little hole. I now see there are some similarities with your position on the WTC plane hits – the need to fast-forward over how the plane managed to get inside at all.
Not at all. As I said, I have read detailed and believable analysis suggesting it could pentetrate the WTC towers, and have heard no answers for the problems inherent in a scenario where the force came from outside. In terms of work done, the planes theory is beating the no planes theory.
Quote:
You seem to be saying on the one hand that we must explain the plane-shaped hole if it wasn't a plane that caused it, and on the other hand that the hole wasn't really plane-shaped after all.
The hole was not a cut-out of a plane as is often claimed, our eyes can confirm that, it is a hole which would be 100% consistant with a plane causing the damage, there are grooves cut into the cladding where the wing tips and the tail fin would have been, the areas where the fuselage and engines went were obliterated, and the area where the wings were less so - it matches. I can visualise it. _________________
...you would get the same results. ...the plane would enter the building...prevented the whole plane passing through...try it with anything you like, a dart, a gun, a javelin as long as it has enough force and momentum it will brake the surface or enter.
A javelin will pierce a concrete wall?
Aluminium will break steel at 500 mph?
I am sorry but the onus is NOT on us non-believers to prove anything. It is the planehuggers who are the religious faithful, unable or inwilling to see that they have indeed been shown THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES.
Fact:
There is no evidence of aluminium planes ever entering steel-clad skyscrapers and emerging the other side
It was the complete absence of an exit hole to match that capsule of gunk that shoots out in the video clips that first woke me up to TV Fakery.
Then I realised that if they could fake that they could also fake the planes themselves.
The cut-outs don't even match the dimensions of a 767. They screwed that one up. The wing tips and tail didn't cut the beams at all.
Stefan , how do you explain the beams bent OUTWARD?
why not explain what should of happened then? remember its traveling at 500mph its not like a bird hitting a window.
i look forward to your input and correction on what should of happened.
im still waiting for an explaination of what should of happened when the plane impacted the towers at 500mph if what i said in my original post was wrong or impossible.
please explain why im tying myself in knots????
or is this just the classic and usual make a claim with not very convincing evidence, then someone offers a explaination, followed by another claim claiming its wrong but with no explaination, then disapear never to be seen. you've never done it so far but its no unusual where no planes are concerned therefore i dont expect an answer although it would be nice if you could explain why im tying myself in knots, and explain what should of happened to demonstrate my wrongness.
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:57 am Post subject: Re: Slicing again
Stefan wrote:
You say NPT wouldn't be a problem if people within the movement didn't "unneccesarily" refute it. Well this movement is just a cross section of society, it is refuted because it is not believed.
Snowygrouch has written very comprehensivley on how a plane would cause exactly that damage, but I haven't seen anything of the same quality to refute his research. A phyicist within the movement views the idea with equal regard.
NPT has never been refuted, only disputed. Did Snowygrouch explain how the 'continous pressure' of the impact could be discontinuous along the alleged wing's length? Or do either or both of you dispute NIST's damage assessment? I'm not getting an answer to this.
Stefan wrote:
Were you at that evening? Did we meet?
The nearest we got to communicating was at the next meeting, when you interrupted me speaking to someone you know about the pamphlets on Judy Wood's challenge to NIST, and persuaded him to buy your pamphlet instead. (But I'm not complaining about that.)
marky 54 wrote:
im still waiting for an explaination of what should of happened when the plane impacted the towers at 500mph
There would have been a crash. See how you said 'impacted' the towers, instead of 'crashed into' the towers? It's funny how there used to be plane crashes before 9/11 and then again afterwards, but on that day the planes 'barrelled into' or 'plowed into' or 'impacted' the buildings as if indestructible, completely disappeared inside with all parts intact, and then self-destructed, including the black boxes.
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:07 pm Post subject: Crash vs impact
I think 'crash' focuses on the moving object doing the crashing, and 'impact' on the thing hit. We usually refer to plane crashes, probably implying the commonly-held knowledge that a plane generally comes off worse in any collision. If a plane has crashed you don’t expect it to take off again, you expect it to be severely damaged if not destroyed completely on impact. You don’t hear, ‘there was a plane impact in Dundee this morning’, as that would imply that the damage done to the thing the plane hit was the focus of the story, rather than (as is usually the case) the damage to the plane and passengers being the focus.
I think some news reports may have initially used the term plane crash on 9/11, but if so it was soon dropped, quite reasonably, as there was no evidence of plane crashes at the WTC (or Shanksville or the Pentagon) that day. No debris, no seats, no luggage, no people, no broken parts (apart from some planted parts from the wrong model of plane, oh and an intact passport of course). If they had even had a pretence of an air-crash investigation it would have focused people’s minds on the impact of the towers on the plane, rather than what we were supposed to focus on, the alleged impact of the plane on the towers.
