Remembering 9/11

[Jubee]

Yes, NIST. You may need to take a night class in highschool physics in order to prepare to read the report.

And yes, the forces of the falling mass impacting versus the structural suspension system was indeed similar to a bowling ball falling on a house of cards

But please feel free instead of doing anything that might limit your ignorance, to continue saying crazy and ignorant things, believe every dammed fool thing uploaded to YouTube, and spam the forum with more reams of garbage.

Yes, the top 1/4 of a building pancaked and pulverized without any loss of energy to opposing forces all the way down, you certainly understand Newton's 3rd Law.
Yet you claim I say crazy things. LOL
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law


So, again, any thoughts on another important matter of the day, the engine found at the site not belonging to either of the two planes that struck two buildings and made THREE come down. lol
Or are you going to ignore this question again, or just reply with something that's not related to it?

 

[huckfinn]

Another consideration I thought about......

Why would someone plant the wrong engine at the site?

 

[Jubee]

If you want to have a real discussion or debate, take all the sarcasm and innuendos out of your posts to me, otherwise I can't be bothered.

There is evidence for all the stories, but the ones supporting the terrorists theory is the strongest and the most likely by a long shot.

Fuji's post about cards is entirely accurate. The logistics of 'covering up' a conspiracy are huge beyond imagination.

That is why it is so hard to believe.

Check out this article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-blocks-Ground-Zero-wing-flap-9-11-plane.html

Nothing on the engine though eh? Thought so.

 

[Jubee]

Another consideration I thought about......

Why would someone plant the wrong engine at the site?

Someone fucked up majorly. There are too many questions, this is just one of the many blatantly obvious ones.

 

[Jubee]

1:53 very basic physics just for Fuji.
I suppose the lower portions of both buildings, never really existed, in fact, I'm surprised the government didn't wave their hands at the press conference and say "there were no lower portions of the building below the points of impact".

 

[huckfinn]

Wow, doesn't take much to convince you, once the government says it's "gold", it's "gold" to you isn't it?
As for your image of "destruction at the pentaCon, well, funny enough, here's a page out of VeteransToday.com that addresses that image.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/top-ten-911-cons-fraud-vitiates-everything-fve/


As for question "D":
The above link also answer it, but I'll paste it here for all to see, seems quite logical, but for those who "believe" otherwise......
According to the official account, AA Flight 77 approached the Pentagon on an acute north-east trajectory, barely skimming the ground at over 500 mph and taking out multiple lampposts, which would have ripped its wings open and caused the plane to burst into flame.
The aerodynamics of flight, including “downwash”, moreover, would have made the official trajectory–flying at high speed barely above ground level–physically impossible, because a Boeing 757 flying over 500 mph could not have come closer than 60 or more feet to the ground, which means that the official account is neither physically nor aerodynamically possible.


I noticed you didn't acknowledge the engine they found in New York, which wasn't the proper engine (cooling duct) for the planes that hit the towers.

Wanna give that one a shot?

I looked into this a little more.

A few points I found. The first image is of a cooling duct; the second a cooling assembly. You aren't comparing apples to apples, because image 2 is part of image 1.
If you take a close look at the photo, you can see the 'cooling duct assembly' inside the 'cooling duct.' Note the holes in the ring in the 'cooling duct'.

Second; engines go through a lot of re-configurations, and in this case, the engine was approved over time with help from NASA. New technology parts would be made to fit older engines and vice versa, to extend existing engine life. When they re-built old engines they could use newer technology, and if the parts could be used on older and newer engines, it would be easier to get parts. So, you really can't confirm this engine was not used on this 757.

 

[huckfinn]

Someone fucked up majorly. There are too many questions, this is just one of the many blatantly obvious ones.

If the conspirators were smart enough to plan and execute this over a long period of time, with 100s or possibly 1000s of people 'in the know' they would not miss this detail.

 

[huckfinn]

1:53 very basic physics just for Fuji.
I suppose the lower portions of both buildings, never really existed, in fact, I'm surprised the government didn't wave their hands at the press conference and say "there were no lower portions of the building below the points of impact".

Each floor is independently 'hung' off of supports, and those supports are only designed to carry the weight of one floor.

If one or more floors from above pancake and put weight on the floor structure below, the support - only designed to carry its own floor - will fail. The entire floor doesn't fail, only the supports holding it up.

So, lets assume a floor weighs 10,000 lbs. Its hung in the structure with supports designed to carry 10,000 lbs. Now, put another floor's weight on it, by placing it on gently or have it crashing down, the supports will break and fail because its support connections are designed to carry 10,000 lbs, not 20,000 lbs.

