Post #194,137
2/11/05 10:05:29 AM
|
Re: Well, the author is an idiot
I'm an idiot? Harsh.
"Thus the plane smashed right through the exterior."
Actually, no. There was no metallic confetti produced as one might expect when the aluminum fuselage struck the steel exterior. On this site you'll see some pics of what we expect to see when a plane strikes a wall like this:
[link|http://www.911-strike.com/missing-confetti.htm|http://www.911-strik...sing-confetti.htm]
Instead of "smash[ing] right through the exterior" what we see when examining the video is a plane entering a steel building like a hot knife through butter.
|
Post #194,156
2/11/05 11:38:29 AM
|
Re: Well, the author is an idiot
I'm an idiot? Harsh. Heh, sorry. I wouldn't have said that if I had known it was you. Of course, you wrote the top level post in a way that obscures the fact that you where linking to an article that you wrote. Actually, no. There was no metallic confetti produced as one might expect when the aluminum fuselage struck the steel exterior. On this site you'll see some pics of what we expect to see when a plane strikes a wall like this:
[link|http://www.911-strik...sing-confetti.htm|http://www.911-strik...sing-confetti.htm]
Instead of "smash[ing] right through the exterior" what we see when examining the video is a plane entering a steel building like a hot knife through butter. I don't know what you mean by instead here. What I meant was that the plane would smash right through the exterior surface of the WTC before breaking up, which is same thing as entering like a hot knife through butter. Which is exactly what you would expect when the plane hit the WTC. The exterior of the building was more glass then steel. The page you link to for support is talking about the pentagon, which is a vastly different building then the WTC. The exterior of the Pentagon was hardened for security reasons, and as expected the impact of the plane was very different and did not do nearly as much damage to the Pentagon. There are a lot of questions that have not be adequately answered in relation to the events of 9/11. An interesting argument can be made that parties inside the US had a hand in the events of 9/11, but the evidence to back it up is lacking. A better argument can be made that parties inside the US government ignored some very blunt warnings for one reason or another. But the idea that the whole thing was faked is simply absurd. Jay
|
Post #194,159
2/11/05 11:47:37 AM
|
Re: Well, the author is an idiot
Jay, understood about the way the first post is written. Here's some quick points back at you.
"What I meant was that the plane would smash right through the exterior surface of the WTC before breaking up, which is same thing as entering like a hot knife through butter. Which is exactly what you would expect when the plane hit the WTC. The exterior of the building was more glass then steel."
The exterior of the building had steel cross-pieces. The windows fit between the steel columns. It still doesn't make sense that the plane would enter a building with steel columns without any part of either wing breaking off.
"The page you link to for support is talking about the pentagon, which is a vastly different building then the WTC."
The point is that every clip of a plane crash that I think has ever been made shows the fuselage disintegrating at the point of impact. I've seen video with planes striking the ground that show this. In addition, the pics on that page show a plane striking a wall. We expect to see a shower of metallic confetti and disintegration of the aluminum tube that comprises the fuselage when it crashes into something solid. We didn't see that in the video.
"There are a lot of questions that have not be adequately answered in relation to the events of 9/11. An interesting argument can be made that parties inside the US had a hand in the events of 9/11, but the evidence to back it up is lacking."
I would say that the evidence is overwhelming. There are a lot of resources that indicate this.
"A better argument can be made that parties inside the US government ignored some very blunt warnings for one reason or another."
That's actually the government's own story. They are saying that they were merely negligent over the matter.
Thanks for the cordial reply.
|
Post #194,310
2/11/05 11:44:36 PM
|
Why would the wing break off?
Sam writes: It still doesn't make sense that the plane would enter a building with steel columns without any part of either wing breaking off. Why doesn't that make sense to you? You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of mechanics. The wings are attached to the body of the plane. They're traveling at the same speed and made from the same material. Why do you think the wings would "break off"? The exterior walls of the WTC towers had steel supports that were much closer together than the diameter of the fuselage of the 767. You don't seem to dispute that the fuselage could have entered the building. If the fuselage could penetrate the building, the wings would too. And since there isn't a skyscraper in existence that could prevent a jet airplane from penetrating it, it follows that the wings would as well. The 767s continued on their path as a result of the laws of physics. It is physically impossible for a wing made from high-strength aluminum that is going 440 mph (WTC1) or 545 mph (WTC2) to "break off" when it hits something. It keeps going until it loses all of its momentum. Or do you believe that aluminum can not cut steel? We know that water can cut steel (see a previous post), we know that lead can cut steel (see the sword versus machine gun movie), and aluminum is used in all sorts of [link|http://www.key-to-metals.com/Article102.htm|military equipment] including armor and ammunition. It's an amazingly tough material when used appropriately. Going fast enough, it would have no trouble cutting steel beams, as it did on 9/11/2001. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #194,314
2/12/05 12:31:48 AM
2/12/05 12:33:59 AM
|
Aircraft aluminum
The aluminum used for commercial aircraft is nothing like the soft aluminum people see in other applications. It is strong, hard and brittle - and not that much softer than architectural steel On impact, this stuff doesn't bend and break, it shatters like glass.