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:14 pm Post subject: Re: Crash vs impact
MadgeB wrote:
I think 'crash' focuses on the moving object doing the crashing, and 'impact' on the thing hit. We usually refer to plane crashes, probably implying the commonly-held knowledge that a plane generally comes off worse in any collision. If a plane has crashed you don’t expect it to take off again, you expect it to be severely damaged if not destroyed completely on impact. You don’t hear, ‘there was a plane impact in Dundee this morning’, as that would imply that the damage done to the thing the plane hit was the focus of the story, rather than (as is usually the case) the damage to the plane and passengers being the focus.
I think some news reports may have initially used the term plane crash on 9/11, but if so it was soon dropped, quite reasonably, as there was no evidence of plane crashes at the WTC (or Shanksville or the Pentagon) that day. No debris, no seats, no luggage, no people, no broken parts (apart from some planted parts from the wrong model of plane, oh and an intact passport of course). If they had even had a pretence of an air-crash investigation it would have focused people’s minds on the impact of the towers on the plane, rather than what we were supposed to focus on, the alleged impact of the plane on the towers.
maybe you would like to explain and demonstrate what should of happened to the plane and towers? it seems nobody else is willing to back up why they think im wrong. yes the part of the crash where the plane hit/impacted/collided/smashed into the wall at 500MPH.
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:15 pm Post subject: What's a plane crash?
OK, let’s pretend (just for a moment) that marky 54 doesn’t know what happens in plane crashes, assumed planes were indestructible, has never thought about this before, has never looked at the internet on matters relating to the planes on 9/11 and hasn't read anything any no-planer on on this forum has ever written about it.
The impact of the steel building hitting the plane at 500mph would wreck the plane. Bits would fall off the plane and fall down the outside of the building.
Now try following the link to Why They Didn't Use Planes by Gerard Holmgren. Follow other links on Killtown's blog and any other linked site as the fancy takes you. It should soon dawn on you that planes can't enter buildings.
Don’t you remember the NYC small plane crash? That entered the building:
Maybe that building didn’t have a steel frame? I don’t know. But we DO that this one did – The Empire States Building:
That entered the building, and the steel frame was covered in stone as well.
And what about the fact that the WTC designers, when speaking about a plane hitting the building, considered that the plane would breach the building, but it wouldn’t matter because of the way the building was constructed to redistribute the load around the hole?
Then take Snowygrouch’s detailed explanation of how the plane hitting the building where it did could only produce the exact damage we saw?
And with all this evidence standing against your stance, what do we have on the NPT side, a naked claim that it can’t happen, repeated over and over again without any qualification. Oh, and invites to watch disturbing YouTube videos where that message is flashed in white text on a blue screen, still without analysis, still with a belief that if you repeat it enough everyone will agree one day. _________________
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject: Planes can damage buildings
Stefan wrote:
Madge, Don’t you remember the NYC small plane crash? That entered the building: Maybe that building didn’t have a steel frame? I don’t know. But we DO that this one did – The Empire States Building:
That entered the building, and the steel frame was covered in stone as well.
And what about the fact that the WTC designers, when speaking about a plane hitting the building, considered that the plane would breach the building, but it wouldn’t matter because of the way the building was constructed to redistribute the load around the hole?
Forgive me for assuming you were following the argument Stefan. I didn't imagine that a plane hitting a building would not cause damage to the building, and I didn't argue that at any point. Neither did I say it would bounce off the wall. I was saying that a plane can't enter a building, as in 'go inside it intact'. You know, the way you enter a building when you go through a door, as opposed to bumping into the doorframe. Obviously it would 'breach' the building, which is not the same as 'enter' is it?
I know that in the Empire State example the plane got wedged, bits fell off and dropped in the street, as you would expect. In fact I've seen that same example used to support the case that planes get wrecked when they hit buildings. So that one falls at the first hurdle.
But are you saying that in the NYC small plane crash you point out, the small plane entered the building entirely without damage and without any bits breaking off?
Madge,
I was following you saying "planes can't enter buildings" perfectly well, and refuted it perfectly well- they can quite easily enter steel framed buildings, they can enter ones clad in stone with only small windows as well.
Now on to your next claim that it "entered intact" - where exactly is the evidence that this happened at all?
Look at this video of a jet hitting a concrete wall:
There is no deformation, the plane is simply destroyed from one end to the other as it hits, even with the wings they remain in shape as they are gradually and complete destroyed in a straight line.
This could have happened to the parts of the plane hitting the steel beams, while the parts which met where the windows were would have gone into the building like an egg being sliced by an egg slicer.
The continued pressure of the beams would destroy them or knock them out in sections, as I have already shown can quite easily happen (see Empire States Building photo) and we see in the areas of the hole where "more plane" would have sustained pressure on an area, such as where the engines and fuselage was, the beams are all but gone, whereas where the wings would have hit the beams are not even broken in places.
