evidence of "no-planes"

Discussion in '9/11' started by n0spam, Jan 26, 2014.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Meh, perspective is the only difference.
     
  2. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    perspective, coupled with laws of physics as a foundation for knowing what one does.
     
  3. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All we have is fallible sense data, anyone can be wrong, let's not get too arrogant here. I did a physics minor at uni (though I don't know much about engineering - changed subjects after a year), so I understand where you're coming from, and I agree that what they think is pretty out there.

    But to each their own. I'd prefer that a few people end up with what I see as absurd views than we all just remain dogmatically committed to the consensus.
     
  4. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Look up George Carlin on "consensus" ...... way cool!
     
  5. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just to re-visit this bit
    there are pix of say a 5lb bird having hit a wing and caused
    X amount of penetration, and now, consider that the wing
    hits a 200 lb pole, and has to overcome the inertia of said pole.
    how much damage could one expect to see?
    the calculations could be done, and indeed if there was something
    like "mythbusters" but with a much more scientific rather than
    theatrical focus, a test using one of the decommissioned aircraft
    out in the desert could be done to see exactly what that sort of force
    would do to an aircraft wing. but alas ... nobody seems to notice,
    nobody seems to care .... ( RIP George )
     
  6. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because you leave out the most important fact. Those where not regular light poles. They are specially mandated light poles that surround all FAA controlled airports
     
  7. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I'm going to echo a request for documentation supporting this statement. If it's a fact, that should be easy to do.
     
  8. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The point I was trying to make is in the mass of the object encountered,
    a 5 lb bird vs a 200 lb light pole, the inertia of the pole would be much more
    and so a moving wing hitting a stationary pole would do a lot more damage than
    a bird. do you get it now?
     
  9. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It isn't exactly 'stationary',that was the point.
     
  10. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    before the "airliner" hit it, the pole was stationary
    the wing would have to exert force to cause the pole
    to then become not stationary.

    or did you have something else in mind?
     
  11. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because you leave out the most important fact. Those where not regular light poles. They are specially mandated light poles that surround all FAA controlled airports

    - - - Updated - - -

    They also seems strangely ignorant of where the Pentagon is. I probably expect to much to think they might do some research or something :(
     
  12. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I and others on this board have had this same argument with the poster kokomojojo....
     
  13. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah I have seen those exchanges. It is why I hardly bother these days
     
  14. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you think that because the light poles were on special
    break-away bases that they somehow then became mass-less?
    What special conditions prevail so as to nullify the mass of the pole?
     
  15. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nonsense response

    Is it your contention that poles specifically designed not to destroy aircraft wings, should still destroy aircraft wings on impact?
     
  16. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who ever said they were specially designed to not destroy aircraft wings?
    anyhow, any safety system of any sort can not be 100% effective,
    given a wing allegedly traveling 800 f/s, I can expect a lot more damage
    that if the wing were traveling much closer to landing speed for any given aircraft.
     
  17. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The FAA - thats why they were there
     
  18. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and to your judgement of the subject,
    it makes no difference if the aircraft hitting the pole
    happened to be traveling 800 f/s or 300 f/s .... what?
    forces are equal and opposite, therefore the inertia of the pole
    and the speed of the aircraft are relevant to this discussion.
     
  19. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Rubbish the only thing that changes with the speed of the plane is how hard the pole hits the ground
     
  20. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really? how do you figure that?
     
  21. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Step 1 E=MC2

    Step 2 Conservation of energy

    Step 3 pole absorbs energy from wing, then reacts by being knocked down thus releasing the energy.
     
  22. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'll go with equal and opposite actions
    that is wing hits pole, and pole hits wing equally
    therefore the force required to overcome the inertia
    ( and do so in the short amount of time because of the speed of the aircraft )
    of said pole, would also be imposed upon the wing.

    at low speeds the forces would be small enough to not totally destroy a wing,
    however at higher speeds the damage would be much greater.
    You figure it out KE = 0.5MV^2
     
  23. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Given that, the plane most likely crashed within the next few seconds.

    What's that, you say?
     
  24. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sure you could - You would be still wrong though
     
  25. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Years ago I was going to work during a rainstorm,I was going about 45 and hydroplaned,and went off the road onto the shoulder,taking out a road marker sign.
    All I had was a small dent on the hood of my truck from the breakaway pole.
     

Share This Page