Discussion in '9/11' started by genericBob, Oct 26, 2014.
No Bob....You really need to leave math alone
And stop missing the point.
I'm calling foul here, I have proved that the facade of the WTC tower was less than 1/3 open space for windows and you refused to even acknowledge my post, and now you tell me I need to leave math alone, WHY, where is your rebuttal with your own math that proves me wrong?
You don't have it! the figures do not lie, the flight of the alleged "FLT175" is impossible as described by the official story.
Something for you to read through...
Sorry Bob,but giving your opinion about the facade isn't 'proving' JACK,all I need is a pair of eyes and that's IT.
And more opinion.....swell.
Those perimeter columns were constructed of 1/4" steel plate and were approximately 14.5" square. Do you have calculations showing how that facade would react to the focused impact of a jet?
So people can "eyeball" a scene and get better accuracy than with real measurements & calculations....(?)
The statement that "FLT175" would be impossible as described in the official story.
stands, and has a foundation of the data that the power required to propel any physical body through air increased by the CUBE of the velocity.
Can we please stick to the bit we were discussing here? or is that too difficult?
also that www.metabunk.org link goes to a pitched battle of debate, no possible conclusion from this at all, some people may consider the matter settled, but that is a matter of opinion.
Stop trying math Bob,you stink at it
And YOU'RE the one all over the page,here
Can you be specific, that is at what point did I fail?
I have quoted a WIKI article that specifies the Power increase by the CUBE of the velocity,
and that is a given, unless WIKI can be proven wrong, so what is the problem here?
Can you cite the data for the steel structure of the WTC outer wall and prove that there was "mostly window" ?
So tell us genericBob, how much power was required to propel the plane at 300 MPH and how much would be needed for 600 MPH?
You didn't read it did you? there's quite a bit of useful information in that debate that has one person admitting that P4T is spreading garbage. Is there something in that conversation that you find is incorrect or are you just going to dismiss it without presenting your reasons why?
Can you cite the data or information that shows the perimeter facade components should have withstood the focused impact load impact of a 767?
You're not presenting any numbers genericBob. How much power is needed to propel a 767 at 300 MPH at 1000 ft? How much power is needed to propel a 767 at 600 MPH at 1000 ft? Would the angle of descent increase or decrease the power needed to propel a 767 at a certain speed?
Your constant cries of "power increases by the CUBE of velocity" means nothing at this point.
Bump for bob to show his math.
We KNOW the planes flew downward into the towers,this was observed..And the one pilot on that forum said that even a shallow dive would increase speed
Show us how much power was needed to propel a 767 at 300 mph at 1000 ft
Show us how much power was needed to propel a 767 at 600 mph at 1000 ft.
Show us that the power needed at 600 mph was over the power limit supplied by the two engines.
Then tell us if ANY (3, 4, or, 5 degrees) angle of dive would reduce the power needed to attain the speed of 600 mph.
I know you haven't been around in a while genericBob, but I thought I'd post this just for you.
Explain, in the video below, how the ping pong ball both broke apart AND penetrated the paddle. According to you, this shouldn't happen. How did "physics" not apply the day this experiment happened?
I mean how can a ball made of a thin plastic skin and filled with air penetrate a wooden paddle?
Better yet, how did the CIA produce the mass hallucination in at least a couple million people who WITNESSED the 2nd plane crash into the WTC and the towers collapsing?
this is for you Gam, explain how come a lousy steel pole smashed the hell out of these vehicles.
then when you are finished explaining that explain why a truck can smash through an invincible plane without even damaging the cab.
Since you are playing dumb here, let's ask you a few questions. Maybe if you provide the answers, you'll figure it out.
1. What is the speed of the truck compared to the plane?
2. What is the weight of the truck versus the plane?
3. How much resistance is provided by the CONCRETE FILLED STEEL POLE ANCHORED TO THE GROUND against the truck compared to the 14 1/2" square, 1/4 thick steel plate, bolted together, against a 767?
Provide me those answers to show that you understand what is going on here.
figure what out?
Did you forget what you were having a problem figuring out that quickly?
I know these questions keep me waking at night. What if the Wright brothers never existed in reality ? There are no such thing as air liners it is all part of the 911 conspiracy. I mean flying? If humans were meant to fly we be born with wings, I dont by this whole Aero Plane thing. So if there is no such thing as planes, what actually brought those buildings down? I say it was ACME made tnt, used by coyote in alliance with yosemiti sam.
So you do not want to take this golden opportunity to explain it?
I gave you some information to gather in a quote above. Go find it and come back to me. If you can't give me the answers to those questions, it proves you don't want to learn and have no clue about what you are talking about. I'm not wasting my time on someone with both those characteristics.
Quit being lazy for once.
so you cant explain it after all, hmmmm........
Separate names with a comma.