Does any of this even make you think you should think again? _________________
oh my did that plane just enter that huge square concrete slab intact? it certainly looked like it from behind and that was without slowing it down to 1 frame per second.
these people dont understand momentum and the fact the towers were not providing any momentum, they think it should all work like a head on crash with two objects moving in opposite directions and roughly the same speed. 500MPH>>>>>>>>>CRASH<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<500MPH. this didnt happen.
this did happen 500MPH>>>>>>>>>>>>>>CRASH<<<<<<<<<<<<0MPH
therefore the momentum this way >>>>>>>> is greater than the resistance this way <<<<<<<<<<.
don't expect wing sections or tails sections etc after a 500mph hour crash, directly into a wall you aint going to find anything intact apart from the real tough materials like engines etc. planes hitting the ground head on will be the same.
planes hitting the ground at an angle will travel a long distance and scatter the debris which will bounce and roll along the ground leaving visually reconisable portions of the plane, this type of crash it no where near the same as hitting a solid wall head on or the ground head on at high speed.
So how come those crashes don't have plane shaped holes?
I know!!!!!! they weren't invented then
Silly me
Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
because they were not made up of square sections, they were solid wall.
the towers were made up of square sections, the whole point being that if you remove some of these square sections on the outer wall the weight will redistribute around the damage as though the damage isnt even there.
check out the 'crash holes' on the towers they are not plane shaped, they are a blocky shape because these square sections were either punched inward or failed at the joins and fell in ward. the wings at 500mph will become more like blades and certainly leave a deepish imprint.
there are steel sections sitting there in the impact holes have a look, it certainly seems that the plane did not sever the majority of the steel beams but rather punched in a few sections.
oh my did that plane just enter that huge square concrete slab intact?
No, it didn't enter that concrete slab intact. It obviously didn't enter the slab at all which is why I don't understand the relevance of the clip.
As for the rest of your (penultimate) post, please, once again, refer to Newton's third law of motion.
cheers
obviously i don't understand how any of it works, so maybe you would like to explained what should of happened when the planes hit the towers.
the other more informed have avoided this all together but im confident you will not as you obviously know your stuff. so please explain what should of happened and why so i can understand what im getting wrong. thanks.
The relevance of this clip is that the plane did not warp or buckle as it was destroyed, rather it was destroyed in a "straight line" from front to end. Something some people claim is not possible. _________________
oh my did that plane just enter that huge square concrete slab intact?
No, it didn't enter that concrete slab intact. It obviously didn't enter the slab at all which is why I don't understand the relevance of the clip.
As for the rest of your (penultimate) post, please, once again, refer to Newton's third law of motion.
cheers
hi sid - using your "understanding" of newton's laws of motion could you please answer my post that you've avoided up to now?
cheers
gruts wrote:
sidlittle wrote:
I think the point Andrew was making gruts, is that it matters not whether it was the plane or the tower that was traveling at 500mph and lets not start kidding ourselves we are talking about a Jenga tower now.
I don't think Andrew understands that a moving object has more energy than a stationary one....
sidlittle wrote:
I guess the towers are a feat of engineering, too strong to collapse when debating with the OCT's yet when NPT's turn up , you can blow them over?
who said anything about blowing them over?
The outer steel frame was a mesh capable of supporting its own weight and resisting a distributed wind load.
However, if you apply a massive force to a single point in that mesh - which is composed of small segments partly welded, partly bolted together - how is it supposed to resist?
The buildings were designed to cope with plane impacts - I'm sure you've also seen the video of one of the designers saying that the hole in the building would be like a pencil hole in a mosquito net - and because the steel of the perimeter and core were interlinked horizontally as well as vertically, the load could easily be redistributed.
see here for a good desciption of the perimeter structure:
"The perimeter wall structures were assembled from pre-fabricated units consisting of 3 column sections and 3 spandrel plate sections welded together. Adjacent units were bolted together: column sections were bolted to adjacent columns above and below, and spandrel plate sections were mated with adjacent sections on either side with numerous bolts."
Are you seriously claiming that the links between the individual sections of the steel frame could withstand the force of a 150 ton plane travellng at 500 mph?
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:21 pm Post subject: No evidence for plane
Stefan wrote:
Now on to your next claim that it "entered intact" - where exactly is the evidence that this happened at all?
Obviously there is no evidence that the plane entered WTC2 intact, since the story is made up. However, the image of the plane entering intact was broadcast on CNN and other channels (the ghostplane video), looking for all the world like a Flight Simulator simulation pretending to be the real thing. NIST used that same video to calculate the speed the imagined plane was supposed to be going at, etc etc.
The OCT has the plane disappearing inside the building, but are you now saying you have evidence that it crashed, with pieces breaking off and falling down the outside of the tower?
Madge,
Really there was footage shot from within the building?
I haven't seen that, please link it.
We don't know what state the remains of the plane was when it entered the building, as we have only seen it impacting into the outside of it. _________________
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:44 pm Post subject: In or out?
I´m not aware of anything shot from inside the building. Are you aware of anything that shows or reports a crash as we know it, with pieces of the plane breaking off and falling down the outside of the building (as has happened with other plane crashes)?
Madge,
I've only been able to find two precedents for planes hitting buildings, and I listed them above. I'm sure there are more, but the point I am making is, how do you know large parts of the plane should fall off rather than continuing at the speed they were flying into the building?
Where is the evidence for this claim? _________________
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
