Thread Rating:
  • 6 Vote(s) - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
September Clues Addendum Chapter 1
09-02-2010, 09:03 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-02-2010, 09:07 PM by JazzRoc.)
#61
Rainbow  RE: September Clues Addendum Chapter 1
(09-02-2010, 01:13 AM)mothandrust Wrote: i'd always thought you were brighter and more open minded than that JR, i won't treat your contributions with such seriousness in future. shame.
I must say I'm terribly disappointed. Every action I have taken here has been to win your approval, and now I'm left in the lurch. What shall I do? I know, I'll read from the Bible.

Lay not up for yourselves - Our Lord here makes a transition from religious to common actions, and warns us of another snare, the love of money, as inconsistent with purity of intention as the love of praise. Where rust and moth consume - Where all things are perishable and transient. He may likewise have a farther view in these words, even to guard us against making any thing on earth our treasure. For then a thing properly becomes our treasure, when we set our affections upon it.
Lay not up for ourselves treasures upon earth - hoard not. Where moth -a "clothes-moth". Eastern treasures, consisting partly in costly dresses stored up, were liable to be consumed by moths. There is an evident reference to our Lord's words here -and rust-any "eating into" or "consuming"; here, probably, "wear and tear". Doth corrupt - cause to disappear. By this reference to moth and rust our Lord would teach how perishable are such earthly treasures, and where thieves break through and steal -Treasures these, how precarious!
Worldly-mindedness is a common and fatal symptom of hypocrisy, for by no sin can Satan have a surer and faster hold of the soul, under the cloak of a profession of religion. Something the soul will have, which it looks upon as the best thing; in which it has pleasure and confidence above other things. Christ counsels to make our best things the joys and glories of the other world, those things not seen which are eternal, and to place our happiness in them. There are treasures in heaven. It is our wisdom to give all diligence to make our title to eternal life sure through Jesus Christ, and to look on all things here below, as not worthy to be compared with it, and to be content with nothing short of it. It is happiness above and beyond the changes and chances of time, an inheritance incorruptible. The worldly man is wrong in his first principle; therefore all his reasonings and actions therefrom must be wrong. It is equally to be applied to false religion; that which is deemed light is thick darkness. This is an awful, but a common case; we should therefore carefully examine our leading principles by the word of God, with earnest prayer for the teaching of his Spirit. A man may do some service to two masters, but he can devote himself to the service of no more than one. God requires the whole heart, and will not share it with the world. When two masters oppose each other, no man can serve both. He who holds to the world and loves it, must despise God; he who loves God, must give up the friendship of the world.


Oh, yes indeedy. Praise to the Lord - Allah akhbah! Pass the spitoon...

Reply
09-02-2010, 09:21 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-02-2010, 09:44 PM by kevlar.)
#62
RE: September Clues Addendum Chapter 1
what ?

You see the non sense we have to put up with. Jazzroc what is up with your non sense, what kind of a response is this and what are you trying to do ?

After looking over your posts jr and your blog if you can call it that, you have spent a lot of time trying to debunk theories, how do you find the time to debunk theories and why don't you rather spend the time positively researching something else. The only people that debunk for a living are debunking agents, they get paid by the israelis or the usa intelligence to sit and infiltrate conspiracy forums so that they can prevent intelligent discussion. I have ran in to many over the years on different forums, like this one guy who kept saying that wtc had a concrete core and he had over 500 posts. If you don't agree with the theory why don't you use your own logic and reason and explain to us why you don't, rather than quoting from other sources and making unsubstantiated claims.

[Image: 3448.jpg]
Reply
09-02-2010, 11:01 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-03-2010, 12:22 AM by JazzRoc.)
#63
RE: September Clues Addendum Chapter 1
(09-02-2010, 09:21 PM)kevlar Wrote: You see the nonsense we have to put up with. Jazzroc what is up with your nonsense, what kind of a response is this and what are you trying to do?
I was merely replying to Mothandrust in his own terms. If they were good enough for him, they're good enough for me.