Now, as the building collapses, you have to take the accumulated weight of the floors coming down....plus the weight of the roof structure, which is approximately the same weight as a floor.

Another way to look at it......pick up as much weight as you can and hold it. Now, add the same amount of weight on top of what you are holding. What happens?

 

[fuji]

Yes, the top 1/4 of a building pancaked and pulverized without any loss of energy to opposing forces all the way down, you certainly understand Newton's 3rd Law.

You don't have a clue what you are talking to. Drop a bowling ball on a house of cards and you will certainly have a loss of energy from the opposing force of the card structure, but it will be an insignificantly small loss is energy.

You parade about yelling "3rd law! 3rd law" without actually having any fucking clue about it.

The force of twenty floors of building accelerating at a rate of 9.8m/s very quickly becomes astronomically larger than the strength of the suspension system holding up the floors. They are HANGING from the frame.

Once the impact forever is astronomically larger than the strength of the connections holding the floors the frame it's exactly like dropping a bowling ball on a house of cards.

But you never bothered to think about that because you don't actually care to understand any of Newton's laws. To you it's just another crazy thing to say, none of which you really understand.

 

[huckfinn]

You don't have a clue what you are talking to. Drop a bowling ball on a house of cards and you will certainly have a loss of energy from the opposing force of the card structure, but it will be an insignificantly small loss is energy.

You parade about yelling "3rd law! 3rd law" without actually having any fucking clue about it.

The force of twenty floors of building accelerating at a rate of 9.8m/s very quickly becomes astronomically larger than the strength of the suspension system holding up the floors. They are HANGING from the frame.

Once the impact forever is astronomically larger than the strength of the connections holding the floors the frame it's exactly like dropping a bowling ball on a house of cards.

But you never bothered to think about that because you don't actually care to understand any of Newton's laws. To you it's just another crazy thing to say, none of which you really understand.

You don't even need something as heavy as a bowling ball.....use a deck of cards - same result.

 

[Promo]

Yes, the top 1/4 of a building pancaked and pulverized without any loss of energy to opposing forces all the way down, you certainly understand Newton's 3rd Law.
Yet you claim I say crazy things. LOL
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law

I am REALLY getting tired of you - either you are a fool because you quote laws you don't understand, or you are a jerk and this is only about prodding people. You keep using Newton's 3rd law of motion as your proof of something being amiss with 9/11. But, you can't look at Newton's laws individually, all 3 can apply in a dynamic system. In this case:

1) Newton's 3rd law applies when the building was at equilibrium before the plane crashed. Key forces acting on the building are equal and in opposite directions (balanced). The gravitational (potential) energy of the building is pushing down - the structure of the building is sufficient to carry that load to the ground - and the ground pushes up with equal force.

2) Newton's 1st law also applies to the equilibrium state - as long as no external forces are acting upon the building, the building will continue in it's state of rest (vs uniform motion). Example: If something powerful enough pushed on the side of the building (hurricane) and it was strong enough to overcome the building's structure, the building would fall over sideways. The 1st law applied and the building is no longer at rest.

3) When the 1st floor failed, Newton's 2nd law now applied as forces were no longer balanced. The entire building section above the failed instantly converted from gravitational (potential) energy to kinetic energy. It began to accelerate at 10m/s2 (due to gravity). By the time the floor fell the 10 feet and hit the next floor, the moving section of the building gained "momentum" and the total energy was the original gravitational energy/kinetic energy + the new kinetic energy gained via the gravitational acceleration. This higher energy overcame the next floor's structural pinning and it failed.

4) The UNIQUE design of the WTC was its achilles heel. At the exact instant of the hit the 3rd law could/would apply for a micro-instant in time. In a traditional building where there are support columns distributed throughout the floor (and assuming they could withstand the impact), the downward momentum may have equaled the gravity force upward .... and the collapse may have been arrested. But the WTC didn't have support columns and all the load was born by the floor pins and they failed.

5) Mass is now increased by the weight of the additional floor, kinetic energy still exists (although a tiny bit less because some energy would have been lost to the force needed to fail the floor structure)(in essence the floor slowed down a tiny, tiny bit) and the new mass accelerates by an additional 10m/s2. The next floor would have been struck by even more force ..... and on ..... and on.

From your site: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Second-Law

Or are you going to ignore this question again, or just reply with something that's not related to it?

You've ignore every rebuttal and simply gone to your next zany theory. People in glass houses ......

 

[GPIDEAL]

Also, look at the frames per second on the video. Look how far the car advances every second of play (starts about 1:02). Take an airplane doing 10x that speed, and it will show up on one frame two at the very most, and quite a distance away. And given its speed, it would certainly be a blurry shot at best.

