| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:19 am Post subject: Simple Physics Lesson on TV-Fakery |
 |
|
| Anyone interested in a debunk attempt at the physics behind TV-Fakery, see this. If there are any physical laws which are not taken into consideration in that post, (laws which might prove the south tower strike to be a real plane), post them in this thread. Also try to explain why the laws you mention would have relevance. Let's try to keep comments in this thread civil. Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:50 am Post subject: Re: Simple Physics Lesson on TV-Fakery |
|
|
Can you explain precisely how many of the steel girders bend inwards in the photograph of the aircraft's entry hole? Supply the physics behind this happening?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Simple Physics Lesson on TV-Fakery |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Can you explain precisely how many of the steel girders bend inwards in the photograph of the aircraft's entry hole? Supply the physics behind this happening? |
Either the explosives were placed in a very specific way to cause that, or the pictures were altered. (I read info somewhere about the bent in beams being altered, and original pictures being posted somwhere, but don't remember offhand where.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:28 am Post subject: Re: Simple Physics Lesson on TV-Fakery |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | | Can you explain precisely how many of the steel girders bend inwards in the photograph of the aircraft's entry hole? Supply the physics behind this happening? |
Either the explosives were placed in a very specific way to cause that, or the pictures were altered. (I read info somewhere about the bent in beams being altered, and original pictures being posted somwhere, but don't remember offhand where.) |
That’s not a very scientific answer… |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:30 am Post subject: Re: Simple Physics Lesson on TV-Fakery |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | | Can you explain precisely how many of the steel girders bend inwards in the photograph of the aircraft's entry hole? Supply the physics behind this happening? |
Either the explosives were placed in a very specific way to cause that, or the pictures were altered. (I read info somewhere about the bent in beams being altered, and original pictures being posted somwhere, but don't remember offhand where.) |
You have been very specific in your request regarding the science that deals with energy force and motion etc, however as I have no formal training in said science I must decline. That said, I have always been fascinated by the way the beams bend inwards on the entry hole (evident in stills and video), and how this could be achieved if explosives were used?
I asked you to supply the physics behind this and you have responded by saying that cleverly placed charges were used to simulate this or the images were manipulated (you read it somewhere once, but can't remember where).
Would you honestly be satisfied by such a response if the situation was reversed? Your reply is hardly scientific in nature - charges placed to simulate something entering and an unreliable and unresearchable quote?
Where exactly would explosives need to be placed to bend something inward? I must conclude that this would have to be on the exterior of the building unless you have another idea?
It is with some considerable regret that I have to question the basis of your thread? It is a lovely concept, the supplying of 'Simple Physics', but with the greatest of respect, if your response to my question is the best you can personally do, then I suggest we leave it all well alone.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:41 am Post subject: Re: Simple Physics Lesson on TV-Fakery |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | | Can you explain precisely how many of the steel girders bend inwards in the photograph of the aircraft's entry hole? Supply the physics behind this happening? |
Either the explosives were placed in a very specific way to cause that, or the pictures were altered. (I read info somewhere about the bent in beams being altered, and original pictures being posted somwhere, but don't remember offhand where.) |
You have been very specific in your request regarding the science that deals with energy force and motion etc, however as I have no formal training in said science I must decline. That said, I have always been fascinated by the way the beams bend inwards on the entry hole (evident in stills and video), and how this could be achieved if explosives were used?
I asked you to supply the physics behind this and you have responded by saying that cleverly placed charges were used to simulate this or the images were manipulated (you read it somewhere once, but can't remember where).
Would you honestly be satisfied by such a response if the situation was reversed? Your reply is hardly scientific in nature - charges placed to simulate something entering and an unreliable and unresearchable quote?
Where exactly would explosives need to be placed to bend something inward? I must conclude that this would have to be on the exterior of the building unless you have another idea?
It is with some considerable regret that I have to question the basis of your thread? It is a lovely concept, the supplying of 'Simple Physics', but with the greatest of respect, if your response to my question is the best you can personally do, then I suggest we leave it all well alone. |
I understand your concerns. The best answer I can give is that the NIST/FEMA photos were altered. If it's a choice between photos being altered, or physical laws being broken, the former will always be the case.
This thread was designed to discuss any physical laws that may not have been accounted for in the link I referenced. So let's try to stay on topic at least for this one thread. You may wish to post a separate thread concerning the bent inward beams, since I do agree that they should be looked into. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:31 pm Post subject: Re: Simple Physics Lesson on TV-Fakery |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn;
| Quote: | I understand your concerns. The best answer I can give is that the NIST/FEMA photos were altered. If it's a choice between photos being altered, or physical laws being broken, the former will always be the case.