Quote:After looking over your posts jr and your blog if you can call it that, you have spent a lot of time trying to debunk theories, how do you find the time to debunk theories and why don't you rather spend the time positively researching something else.
If you had read my blog you'd be able to answer those questions.

Quote:The only people that debunk for a living
If you had read my blog you'd know that doesn't apply to me.

Quote:are debunking agents, they - blah - posts.
And how would YOU know that?

Quote:If you don't agree with the theory why don't you use your own logic and reason and explain to us why you don't
It's the first thing I do.

Quote:rather than quoting from other sources and making unsubstantiated claims.
Perhaps you should tell me EXACTLY how to substantiate a claim WITHOUT quoting from other sources, smartypants.

And of course SUBSTANTIATING MY CLAIM is the VERY NEXT thing I do. I can't help it if you cannot hold on to reason, and desire to paint lies over what has just occurred.

In fact I wonder whether I credit you less than you deserve in the Orwellian Deflection department.

The steel of the towers wasn't protected at all against the blast of the entering aircraft, and the heat supplied by the kerosene and office materials. These days they encapsulate the steel in concrete. That's the story at the pointed end - the back story being (utterly outrageous) US interference in the Islamic world. And that's all there is, except for paranoia and pseudoscience - and outright LIARS, of course.

Get used to it. I'm a pensioner, a former engineer and industrial designer, and I'm trying to prevent manifest disinformation. I wouldn't do so (for I wouldn't know) if I hadn't spent a career working with and observing aviation and the atmosphere, which could only have begun by becoming educated about it in the first place. Chemtrails and 911 is slap-bang within my area of expertise, which includes aircraft design, civil structural design, and all the dynamics and metallurgical disciplines. Starting from the fitting bench, working metal-forming machinery, working in drawing offices and design offices and ending up in boardrooms. Then sort of ramping back down, to bench fitting small parts for my own purposes.

People who bug out into shill-speak or "psyop" shit merely cause me to fantasize with the idea of them, a sledgehammer and a Canarian pinecone (they're VERY big). What else to do? Unsubstantiated slander is unpreventable and I merely have to endure it.

I've got bags of time, other interests, good weather, close family, a cat and a dog, walks and cycle rides in the sun and a swim in the bay - every day. And I iron like Kryten in Red Dwarf. I don't need money, thanks...
Reply
09-02-2010, 11:23 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-03-2010, 01:27 AM by kevlar.)
#64
RE: September Clues Addendum Chapter 1
I have to update this comment due to edits. You are mistaken. If you have a background in military aviation or British intelligence then you should be intelligent enough to know that an aluminium air plane can not make a hole in a steel and concrete building like that apparently occurred on 9/11, it is physically impossible. "The steel of the towers wasn't protected at all against the blast of the entering aircraft, and the heat supplied by the kerosene and office materials." Why was the steel not protected and what do you mean by protected, how could it have been protected ? This is steel, are you sure that you know the difference between steel and aluminium ? Have you seen how fragile a jet plane is, have you seen pictures of air plane crashes where the plane has broken up because it is light weight aluminium ? Firstly at what speed did the apparent aluminium air planes crash through the "unprotected" steel and generate enough heat from kerosene and office materials to make a hole across multiple floors ? "Encapsulating steel in concrete" ? are you the concrete core guy ? haha. here we go.

You are trying to prevent disinfo but yet your website looks like someone who has a very specific agenda and struggles to accept anything new contrary to that agenda.

http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=768

JazzRoc has been debunking 911 theories over a year here. Do you even believe that there was controlled demolitions ?

Quote:It is said, WRONGLY, that the towers fell at freefall speed - 9.2 seconds. The first (struck lower down, with a greater load pressing on the failing structure) fell in 14.5 seconds, and the second fell in 22 seconds.

The heat to melt some of the steelwork came from the potential energy of the towers themselves. This was, in each case, equivalent to twenty-five "Hiroshimas". Most of which went straight upwards, of course.

The conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy (falling) meant that the uppermost parts of each tower approached the speed of the F4 Phantom in my previous video. If brought to a sudden stop, the material is forced to VERY HIGH (plasma) temperatures. There would have been FLASHES OF LIGHT and the production of - microspherules. You can SEE this in the Phantom video... ...have a look at it again... ...the impact flashes show up in the videos of the two planes striking the towers as well...

