Physical Science Question

Discussion in '9/11' started by Katzenjammer, May 24, 2016.

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. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "You would see no damage to the aircraft outside of the building at that speed "

    at the speed alleged, the airliner would have 70 milliseconds to travel from first contact of the nose
    to a point where the wings could make contact with the wall, and what do you think would happen in 70 milliseconds
    with the airliner already stressed by >100 g force?
     
  2. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It would do exactly what you saw.
     
  3. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you really do not grasp the significance of that 70 milliseconds ..... is that it?
     
  4. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I understand the physics.
     
  5. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you understand that an airliner stressed by >100 g deceleration, and given at least 65 milliseconds to act on said stress,
    what excuse is there for the airliner showing no signs of deformation as it penetrated the wall?
     
  6. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At that speed the deformation is at the point of impact, not the tail.
     
  7. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    speed relates to the amount of time available for actions to happen, and in the case of the alleged FLT175, there would have been plenty of time.
    also ... do you understand that in the case of an automobile collision stuff in the back seat of said vehicle will be shifted about and violently
    because of the collision? In the case of an airliner, there would be all sorts of material for things crashing about, and given the >100 g force
    there would be guaranteed structural failure of the aircraft. So no, the damage could not possibly be confined to the front of the airliner.
     
  8. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The wings and tail wouldn't be effected until they hit. See this video of an F4 at 500 mph hitting an immovable concrete wall. The wings and tail don't get effected for a while.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTrpARSE77M
    https://www.warhistoryonline.com/whotube-2/127922.html

    - - - Updated - - -

    see this:
    https://www.warhistoryonline.com/whotube-2/127922.html

    - - - Updated - - -


    Actually yes
    https://www.warhistoryonline.com/whotube-2/127922.html
     
  9. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are assuming no deformation at the impact point. A steel vehicle traveling much slower is going to react differently.
     
  10. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so you allege that objects inside an airliner will not act according to their inertia in the case of an airliner crash?
    what? .... the fact is that with a given of >100 g deceleration force, the internal bits of the airliner, luggage & cargo,
    passengers and carry-on bags would ALL be subject to the forces imposed by the deceleration. those 5 ton jet engines
    would impose 500 tons of stress against the engine mounts and therefore break off, and in so doing rotate/tumble and would
    not strike the WTC tower wall square on, therefore having only minuscule probability of penetration.
    the whole story, that is the alleged hijacked airliners used as weapons, is such a transparent farce as would be funny if not
    for the fact that the consequences of this whole fraud, that is politically are a disaster not only for AMERICA but humanity as a whole.
     
  11. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are not considering the minute amount of time involved. How fast can a suitcase accelerate when the surrounding structure is not accelerating? Those engines did break off and disintegrate but they are not going to break off from the wing with that kind of speed and ms time until they reach the building.

    Just because you don't understand any of this does not mean your incredulity is valid evidence of anything.
     
  12. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First of all, the opposition brings up the famous ( or possibly infamous ) F4 destruction test,
    this is an apples and oranges comparison in that the F4 is very much a smaller aircraft than a commercial airliner and
    some events simply do not scale ( see mythbusters doing a giant newtons cradle ) so with that said, there is precident
    in that for other crash videos, that is automobiles crashed at 120 mph ( etc... ) things happen in a matter of milliseconds,
    so there is no excuse for the physical bits in question to not have reacted to the forces applied.
     
  13. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You evidently missed all the destruction.
     
  14. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The destruction of the alleged FLT175 was not visible on the video, where is the visible deformation of the airliner?
    Also, the crash was alleged to have happened with a 12.5 degree off perpendicular hit, so the forces would be asymmetrical,
    so how is it that the airliner allegedly penetrated as if it had a lubricated condom? ..... whats up with that.?
     
  15. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Two things. First most video capture 30 frames per second so that leaves about two frames to capture the crash. Second, if you were there and blinked, you would have missed the entire crash.
     
  16. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Many physical actions happen much faster than you can blink, that in no way negates the validity of the action.
    also, as for the 30 frames/sec video, even if the video had been 10 frame/sec, the damming evidence would still be the alleged wing shaped cut-out and the allegation that the airliner penetrated completely leaving no significant bits outside the skyscraper on the entry hole side.
     
  17. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You still deny the physics that have been presented and wish to believe your own incredulity instead. Can't help anyone that wittingly wishes to stay ignorant of the physics.
     
  18. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Given the conditions allegedly in place for this crash, that is the alleged FLT175 having to displace tons of mass in order to make that entry hole,
    there would have to be a massive jolt to the aircraft, no getting around this the best estimations so far indicate >100 g for the forces to have acted upon the airliner ( that is the alleged airliner ) and so having the airliner thus stressed + the fact that the forces would be asymmetrical ( that is the alleged FLT175 striking the wall 12.5 degrees off perpendicular ) it is only in the wildest imaginings that the aircraft could remain whole and penetrate the wall as was alleged.
     
  19. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    To be a no-planer one has to be oblivious to reality.
     
  20. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and exactly what do you have in rebuttal rather than
    "its wrong because I said so" ?????????????????
     
  21. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The evidence.
     
  22. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Er, that mountain of evidence you keep ignoring. I can't believe I'm actually arguing reality with a no-planer.

    No planes = no brains.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Ninja'd. ;)
     
  23. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK, what evidence, you keep going on about this "evidence" but where is it?
     
  24. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Already put to you. Are you actually comprehending my posts, or are you just reading to respond?

    Again; The passenger manifests; the manufacturer's maintenance records; the airlines' records; the insurance claims; the passengers' DNA, recovered baggage, the ATC records, and on and on and on.

    No planes = no braynz
     
  25. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    all of these things would be so easy to fake, and in the absence of actual physical proof that any of the allegedly hijacked airliners ever existed at all ...
    well its kinda a moot point.

    Have fun with that fantasy about hijacked airliners .....
     

Share This Page