This thread was designed to discuss any physical laws that may not have been accounted for in the link I referenced. So let's try to stay on topic at least for this one thread. You may wish to post a separate thread concerning the bent inward beams, since I do agree that they should be looked into |
I have to disagree, the entry hole is integral to it being real or faked. It doesn't simply stop at still images, compare the videos that match the stills = the same bent beams.
As you are keen to avoid this issue, I will conclude by adding that as we have no yardstick by which to measure the visual 'realness' of an aircraft entering such a structure, in other words 9/11 is unique in terms of type of aircraft, its/their velocity and what it/they struck, then can we honestly say it wouldn't happen as documented?
We base this type of discussion on images and video many generations removed from the original. I totally agree that what the NPT'ers keep citing as 'cartoons' are virtually that given their poor and almost dream-like quality.
As for the supplying of 'physics' as proof - this will simply deteriorate into another 'your figures' mean nothing thread.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:48 pm Post subject: Re: Simple Physics Lesson on TV-Fakery |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | CB_Brooklyn;
| Quote: | I understand your concerns. The best answer I can give is that the NIST/FEMA photos were altered. If it's a choice between photos being altered, or physical laws being broken, the former will always be the case.
This thread was designed to discuss any physical laws that may not have been accounted for in the link I referenced. So let's try to stay on topic at least for this one thread. You may wish to post a separate thread concerning the bent inward beams, since I do agree that they should be looked into |
I have to disagree, the entry hole is integral to it being real or faked. It doesn't simply stop at still images, compare the videos that match the stills = the same bent beams. |
So start your own thread as I suggested. This thread has no relevance to the beams being bent inward. It is a separate topic.
| telecasterisation wrote: |
As you are keen to avoid this issue, I will conclude by adding that as we have no yardstick by which to measure the visual 'realness' of an aircraft entering such a structure, in other words 9/11 is unique in terms of type of aircraft, its/their velocity and what it/they struck, then can we honestly say it wouldn't happen as documented? |
I avoid no issues, as I did suggest you start your own thread for that specific topic. We can honestly say what should or should not have happened simply by applying physics.
| telecasterisation wrote: |
We base this type of discussion on images and video many generations removed from the original. I totally agree that what the NPT'ers keep citing as 'cartoons' are virtually that given their poor and almost dream-like quality. |
Many of these are taken from officially released DVDs.
| telecasterisation wrote: |
As for the supplying of 'physics' as proof - this will simply deteriorate into another 'your figures' mean nothing thread. |
We shall see. Let's let some others respond. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:14 pm Post subject: Re: Simple Physics Lesson on TV-Fakery |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: | CB_Brooklyn;
| Quote: | I understand your concerns. The best answer I can give is that the NIST/FEMA photos were altered. If it's a choice between photos being altered, or physical laws being broken, the former will always be the case.
This thread was designed to discuss any physical laws that may not have been accounted for in the link I referenced. So let's try to stay on topic at least for this one thread. You may wish to post a separate thread concerning the bent inward beams, since I do agree that they should be looked into |
I have to disagree, the entry hole is integral to it being real or faked. It doesn't simply stop at still images, compare the videos that match the stills = the same bent beams. |
So start your own thread as I suggested. This thread has no relevance to the beams being bent inward. It is a separate topic.
| telecasterisation wrote: |
As you are keen to avoid this issue, I will conclude by adding that as we have no yardstick by which to measure the visual 'realness' of an aircraft entering such a structure, in other words 9/11 is unique in terms of type of aircraft, its/their velocity and what it/they struck, then can we honestly say it wouldn't happen as documented? |
I avoid no issues, as I did suggest you start your own thread for that specific topic. We can honestly say what should or should not have happened simply by applying physics.
| telecasterisation wrote: |
We base this type of discussion on images and video many generations removed from the original. I totally agree that what the NPT'ers keep citing as 'cartoons' are virtually that given their poor and almost dream-like quality. |
Many of these are taken from officially released DVDs.
| telecasterisation wrote: |
As for the supplying of 'physics' as proof - this will simply deteriorate into another 'your figures' mean nothing thread. |
We shall see. Let's let some others respond. |
if this post isnt dancing around facts that dont support the peddled theory i dont what is.
lets just ignore teles points and continue to put out disinfo, yes disinfo as far as most of us are concerned untill you can prove it to be otherwise.
judgeing by this thread you are failing to prove your theory to be correct due to your inability to answer anything that questions your theory.
this is what is damaging the movement, the only reason people have a problem with NPT is the lack of evidence and then when you have a chance to engage with someone and prove it you fail. its not about selective comments you need to answer all concerns how else will this stand up in the public light?
you cannot do a bush at a press talk. select people to ask questions if they ask the wrong question ignore them and ask someone else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This fuzzy physics stuff is very fuzzy indeed.