Poooffff!

you are the dis info agent.
Reply
09-03-2010, 01:47 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-03-2010, 09:48 AM by JazzRoc.)
#65
RE: September Clues Addendum Chapter 1
(09-02-2010, 11:23 PM)kevlar Wrote: If you have a background in military aviation or British intelligence
I don't. It's CIVIL aeronautical engineering, followed by industrial design in the industrial world. Suckered again. Read my blog and work it out for yourself.

Quote:you should be intelligent enough to know that an aluminium air plane can not make a hole in a steel and concrete
You're (apparently) obviously NOT intelligent enough to know you are wrong. Or are you DELIBERATELY obfustcating when you claim that CONCRETE was used in the construction of the WTC towers. It WASN'T.

Quote:it is physically impossible
At speed? When kinetic energy rises as the SQUARE of the speed? You have just proved you know NOTHING about engineering AS you make this WRONG assertion.
A bazooka round cuts through inches of armor plate using pure COPPER. It probably doesn't reach the speed of the 767 to do its job. The 767 was FAST and HEAVY. By the time the fuel exploded as everything ruptured the wing spars (backed by the momentum of the fuel) were THROUGH. As the steel was dragged inwards it would have reached its transition point and snapped, in an eightieth of a second, and sprung back some. Just the u/c and engines went out the far side.

Quote:Why was the steel not protected and what do you mean by protected, how could it have been protected?
Steel's strength resides in its crystalline structure. This structure is LOCKED at normal temperature, but the carbide and silicide "keys" begin to fall out above around 650 C, and the steel softens and loses its tensile strength by about its load factor when it gets to 1100 C. It needs to be insulated to prevent it from reaching that temperature - or blam. The spray-on fibrous cement foam was cleaned off by the kerosene explosion. Time told.

Quote:This is steel, are you sure that you know the difference between steel and aluminium?
You, a Canarian pinecone, a mallet.

Quote:Have you seen how fragile a jet plane is, have you seen pictures of air plane crashes where the plane has broken up because it is light weight aluminium?
Bend over.

Quote:Firstly at what speed did the apparent aluminium air planes crash through the "unprotected" steel and generate enough heat from kerosene and office materials to make a hole across multiple floors.
I calculated Flight 175 to be doing 828 feet/sec off the radar co-ordinates. Its kinetic energy was therefore the same as 3000 lbs of TNT. Do you suppose that was sufficient to cut that plane-shaped hole? One and a half TONS of TNT? (Rhetorical.)

Quote:"Encapsulating steel in concrete"? are you the concrete core guy ? haha. here we go.
THERE WAS NO CONCRETE IN THE TOWERS.
[Image: towersandsun.jpg]

Quote:You are trying to prevent disinfo
Your statement "it is physically impossible" is EXACTLY the sort of misinformation I'm attempting to prevent.

Quote:but yet your website looks like someone who has a very specific agenda and struggles to accept anything new contrary to that agenda.
My agenda is Science. Contrary to it appears to be pseudoscience. Then you're quite correct, aren't you?

[Image: 2towerscon.jpg]
This is a scan of a private photograph of mine.

ENERGY EQUIVALENT calculation - redone with checked values, instead of in my head
The Kinetic Energy of the Boeing 767 of Flight 175, E = 0.5 x M x V^2 where M=160,000 Kg and V=252 m/sec
= 5,095,000,000 JOULES
The TNT energy equivalence of this is 5.095 x 10^9 / 4.184 x 10^6 = 1.218 x 10^3 kilogrammes. That's slightly less than one and a quarter tons.

A NOTE ABOUT BEING MISLED BY ENERGY EQUIVALENTS.
The energy of explosion of an explosive charge is an expanding spherical event. The energy of the aircraft as applied to the tower exterior was SOLELY TO THE POINT OF CONTACT. (Where else?)