So, you can't say definitively it wasn't an airplane, a space shuttle, or an alien aircraft.

Yes, I forgot that the human eye would've been far more precise than that surveillance camera, if it only took so many frames per second. Very good point Huckleberry.

 

[GPIDEAL]

So where would the cameras be pointing? Up into the sky only? Tell me you're not serious with this line of thinking?

The answer to your question has been revealed in one of the photos previously posted in this thread.

We have 3 cameras pointing to the ground. There were two at the opposite and far ends of the wall that took the hit. If their field of view was narrow, then they might not have caught anything or much on tape. Then there was one in the middle but God knows if that camera recorded anything. Maybe the plane destroyed the DVR located within the building under or near that camera, hence no video footage.

Nobody would expect any kind of attack on the Pentagon, yet it still has a lot of camera pointed at various angles no doubt and yet, only a 6-7 second clip from one distant camera?
How convenient.

Nope, not a lot of cameras as previously explained.

Yeah, that's some surprise alright. lol
Planes are known to be hijacked around 8:20am, planes hit WTC around 8:40, pentagon is hit after 9:15am ....yeah, some surprise.............or incompetence by (apparently) the best military in the world. lol

Jubee, this attack was unprecedented and unexpected. The Pentagon is in a city, near 5 airports. The civilian plane turned off it's transponder and flew below radar. It's not NORAD HQ in the middle of nowhere, which would've shot down any plane approaching it.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Each floor is independently 'hung' off of supports, and those supports are only designed to carry the weight of one floor.

If one or more floors from above pancake and put weight on the floor structure below, the support - only designed to carry its own floor - will fail. The entire floor doesn't fail, only the supports holding it up.

So, lets assume a floor weighs 10,000 lbs. Its hung in the structure with supports designed to carry 10,000 lbs. Now, put another floor's weight on it, by placing it on gently or have it crashing down, the supports will break and fail because its support connections are designed to carry 10,000 lbs, not 20,000 lbs.

Now, as the building collapses, you have to take the accumulated weight of the floors coming down....plus the weight of the roof structure, which is approximately the same weight as a floor.

Another way to look at it......pick up as much weight as you can and hold it. Now, add the same amount of weight on top of what you are holding. What happens?

Bingo!

 

[GPIDEAL]

This is an interesting comparison of the video footage at the pentagon that builds on what has been posted here.

 

[GPIDEAL]

You're comparing a bowling ball to a deck of cards to REALLY TRY to twist Newton's 3rd Law into your OPINION on the events of 9/11, that doesn't work.
So you believe that the top 1/4 portion of the building, pulverized into dust the remaining 3/4 of the building. Got it, thanks.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law

Stop exaggerating or being imprecise.

It did not pulverize the remaining structure into dust.

Many tons of steel, aluminum deck, glass and concrete lay over 16 acres at ground zero.

Surely there was a lot of dust because a lot of the thin concrete floors cast on metal deck (slab-on-deck) pulverized in the collapse, but it's not like the wreckage was a heap of pulverized dust.

 

[Promo]

Yes, we all learned that the Towers fell at a second over the rate of free fall, which means there were zero resistance for the top 1/4 of the building that was hit.


Basically, Newton and his 3rd Law were out for breakfast that morning..............and early dinner that evening as well.

Would you stop making things up! Even your buddy Supercharge is using more accurate information, even though he doesn't understand it.

Basic math calculates the free fall time of the top floor of the building in a vacuum as approximately 9.2 seconds. But the building was not in a vacuum and the collapse happened many floors from the top so the free fall time would be closer to 8 seconds (most experts say on 7.8 to 8.4). The tower fell in ~12-15 seconds as proved by the videos. Math and computer models confirm these estimates.

 

[basketcase]

Yes, again, Newton's 3rd Law is absolute bullshit and the Twin Towers came down through a miraculous force from up above with the "Hand of God" helping it down.
It wouldn't be the first time the Hand of God has made his presence known....

Stated by someone who has no understanding of Newton's laws nor how the building was constructed. Were you the guy comparing the building to a wax candle?

 

[basketcase]

So where would the cameras be pointing? Up into the sky only? Tell me you're not serious with this line of thinking? ...

Um, the access points? You know, where people entering the buildings need to be identified?

 

[basketcase]

NIST? You mean the government agency that changed its tune once engineers called them out on their initial report questioning their science? LOL...

I love it when you try to prove a government conspiracy by claiming a government conspiracy removed all the proof.