Nowhere are the constructional properties of each structure (plane/wall) analyzed and compared. Nowhere are the break marks in the wall discussed; which just happened to be at the weakest parts of the wall, i.e. the joints. Where is the relevance of the titanium engines mentioned including the strength of titanium versus the strength of steel? Where is the full analysis of the fireball and flying debris? Why are the relative sizes of the plane versus the wall not discussed. Why does the argument insist that the twin towers were also a concrete building when the concrete was non-structural, i.e. it was usesd as a thin facing material with no reinforcement?
I can see no logical proof for this king of argument at all. It's all just fuzzy thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | This fuzzy physics stuff is very fuzzy indeed.
Nowhere are the constructional properties of each structure (plane/wall) analyzed and compared. Nowhere are the break marks in the wall discussed; which just happened to be at the weakest parts of the wall, i.e. the joints. Where is the relevance of the titanium engines mentioned including the strength of titanium versus the strength of steel? Where is the full analysis of the fireball and flying debris? Why are the relative sizes of the plane versus the wall not discussed. Why does the argument insist that the twin towers were also a concrete building when the concrete was non-structural, i.e. it was usesd as a thin facing material with no reinforcement?
I can see no logical proof for this king of argument at all. It's all just fuzzy thinking. |
The reason those are not taken into consideration is because they are irrelevant. Just the fact that the videos show an aluminum airplane gliding smoothly through a steel/concrete building makes any analysis of those items a time waster. It does not matter the size of the steel beams, or how they were reinforced. Whether the concrete was part of the WTCs structural integrity is also not important, as has no relevance. Titanium engine analysis is not relevant since we clearly see supposed fuel-filled wings glide smoothly through steel and concrete instead of exploding on impact. Let's see if any physics experts can reply, and prove me either right or wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
 OH MY! i take the fact that the plane was traveling at 500mph and the fact there were numerous windows(meaning a good portion of the face of the building was glass) played no part in what we see also, they are of no relevance. dont let anyone get in the way of your scientific thinking. lets just ignore others hey instead of proving your theory correct and then claim your thoery is correct without proving it 
ive seen nothing so far after asking numerous questions that proves this that cannot be explained away easily, and also lots of questions are dodged skipped and ignored. conclusion NPT = divide and conquer! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | Titanium engine analysis is not relevant since we clearly see supposed fuel-filled wings glide smoothly through steel and concrete instead of exploding on impact. Let's see if any physics experts can reply, and prove me either right or wrong. |
Just for the record...
| Snowygrouch wrote: | Well I`m sorry people but your work and theories are utterly worthless.
You have been conned by a couple of very very badly put together websites (I note that you NEVER produce your own credible analysis but use reams of weblinks).
The theory is pitiful to anyone with a grounding in Materials science or mechanical engineering. Unluckily for you lot I have both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Strength of structural steel used in perimeter columns = 551MPa or 551N/mm2
Number of columns sheared (WTC1) = 33
Cross sectional area of columns at impact height of planes = 16130mm2
Total cross sectional area of steel sheared by impact= 1,064,580mm2
Velocity of plane at impact=500mph or 222m/s
Mass of plane at impact = 145,000kg (100,000kg dry weight + 10,000 gallons fuel)
Energy of plane@ impact velocity = 4 Giga-Joules (4x10^9 joules)
If the plane is to bounce off the building it must decelerate to zero meters/second over a distance near zero. We shall use a very generous figure of 2 meters (the smaller the figure the greater the force expended), this allows the building to instantaiously move 2 meters at impact which is highly unrealistic. If an object were to bounce off the distance figure would be much closer to zero, giving many; many times the instantaionus force I use here.
1 Joule = Amount of energy needed to apply a force of 1 newton over a distance of 1m
4 GJ/2meters = 2 Giga Newton’s must be expended in doing so.
Stress = force/ area
= 2GN/ 1,064,580mm2
= 1868N/mm2
Thus in order to “bounce off” the side of the world trade centre the steel would have to be over 3.5 times stronger than the steel actually used.