Impact energy is focussed.
Reply
09-03-2010, 02:04 AM,
#66
RE: September Clues Addendum Chapter 1
(09-01-2010, 01:25 AM)nik Wrote:
Quote:
Nic , - Let Me clarify something for You :

- Analyzing FAKE videos or photoshopped pictures , bringing in 'testimonies' of false witnesses that's what the 9/11 truth movements are all about and that's what makes the 'movement' or ALL the perp sponsored 'movements' go in circles . . .

On a sunny day any square building has 2 adjacent sides that are getting directional light from the Sun . - Let's call them the BRIGHT sides .
- 2 other sides are getting ambient light ONLY and let them be known as DARK sides . .

- The towers at WTC plaza were PERFECTLY parallel to each other.

[Image: securedownload?mid=1_2303_AJNVimIAASJKTH...0ePngPfA--]

[Image: securedownload?mid=1_2303_AJNVimIAASJKTH...evEuL17A--]




- On the left is NORTH tower (see the ANTENNA) . .

. . about to be hit by first 767 at 8:46 AM . .
( the picture is from Naudet video practically the ONLY video showing the ' first hit' )
- As You can see , THAT NORTHERN side of the North tower is in the SHADOW or the DARK side . .
- That WOULD mean that the EAST and SOUTH sides of the towers are the BRIGHT sides or the sides getting direct Sunlight at 8:46 AM . .

- Now , - Look at the picture on the right from Hezarkani video . .

The SOUTH side of the SOUTH tower is about to be 'hit' . . .

. . and it's in the SHADOW ! . .
- and the 'official' time is 9:03 AM . .

. . 17 minutes later
and the Sun travels from EAST to WEST or . . clockwise . .


- That WOULD also mean that the at 9:03 AM . .

. . or 17 minutes later the EAST and NORTH sides of both towers are getting direct Sunlight ;-)

. . . Depends on the 'artist ' . . .

- There is more . .




- See the North Tower (with antenna ) ?

Now , minutes after the 'impact' , the NORTH side is getting direct Sunlight along with the EAST side . .


- Below , the south tower will be hit on The BRIGHT side


- According to this artist , - the south tower will be hit on The BRIGHT side . .

- . . Hezarkhani thought , it's easier to 'hit' the dark side .

Reply
09-03-2010, 02:35 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-03-2010, 02:35 AM by JazzRoc.)
#67
RE: September Clues Addendum Chapter 1
(09-03-2010, 02:04 AM)nik Wrote: ------------ irrelevant bullshit masquerading as astroturf-------------
Answered.

Reply
09-03-2010, 08:56 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-03-2010, 08:58 AM by kevlar.)
#68
RE: September Clues Addendum Chapter 1
This jazzroc guy is stupid. look at the type of things he says, he is obviously being silly. You could easily get lost down a path of false information with this guy. Clearly has only one agenda and that is too talk enough bullshit and distract the discussion enough to prevent it from going anywhere.

I mean no concrete in the towers... wtf ?

You been smoking crack jazzroc ?
Reply
09-03-2010, 11:33 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-03-2010, 11:33 AM by mothandrust.)
#69
RE: September Clues Addendum Chapter 1
(09-02-2010, 09:03 PM)JazzRoc Wrote:
(09-02-2010, 01:13 AM)mothandrust Wrote: i'd always thought you were brighter and more open minded than that JR, i won't treat your contributions with such seriousness in future. shame.
I must say I'm terribly disappointed. Every action I have taken here has been to win your approval, and now I'm left in the lurch. What shall I do? I know, I'll read from the Bible.

“The most stupid fool is better off than someone who thinks he is wise when he is not.”

nah, don't bother JR, you already know it all
Vitam Impendere Vero
Reply
09-03-2010, 01:42 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-03-2010, 01:48 PM by kevlar.)
#70
RE: September Clues Addendum Chapter 1
Quote:I calculated Flight 175 to be doing 828 feet/sec off the radar co-ordinates. Its kinetic energy was therefore the same as 3000 lbs of TNT. Do you suppose that was sufficient to cut that plane-shaped hole? One and a half TONS of TNT? (Rhetorical.)