There is no correlation whatever between fighter planes and commercial aircraft. Fighter planes generally have very large amounts of titanium and cobolt alloys. These materials are extremely tough. They will crunch into a compressed ball before they'll break. Fighter planes are designed to withstand extreme stress in daily use.
Fighter planes are hard, dense and heavy. The only reason they get off the ground is that with engines powerful enough a brick will fly. Seeing a few come into Burbank mixed in with 737s, you can see there isn't the slightest resemblence. It's like comparing a beer can to a rock crusher.
Disclaimer: I used to be a manufacturing engineer (designing manufacturing processes) in the aircraft industry, so I have at least a passing knowledge of the subject.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #194,316
2/12/05 12:35:53 AM
|
While I appreciate this info
WHY IS ANYONE BOTHERING TO ANSWER THIS WHACKJOB??????
|
Post #194,317
2/12/05 12:38:23 AM
|
marlowe doesn't stick around to argue, so Sam's standing in.
|
Post #194,319
2/12/05 12:52:15 AM
|
Well, because . . .
. . having different kinds of whackos here generates interest.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #194,336
2/12/05 8:31:54 AM
|
It IS hard
I've never seen it shatter, though I have seen it cracked.
We use it for our shields.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #194,341
2/12/05 10:13:40 AM
|
Re: Aircraft aluminum
"The aluminum used for commercial aircraft is nothing like the soft aluminum people see in other applications. It is strong, hard and brittle - and not that much softer than architectural steel
Yes, aluminum can offer far superior strength to steel in ratio to weight. Yes, indeed. However, when the aluminum plane strikes the steel building, the weight of the steel is going to render the much lighter aluminum into fine metallic confetti.
Carmakers understand the heavier their cars the safer they are:
[link|http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/YanaZorina.shtml|http://hypertextbook.../YanaZorina.shtml]
"On impact, this stuff doesn't bend and break, it shatters like glass."
yep. And, we saw nothing like this in the videos.
|
Post #194,342
2/12/05 10:22:06 AM
|
Evidence please.
However, when the aluminum plane strikes the steel building, the weight of the steel is going to render the much lighter aluminum into fine metallic confetti. Evidence please. Note that video of a fighter hitting a reinforced concrete monolith isn't evidence to support your claim. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #194,343
2/12/05 10:27:31 AM
|
Bah. You simply don't listen.
but then, your credibility is already zero. You have nothing to lose. Ben lived in NYC. I lived in 'Jersey when it happened, with close personal friends working in NYC.
We have MANY credible witnesses, you have - what? An assertion that there should have been 'metallic confetti'? Then you don't see it, so rather than question your assertion we should disbelieve multiple credible witnesses and physical evidence?
Go preach to those that believe the holocaust didn't occur, or that the moon landings were faked. You bore me.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #194,349
2/12/05 11:10:52 AM
|
Actually, that's complete nonsense.
One of the safest cars on the road is the Toyota Avensis, which is not only considerably safer than most SUVs but considerably lighter.
Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #194,353
2/12/05 11:19:06 AM
|
If heavier is safer . . .
. . . then why does the National Transportation Safety Board list pickup trucks and SUVs as the vehicles most likely to kill their occupants in an accident?
As to your metalic confetti, confetti going 400 miles per hour isn't going to just stop and bounce off the surface, it's going to keep on going.
You get a goose down pillow in your face at 400 miles per hour it's going to hurt like hell at least and probably kill you.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #194,161
2/11/05 11:48:05 AM
|
"911" - isn't that a phone number, to you Yanks? (new thread)
Created as new thread #194160 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=194160|"911" - isn't that a phone number, to you Yanks?]
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575|Ashton Brown]
|
Post #194,165
2/11/05 11:59:31 AM
|
Not harsh
You show a fighter (made lighter/smaller for maneuvering) hitting a solid brick wall and expect the results to be the same as a much more rigid vehicle hitting essentially 3-4 inches of glass.
Perhaps the jet engine that was shown coming out of the trade center that was found 6 cross blocks over was part of the hoax?
In addition, your Pentagon mock-up assumed the plane hit in level flight. If you look at the satellite photos you would see that the plane hit (damage shows this) with its wings planed at nearly 90 degerees (it was sideways and nose down).
Take it with your obviously large grain of salt.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #194,181
2/11/05 12:40:18 PM
|
To support some claims...
I recall the ValuJet crash in Florida some years ago. Damn near no wreckage in that one either.
|
Post #194,187
2/11/05 1:04:56 PM
|
Further
[link|http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/index.html|http://archives.cnn....ctures/index.html]
Video is there. But...it must be a fake.
Elaborate hoax.
riiight.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #194,191
2/11/05 1:14:44 PM
|
Re: Further
BePatient, it would be nice if you could explain the video anomalies that are addressed in the initial post. Thanks.
|
Post #194,194
2/11/05 1:34:38 PM
|
As opposed
to your ingnoring just how much evidence?