The above analysis is naturally simplified a great deal as I don’t have sufficiently accurate computer models (or the time) to run a finite element analysis routine.
Hence I used extremely generous figures in favour of a “bounce off” scenario and still fell short of the required stress figures by a very considerable margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
What follows are simulations of wing impact and engineering schematics of the fuel tank layouts in a 767-200.
Of course an EMPTY plane will not penetrate with anything like the effect it did. Trouble is it WASNT empty and had 10,000 gallons of fuel in, or about 40 tons of fuel if you prefer my mass.
This is a fact ignored by the patheticaly absurd attempts at a serious analysis on the NPT websites which normally consist of "aluminium is soft and steel is really hard so it COULDNT go through". B********S.
I`m bloody SICK of spending months doing serious research only to have my (and the efforts of others who are ACTUALLY SERIOUS about DOING someting) undermined by unresearched UNsubstanciated UNCALCULATED "net nonsense".
|
| Snowygrouch wrote: | No need to apologise to me at all Alwun.
For those interested in "common sense visualisation" the impact of the 767 weighing about 145 tons at 500mph gives EXACTLY the same energy impact as the followng.
SIXTY FOUR Challenger 2 Main Battle tanks (62.5 Tons each) driving into the side of the WTC tower at ONE HUNDRED miles per hour all at the same time.
Ek=Kinetic Energy=Energy posessed by a moving object
If an object is to stop; ALL this energy must be dissipated.
Ek=0.5*Mass*velocity squared.
Ek=0.5*62500kg*64*44.4m/s squared (64 cos theres 64 of em)
= 3.94 Giga Joules
Bear that in mind before considering what 'sounds reasonable' about these absolutely collossal impacts. |
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=36751#36751
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | OH MY! i take the fact that the plane was traveling at 500mph and the fact there were numerous windows(meaning a good portion of the face of the building was glass) played no part in what we see also, they are of no relevance. dont let anyone get in the way of your scientific thinking. lets just ignore others hey instead of proving your theory correct and then claim your thoery is correct without proving it
ive seen nothing so far after asking numerous questions that proves this that cannot be explained away easily, and also lots of questions are dodged skipped and ignored. conclusion NPT = divide and conquer! |
The building had perimeter and core columns of structural steel and slabs of structural steel between each floor. Any existing glass is of no importance. For you to think it does shows that you don't know what you're talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallious wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | Titanium engine analysis is not relevant since we clearly see supposed fuel-filled wings glide smoothly through steel and concrete instead of exploding on impact. Let's see if any physics experts can reply, and prove me either right or wrong. |
Just for the record...
| Snowygrouch wrote: | Well I`m sorry people but your work and theories are utterly worthless.
You have been conned by a couple of very very badly put together websites (I note that you NEVER produce your own credible analysis but use reams of weblinks).
The theory is pitiful to anyone with a grounding in Materials science or mechanical engineering. Unluckily for you lot I have both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Strength of structural steel used in perimeter columns = 551MPa or 551N/mm2
Number of columns sheared (WTC1) = 33
Cross sectional area of columns at impact height of planes = 16130mm2
Total cross sectional area of steel sheared by impact= 1,064,580mm2
Velocity of plane at impact=500mph or 222m/s
Mass of plane at impact = 145,000kg (100,000kg dry weight + 10,000 gallons fuel)
Energy of plane@ impact velocity = 4 Giga-Joules (4x10^9 joules)
If the plane is to bounce off the building it must decelerate to zero meters/second over a distance near zero. We shall use a very generous figure of 2 meters (the smaller the figure the greater the force expended), this allows the building to instantaiously move 2 meters at impact which is highly unrealistic. If an object were to bounce off the distance figure would be much closer to zero, giving many; many times the instantaionus force I use here.
1 Joule = Amount of energy needed to apply a force of 1 newton over a distance of 1m
4 GJ/2meters = 2 Giga Newton’s must be expended in doing so.
Stress = force/ area
= 2GN/ 1,064,580mm2
= 1868N/mm2
Thus in order to “bounce off” the side of the world trade centre the steel would have to be over 3.5 times stronger than the steel actually used.
The above analysis is naturally simplified a great deal as I don’t have sufficiently accurate computer models (or the time) to run a finite element analysis routine.