828 feet per second = 908.54784 km per hour

Quote:Cruise speed Mach 0.80 (470 knots, 530 mph, 851 km/h at 35,000 ft cruise altitude)
Max. Cruise speed Mach 0.86 (493 knots, 568 mph, 913 km/h at 35,000 ft cruise altitude)
Source wikipedia

Please note that the max speed here is noted at 35000 feet. At the level of the apparent impact there is no chance that the plane was travelling at cruise speed because it would have broken up at that altitude. Not to mention the apparent flight path, pilots for 911 truth, have said that it is unlikely that any pilot could have made the u-turn and hit the building.

Quote:ENERGY EQUIVALENT calculation - redone with checked values, instead of in my head
The Kinetic Energy of the Boeing 767 of Flight 175, E = 0.5 x M x V^2 where M=160,000 Kg and V=252 m/sec
= 5,095,000,000 JOULES
The TNT energy equivalence of this is 5.095 x 10^9 / 4.184 x 10^6 = 1.218 x 10^3 kilogrammes. That's slightly less than one and a quarter tons.

The apparent speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The apparent speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).

The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).

Just because we have 6,227,270 Kilojoules of energy from the apparent plane impact does not necessarily mean that it has the ability to blow apart materials that are stronger than than what it is made out of.

6227270 kJ = 0.001488353250478 kT

Take into account as well the fragile nature of 767.

For example if we have a ton of ice cream or feathers or plastic and shoot it at 500 km per hour at a steel and concrete reinforced building it will not act like TNT and blow a hole in the side.
Reply
09-03-2010, 09:47 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-04-2010, 12:05 AM by JazzRoc.)
#71
RE: September Clues Addendum Chapter 1
(09-03-2010, 01:42 PM)kevlar Wrote: 828 feet per second = 908.54784 km per hour
Only a fool would use eight significant figures, and units of kilometres per hour.

Quote:Cruise - speed blah - wikipedia
And quote me maximum cruise speeds. They are RECOMMENDED cruise speeds, and not something the hijackers were interested in.

Quote:Please note that the max speed here is noted at 35000 feet. At the level of the apparent impact there is no chance that the plane was travelling at cruise speed because it would have broken up at that altitude
Irresistably riddled with its own contradiction. At sea level the expected speed at which the airframe would disintegrate (i.e. by the Boeing design team) is Mach 0.95 or 690 mph. It wasn't tested to destruction in that manner, but there's a healthy margin between that and 565 mph.

Quote:Not to mention the apparent flight path, pilots for 911 truth, have said that it is unlikely that any pilot could have made the u-turn and hit the building.
There are numerous films from differing viewpoints, showing flight 175 pulling a 2G turn into the tower. What is TRULY FASCINATING - two things.
1. Your absolute denial of a plane.
2. The meticulous way in which those "plane artists" somehow managed to account for EVERY SINGLE DETAIL IN EVERY FRAME OF UP TO SIX DIFFERENT VIDEOS. Same little puffs of smoke, same engines, same thousands of panes of glass fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

Quote:The apparent speed of impact
FORGET YOUR "apparent speed". There's a RADAR PLOT of flight 175 (non-plane) from which you are bound to be able to calculate the plane's impact speed to within less then a percent.

Quote:Just because we have 6,227,270 Kilojoules of energy from the apparent plane impact does not necessarily mean that it has the ability to blow apart materials that are stronger than than what it is made out of.
Rephrasing your denial of science doen't make it any less a denial of science. You're telling people who ACTUALLY KNOW SOMETHING that they don't know shit.
And your justification for this is an argument from incredulity? And a recalculation showing it to be equivalent to 1.5 tons of TNT? Without mentioning TNT itself, I see. Are you mad?

Quote:6227270 kJ = 0.001488353250478 kT
= 1.48 TONS OF TNT.

Quote:For example if we have a ton of ice cream or feathers or plastic and shoot it at 500 km per hour at a steel and concrete reinforced building it will not act like TNT and blow a hole in the side.
We are talking about 160,000 kilogrammes of Boeing 767. And NO reinforced concrete.