Talk about presumptuous.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #194,184
2/11/05 12:57:23 PM
|
butter plane
"You show a fighter (made lighter/smaller for maneuvering) hitting a solid brick wall and expect the results to be the same as a much more rigid vehicle hitting essentially 3-4 inches of glass."
No, actually we all saw on television the plane, made largely out of aluminum, entering a building with an exterior that has steel columns. (The windows were between the columns.) The plane's wings and fuselage are making contact with the steel buildings. How does the plane enter the steel building like a hot knife through butter?
|
Post #194,188
2/11/05 1:07:54 PM
|
Easy. It's simple physics.
Go read [link|http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P2BaselineStrucPerf&AircraftImpact.pdf|this] 96 page .PDF from NIST that discusses the 767 impacts on the towers. Come back if you still have questions.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #194,190
2/11/05 1:13:15 PM
|
Re: Easy. It's simple physics.
The NIST report is kind of a laughingstock on the Net. However, it has nothing to do with the current thread.
|
Post #194,192
2/11/05 1:24:38 PM
|
Wave your hands all you like...
|
Post #194,195
2/11/05 1:37:12 PM
|
Correct...
disproving your silly article has nothing to do with this thread.
We now return to (which exactly I'm not sure) your alternate reality...already in progress.
Who needs physics.
Gravity just sucks.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #194,200
2/11/05 1:46:57 PM
|
"The Net"?
What "Net"?
Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #194,201
2/11/05 1:48:32 PM
|
Re: "The Net"?
The Internet.
|
Post #194,203
2/11/05 1:53:56 PM
|
I repeat.
What "Net"?
The NIST report may well be a "laughingstock" on the conspiracy-oriented web sites, but on the web at large (the Internet is a network, as noted; as such it's lower-level than the WWW and carries services such as SMTP and NTP; sadly "The Internet" has become a synonym for "The World Wide Web". But I digress.) it's not fair to say that it's a "laughingstock".
Please note that I don't give a shit what the "blogosphere" thinks, either.
Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #194,202
2/11/05 1:53:15 PM
|
That thingie Al Gore invented, remember?
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #194,228
2/11/05 3:46:46 PM
2/11/05 3:48:01 PM
|
Re: Easy. It's simple physics.
Well, if you're asking us to take "kind of a laughingstock on the net" as sufficient grounds for dismissal of an article, I hate to tell you, but yours seems to have achieved that here, and in record time! Is that what you really intended to say?
Giovanni
Have whatever values you have. That's what America is for.
You don't need George Bush for that.
Edited by GBert
Feb. 11, 2005, 03:48:01 PM EST
|
Post #194,229
2/11/05 3:49:49 PM
|
Well, there was that universal peace guy..
|
Post #194,189
2/11/05 1:09:58 PM
|
Well..
...there are much more skilled folks here to describe the physics of the issue.
Stuff like mass, inertia, tensile strength.
Send it to mythbusters. I don't think you'll get many takers here.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #194,218
2/11/05 2:31:26 PM
|
'Cause we all know steel beats aluminum
Just like rock beats scissors. It's common knowledge.
|
Post #194,284
2/11/05 9:13:05 PM
|
Your expectations are wrong.
I'll play along for a little longer.... Sam writes: There was no metallic confetti produced as one might expect when the aluminum fuselage struck the steel exterior. On this site you'll see some pics of what we expect to see when a plane strikes a wall like this: 1) Fighters are very different from commercial aircraft. 2) Hitting a rigid concrete wall is different from hitting a building that is designed to flex in hurricane-force winds. The WTC wasn't covered with rigid steel. The WTC wasn't built from concrete walls that were ~20' thick. 3) I didn't expect "confetti" - whatever you mean by that. There was a lot of debris from the planes outside the buildings, as BP pointed out. You're aware, aren't you, that [link|http://www.expresscomputeronline.com/20020311/opinions2.shtml|water can cut through steel]. Materials with a lot of momentum can do a lot of damage. You seem to want to make a big deal about a grainy video tape, while ignoring the physics, the eyewitnesses, and the forensic analysis. Why is that? Is everyone who has studied this professionally lying? Since you cited [link|http://www.911-strike.com/siding-scam.htm|this] site, do you actually believe it? Eyewitness testimony establishes quite definitively that a Boeing 757 was seen flying over Washington and then approaching the Pentagon along a flight path near the Sheraton Hotel in Arlington, and over the Naval Annex of Arlington National Cemetery. Thus, the perpetrators of the attack had this 757 at their disposal, and could easily have crashed it into the Pentagon. We are arguing that they chose not to do so, but rather that they might have perpetrated an elaborate hoax -- thus taking the risk that their deception might have failed, or been detected. Why would they do this?
Our analysis suggests three possible albeit highly speculative motives, if in fact the perpetrators were working for New World Order intelligence agencies :
[...] Why should we regard "Richard Stanley & Jerry Russell" and their opinions more highly than people with demonstrated competence in physics, metallurgy, forensics and other relevant fields? Inquiring minds... Cheers, Scott.
|