Hence I used extremely generous figures in favour of a “bounce off” scenario and still fell short of the required stress figures by a very considerable margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
What follows are simulations of wing impact and engineering schematics of the fuel tank layouts in a 767-200.
Of course an EMPTY plane will not penetrate with anything like the effect it did. Trouble is it WASNT empty and had 10,000 gallons of fuel in, or about 40 tons of fuel if you prefer my mass.
This is a fact ignored by the patheticaly absurd attempts at a serious analysis on the NPT websites which normally consist of "aluminium is soft and steel is really hard so it COULDNT go through". B********S.
I`m bloody SICK of spending months doing serious research only to have my (and the efforts of others who are ACTUALLY SERIOUS about DOING someting) undermined by unresearched UNsubstanciated UNCALCULATED "net nonsense".
|
| Snowygrouch wrote: | No need to apologise to me at all Alwun.
For those interested in "common sense visualisation" the impact of the 767 weighing about 145 tons at 500mph gives EXACTLY the same energy impact as the followng.
SIXTY FOUR Challenger 2 Main Battle tanks (62.5 Tons each) driving into the side of the WTC tower at ONE HUNDRED miles per hour all at the same time.
Ek=Kinetic Energy=Energy posessed by a moving object
If an object is to stop; ALL this energy must be dissipated.
Ek=0.5*Mass*velocity squared.
Ek=0.5*62500kg*64*44.4m/s squared (64 cos theres 64 of em)
= 3.94 Giga Joules
Bear that in mind before considering what 'sounds reasonable' about these absolutely collossal impacts. |
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=36751#36751 |
As I mentioned numerous times before, those calculations mean absolutely nothing. No one is claiming that the "plane" should have bounced off the building. Since basic physical laws cannot be broken, I'd suggest sticking with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: |
As I mentioned numerous times before, those calculations mean absolutely nothing. No one is claiming that the "plane" should have bounced off the building. Since basic physical laws cannot be broken, I'd suggest sticking with that. |
It's demonstrating that the wing did exactly the building damage that was observed in photos, shredded itself in the process and hardly broke a sweat.
So that's our side of the deal covered, now lets see you refute this with your own calculations, if you please.
Why do you use all these daft metaphors, are you so afraid to do the maths which could prove beyond doubt that your theory is correct?
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | OH MY! i take the fact that the plane was traveling at 500mph and the fact there were numerous windows(meaning a good portion of the face of the building was glass) played no part in what we see also, they are of no relevance. dont let anyone get in the way of your scientific thinking. lets just ignore others hey instead of proving your theory correct and then claim your thoery is correct without proving it
ive seen nothing so far after asking numerous questions that proves this that cannot be explained away easily, and also lots of questions are dodged skipped and ignored. conclusion NPT = divide and conquer! |
The building had perimeter and core columns of structural steel and slabs of structural steel between each floor. Any existing glass is of no importance. For you to think it does shows that you don't know what you're talking about. |
the plane crashed at 500mph! into steel mesh! not a solid wall! the spaces where the windows were let in a good portion of plane without anyother factors! HOW CAN YOU SAY IT IS NO RELEVANT! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | OH MY! i take the fact that the plane was traveling at 500mph and the fact there were numerous windows(meaning a good portion of the face of the building was glass) played no part in what we see also, they are of no relevance. dont let anyone get in the way of your scientific thinking. lets just ignore others hey instead of proving your theory correct and then claim your thoery is correct without proving it
ive seen nothing so far after asking numerous questions that proves this that cannot be explained away easily, and also lots of questions are dodged skipped and ignored. conclusion NPT = divide and conquer! |
The building had perimeter and core columns of structural steel and slabs of structural steel between each floor. Any existing glass is of no importance. For you to think it does shows that you don't know what you're talking about. |
Oh, so all of a sudden these details are important exept that you are lying again.
Fact The concrete in the floors was not structural!
Fact Of course the steel was structural, steel use in steel buildings usually is, but it's the size of that steel which is imortant here and it was paper thin compared with the size of the planes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
telecasterisation wrote;
| Quote: | | As for the supplying of 'physics' as proof - this will simply deteriorate into another 'your figures' mean nothing thread. |
CB_Brooklyn wrote;
| Quote: | | We shall see. Let's let some others respond. |
Fallious wrote;
| Quote: | Just for the record...