And yes, 160,000 kilogrammes of ice cream doing 565 mph WOULD INDEED blow the same hole through the tower*. THAT IS WHAT KINETIC ENERGY MEANS.

Quote:This jazzroc guy is stupid. look at the type of things he says, he is obviously being silly. You could easily get lost down a path of false information with this guy. Clearly has only one agenda and that is too talk enough bullshit and distract the discussion enough to prevent it from going anywhere.
I'm used to your hypocrisy by now. You claim no plane. I debunk that. You claim its impossible to punch a hole in the tower. I debunk that. You claim this. I debunk this.
All you have to do to get me off your back is QUIT TALKING BUNK. Your BUNK is NASTY SLANDEROUS LIES, and you are a nasty slanderous liar.

Quote:I mean no concrete in the towers... wtf? You been smoking crack jazzroc?
Kevlar, whatever your discipline is, stick to it. Don't enter other people's disciplines when you obviously don't understand them, and don't tell them, well, ANYTHING, thanks. We then won't enter yours and tell you what to do. Deal?

And because you have obfuscated the hell out of my figures, here they are again:

ENERGY EQUIVALENT calculation - redone with checked values, instead of in my head
The Kinetic Energy of the Boeing 767 of Flight 175, E = 0.5 x M x V^2 where M=160,000 Kg and V=252 m/sec
= 5,095,000,000 JOULES
The TNT energy equivalence of this is 5.095 x 10^9 / 4.184 x 10^6 = 1.218 x 10^3 kilogrammes. That's slightly less than one and a quarter tons.

A NOTE ABOUT BEING MISLED BY ENERGY EQUIVALENTS.
The energy of explosion of an explosive charge is an expanding spherical event. The energy of the aircraft as applied to the tower exterior was SOLELY TO THE POINT OF CONTACT. (Where else?) Impact energy is focussed.


(09-03-2010, 11:33 AM)mothandrust Wrote: nah, don't bother JR, you already know it all.
I know a lot within my own discipline, and give you the benefit of my understanding. That doesn't happen to be all there is to be known, by any means. You know that and I know that, so what purpose did your comment serve?
Whereas apparently you know a lot within my discipline too? Do tell me how you managed that...


THIS IS THE ONLY OTHER WAY TO FORM A PLANE-SHAPED HOLE IN A WTC TOWER (but NOT the kerosine explosion!)

Cut yourself a 50 yard piece of 2" thick steel plate to the front profile of a 767 and coat one side of it with 1.5 tons of TNT, and get the window cleaners to hang it down the building at the correct point. (A bit difficult because it weighs 1950 tons!) Making sure the explosive is IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH the outside face of the tower, set it off. Then you will get a similar hole.
If you don't use the plate, you WON'T get the hole.
You could always PAINT the plate to look almost exactly like the building, so that it wasn't visible from a distance. Mind you, the people IN the offices would be wondering... ...especially about the 40,000 gallons of kerosine that "operatives" had suddenly "materialized" in the centre of their office...

Does that work for you? MORONS !*.
* Deep-frozen, of course.LOL


Reply
09-03-2010, 11:03 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-03-2010, 11:07 PM by icosaface.)
#72
RE: September Clues Addendum Chapter 1
The plane is not a solid object. The nose disintegrates before the rest of the parts of the plane hit the building. The nose does not hit weigh 160,000 kgs. The tail of the plane would head skyward when the front of the plane slowed down relative to the tail section. But the plane in the videos doesn't ring true. The crash videos don't ring true either.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi


Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
Reply
09-03-2010, 11:11 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-04-2010, 12:09 AM by kevlar.)
#73
RE: September Clues Addendum Chapter 1
This dude is crazy, old man, apparently, you are nuts. THE PLANE VANISHED. do you not understand ?

The 160000 mass that you are creating out of thin air never existed, so you can calculate all the sums about the impact that you want with your unprovable story, it will make no difference, because there was no debris, there was no plane. There is more than enough reasons to know that your passion about there being planes is highly suspect.

