100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
08-17-2011, 11:23 PM (This post was last modified: 08-18-2011 01:17 AM by JazzRoc.)
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes
(08-17-2011 04:21 PM)rsol Wrote: its my goal in life to take words out of your mouth and simplify themIt won't happen often, for it's my aim too.
That facts will ever remain that the point and angle of impact cannot be determined with sufficient precision to generate a course of events sufficiently detailed to follow the multiple impacts the wheel suffered within, let alone free of, the plane. There would be too many possibilities to handle that computation, I guess.
Quote:So the wheels can't be planted but the cars are? There is a lot more evidence of cars being affected in similar way all over Manhattan. A mile and half away no plane pieces where found.I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't a bit simple. The police dragged them out of the way. There are truck tyre tracks everywhere....
Quote:A lot of them claim they did not see the airplanes.Of course. Lots of people are always to be found looking in lots of different directions. Sheesh.
Quote:The point was that a 1.5T of high explosive could have done the damage. Kerosine might have done more if it was the actual explosive factor...That 1.5 tons of TNT kinetic energy of the plane was expended cutting into the building, scooping up its contents, and sending shafts and wheels (and tower wall sections) out into the streets.
The kerosine/air explosion killed people in the basements. That's a hefty bang. Had it been 100% combusted, the towers may have fallen then and there.
Quote:There is no evidence of the airplane pulling 2gWrong. The HOLE (and the known attitude of the plane on video) and the SPEED (from the radar plot) automatically give you the G the aircraft was experiencing. Go read a book on FLIGHT. Not a comic book...
Quote:the effect you interpret as vortex appear much later and higherEach vortex has close to a VACUUM down its central axis which TERMINATES AT THE WINGTIP ENTRY POINT INTO THE BUILDING. Two terminating points.
Those points will be lifted by the explosion updraft, but they are STILL TIED BY THE VACUUM to their trails, which stretch back invisibly for miles. This tie will FORCE the wave vortices to maintain their position in spite of the updraft.
Flying aircraft pull these "rotating tubes of air" around with them all the time. They ARE lift-induced drag.
Quote:please find a better video sourceIt's the best available on YT.
Quote:to make a better argument ?The argument is WON to a person who understands it.
Quote:The vortex spins on a horizontal axis, climbing up vertically.We're both correct. The horizontal axis is circular.
Quote:230k tons did not rub on every inch square of metal surface. Most of it turned to fine dust even before reaching the ground...There was 10,000 tons of pulverized concrete in the dust clouds. Approx.
The accreting and accelerating floor mass would have done a bit of banging and scraping, don't you think?
There was enough potential energy in each tower to melt 2,600 tons of steel, if that was the only place the energy could go. It wasn't of course. There was noise (not a lot of energy in that) and HEAT. The air got hot, the dust was hot the floors were hot, and the foundations were glowing with heat.
Quote:That was not concrete. it was the central steel columns.Show me nothing with Judy Wood in it.
Quote:I could say just as easy that someone inserted the airplane. i am looking for technical explanation of doing that kind of trickery, without the predisposed bias.Humor mismatch.
The reason why the whole thing couldn't have been pre-prepared beforehand is THE WEATHER.
The BACKGROUND for "trickery" would have had to precisely match in advance, for forty separate videos from forty separate viewpoints, EXCEPTIONALLY FINE WEATHER. What would have been the chances for that?
Quote:Indeed, who can better fix the people than media...But first you have to fix the media people. How many is that, which you have to add to the people loading ten tons of kerosine into the towers to make an asymmetrical fuel/air explosion, melting aluminum, dumping parts of planes and people, etc.
Quote:Radar screens operate on a software platform that could be manipulated without fixing many people.I believe the area has MANY radar stations. Add them all to the list...
Quote:It's a good point to notice that the bridge was unaffected by the phenomenon that torched and twisted the cars, that is the mystery, as is why some cars are only half affected.Let me help you. There's NO mystery there at all. You have spun off the road. Your logic has failed just there.
ARGUMENT: "Only thermite could account for molten steel in the basement."
How much structural steel COULD the tower's potential energy melt?
The calculated mass of one tower is 253,000 metric tons, and the total potential energy above grade is 3.98 * 10^11 Joules.
The heat required to raise a metric ton of steel to its melt temperature (temperature range 1110 deg C, specific heat of iron 500 J/kg) and then melt it (latent heat of melting of iron 98 kJ/kg) is 1000 * (1110*500 + 98000) = 1.53 * 10^8 Joules.
Therefore the maximum possible amount of structural steel that could be melted by the TOTAL CONVERSION of the tower's potential energy is 3.98 * 10^11 / 1.53 * 10^8 = 2,600 metric tons.
ARGUMENT: "There's NO WAY an aluminum aircraft could cut through a steel structure."
Kinetic energy equivalent of Boeing 767 traveling at 565 mph
(0.5*M*V^2)=0.5*1.6*10^5*253*253=6.66x10^9 Joules=1.6 tons of TNT
Imagine a nice 4" thick plate of steel with the outline of the front view of the 767 coated with 1.6 tons of TNT, held against the face of the tower and ignited.
Would the tower steel hollow columns be torn inward? You betcha.
The energy distribution would be greater or lesser than this according to the mass behind specific points, the fuel tanks, engines, and undercarriage being points of concentration.
ARGUMENT: "The building was designed to take an impact from a passenger plane and remain standing."
Comparison between the 707 and 767 impacts upon WTC2:
Empty Weight Kg-------------55,580---------------------86,000
Fuel Weight Kg-----------------1,000--------------------12,100
Kinetic Energy Joules-------3.49 x 10^8--------------3.92 x 10^9
Thermal Energy Joules-----4.28 x 10^9--------------5.18 x 10^10
Total Energy Joules---------4.63 x 10^9--------------5.57 x 10^10
So what's the difference? Just divide the total energies, and you get a difference of 11 times.
For WTC2 there was more than ELEVEN times more TOTAL energy in the actual 767 strike than there was in the 707 strike calculated by the WTC designers.
The kinetic (IMPACT) energy of the 767 was ELEVEN times greater than that calculated for the 707.
But by far the GREATEST FACTOR was the thermal energy of the 12 tonnes of kerosine in the 767!
These are REVISED with "TRUTHER" fuel amounts, but I believe the journalof911studies has broken its link.
STOP sucking START blowing
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)