Strength of structural steel used in perimeter columns = 551MPa or 551N/mm2
Number of columns sheared (WTC1) = 33
Etc… |
CB_Brooklyn wrote;
| Quote: | | As I mentioned numerous times before, those calculations mean absolutely nothing. |
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | As I mentioned numerous times before, those calculations mean absolutely nothing. No one is claiming that the "plane" should have bounced off the building. Since basic physical laws cannot be broken, I'd suggest sticking with that. |
Simply saying that basic physical laws support your case, as you do repeatedly, means absolutely nothing unless you can show how they do. If you are right, it should be straightforward enough, and we must all be convinced. If you cannot manage it, please stop making the claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | As I mentioned numerous times before, those calculations mean absolutely nothing. No one is claiming that the "plane" should have bounced off the building. Since basic physical laws cannot be broken, I'd suggest sticking with that. |
Simply saying that basic physical laws support your case, as you do repeatedly, means absolutely nothing unless you can show how they do. If you are right, it should be straightforward enough, and we must all be convinced. If you cannot manage it, please stop making the claim. |
I already did, numerous times. But you people are incapable of understanding it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 1:42 pm Post subject: How Fast? |
|
|
| How fast would the Yugo need to be going to glide through the wall with no sign of damage on the entrance side? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 2:00 pm Post subject: Re: How Fast? |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | How fast would the Yugo need to be going to glide through the wall with no sign of damage on the entrance side? |
More accurately, you need to define the thickness of the wall and also pour 100 tons of concrete into the Yugo's boot - otherwise your question is void. A bog standard 'off the shelf' Yugo simply wouldn't do it.
We also need to draw a more accurate comparison as the exterior of the WTC was not a brick wall, it was essentially a slatted structure with relatively thin covering over the spaces between the gaps - a wall tends to be uniformally thick across its width.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 2:12 pm Post subject: Re: How Fast? |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | How fast would the Yugo need to be going to glide through the wall with no sign of damage on the entrance side? |
More accurately, you need to define the thickness of the wall and also pour 100 tons of concrete into the Yugo's boot - otherwise your question is void. A bog standard 'off the shelf' Yugo simply wouldn't do it.
We also need to draw a more accurate comparison as the exterior of the WTC was not a brick wall, it was essentially a slatted structure with relatively thin covering over the spaces between the gaps - a wall tends to be uniformally thick across its width. |
Let's assume the wall is identical to that of the WTC.
If a Yugo couldn't do it, why would an airplane?
Your comment "slatted structure with relatively thin covering over the spaces between the gaps" does not do justice. The Twin Towers had perimeter columns of structural steel. Between each floor was a slab of steel reinforced concrete. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do you mean a bog-standard Yugo, or a Yugo weighing in excess of 100 tons travelling at 500mph?
I would really need to see the slowed-down crash test videos of the 100 ton Yugos before commenting. Perhaps you could supply a link?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | OH MY! i take the fact that the plane was traveling at 500mph and the fact there were numerous windows(meaning a good portion of the face of the building was glass) played no part in what we see also, they are of no relevance. dont let anyone get in the way of your scientific thinking. lets just ignore others hey instead of proving your theory correct and then claim your thoery is correct without proving it
ive seen nothing so far after asking numerous questions that proves this that cannot be explained away easily, and also lots of questions are dodged skipped and ignored. conclusion NPT = divide and conquer! |
The building had perimeter and core columns of structural steel and slabs of structural steel between each floor. Any existing glass is of no importance. For you to think it does shows that you don't know what you're talking about. |
the plane crashed at 500mph! into steel mesh! not a solid wall! the spaces where the windows were let in a good portion of plane without anyother factors! HOW CAN YOU SAY IT IS NO RELEVANT! |
You are wasting your time with this one. He has had the mesh bit pointed out many times - yet, like his hypothetical solid wall, he refuses to yield. Tele - same goes for you. C-B is a waste of your valuable fusion playing tme.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | CB_Brooklyn wrote: | | As I mentioned numerous times before, those calculations mean absolutely nothing. No one is claiming that the "plane" should have bounced off the building. Since basic physical laws cannot be broken, I'd suggest sticking with that. |
Simply saying that basic physical laws support your case, as you do repeatedly, means absolutely nothing unless you can show how they do. If you are right, it should be straightforward enough, and we must all be convinced. If you cannot manage it, please stop making the claim. |
I already did, numerous times. But you people are incapable of understanding it. |
If those were your best efforts, you must have a very tenuous grasp of basic physical laws, and no understanding of how to apply them in these circumstances. You had better stick to the usual NPT tactic of posting the fuzziest pictures you can find, and see if you can convince anyone that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