Firstly you completely distorted the speed argument. Something about in proper quotation of cruise speeds. The videos show no deceleration of the object (plane) as it vanishes in to the wtc building. So you must admit even though there was 4000000 k joules of kinetic energy that the plane ultimately decelerated as it did not come out the other side. So then if the plane had 4000000 k joules of tnt energy as you like to portray. Then why would it not have gone right the way through ?

As for radar there is no verifiable radar data as it has obviously been compromised, if you believe the radar data then it is not surprising that you struggle to accept no planes. Unless you can produce some exclusive evidence from your friends at the government you have nothing as evidence to show me.


Kinetic energy from what i understand does not account for material sciences, it is only a value associated with the energy due to velocity and mass. It does not account for an impact. When you convert it to the tnt equivalent then you are trying to convert the energy of the object into the energy released at impact. But that does not account for what it is impacting being of a different material. So an object of the same specific kinetic energy impacting wood is going to do more damage than if it was impacting steel or concrete. I do not doubt that a 767 would have done damage to the wtc steel and concrete outer frame. But it would not have made a hole several meters into the building over 5 to six floors. Most of the plane would have fell down outside the building. Due to the deceleration that should have occurred due to the aluminium being weaker than the steel and concrete. Newtons third law, the strongest material wins ? That is how bullets if they hit kevlar will flatten. So the 4000000 kj of kinetic energy would have been released on to the weaker material, the plane, which would have broken up and exploded outside the building.

I'll repeat a boeing 767 will not make a plane shaped hole over five to six stories in a steel and concrete building.
Reply
09-04-2010, 01:50 AM,
#74
RE: September Clues Addendum Chapter 1
(09-03-2010, 11:03 PM)icosaface Wrote: The plane is not a solid object.
The plane IS a solid object. Perhaps you meant it is HOLLOW.

Quote:The nose disintegrates before the rest of the parts of the plane hit the building.
The nose is the point of first contact.

Quote:The nose does not hit weigh 160,000 kgs.
The momentum transfer, and the beginning of the transfer of the WHOLE kinetic energy of the craft will ONLY exist at that point of contact.

Quote:The tail of the plane would head skyward
The tail will continue in the direction of motion (Newton).

Quote:when the front of the plane slowed down relative to the tail section.
The front of the plan's fuselage WILL be slowing down relative to the tail, as it passes through the steel. It will be squeezing through an undersize hole in the steel, and the rear of the fuselage will be beginning to explode (like a balloon) as it approaches the undersize hole.

Quote:But the plane in the videos doesn't ring true.
Thats merely another argument by incredulity. People not in the position of being able to interpret what they see often are incredulous. That's normal.

Quote:The crash videos don't ring true either.
Thats merely another argument by incredulity. People not in the position of being able to interpret what they see often are incredulous. That's normal.
Reply
09-04-2010, 02:29 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-04-2010, 02:31 AM by mothandrust.)
#75
RE: September Clues Addendum Chapter 1
(09-03-2010, 09:47 PM)JazzRoc Wrote:
(09-03-2010, 11:33 AM)mothandrust Wrote: nah, don't bother JR, you already know it all.
I know a lot within my own discipline, and give you the benefit of my understanding. That doesn't happen to be all there is to be known, by any means. You know that and I know that, so what purpose did your comment serve?
Whereas apparently you know a lot within my discipline too? Do tell me how you managed that...

it is not your qualifications i doubt, it is your motives - hence my original post in this thread.

and fyi, my degrees are in computer science and political science (international relations theory) and i also have some age old qualification in building construction, processes and materials, which i never used (but was shepherded that way being from a family of architects and engineers). and through the years i've developed a really sharpe nose for bullshit Wink

and personally i don't have any truck with this npt, it is a distraction from forensic science, physics a ten year old can understand, documented evidence, and common sense.
Vitam Impendere Vero
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  LHC may start up again in September --- 1 636 02-07-2009, 05:50 AM
Last Post: ---
  Arctic Sea Ice Hits Record Low (September 2007) SerialExpLain 2 557 10-22-2007, 11:54 PM
Last Post: SerialExpLain

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)