9-11 an INSIDE JOB?

[lee h oswald]

an aircraft impacting anything head on at high speed, is going to leave barely anything more than little pieces, due to the immense amount of kinetic energy.

Well do you have video of bits sticking out? i have not seen any, unless you are going to come out and state that this was not an aircraft.
So again, tell us what really happened in your opinion. I still do not believe for a second that you have yet to develop your own theory of what happened.

My opinion is irrelevant and so is yours.

Let's go back to basics. Here is a short video of the fastest car crash test ever. It's a Ford getting up close with a concrete wall at 120mph. Note the slight deceleration and some (difficult to see) broken bits flying about. I'd like to put the video on the screen, but don't know how to do it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrZj5GeYFGs

And after that we can discuss Newton's third law if you like? Or we don't even have to go that far - maybe we can discuss F=ma? I'll leave it up to you. Oh, and I think you forgot to answer any of my previous questions.

 

[firepilot]

A car into a wall has exactly what to do with the argument at hand? Are you saying this is a good replication of an Boeing 767 going into a building?

Again, tell us what you think happened. Quit dancing around it and tell us!

 

[lee h oswald]

No, obviously it was damaged at the same time. The visualization does not show that particularly well, but then agin neither does the real-life video of the plane hitting the building.

The plane IS damaged exactly as you would expect - a small fraction of a second later it's entirely reduced to shreds. The visualization of this does also seem to lag behind the building damage. But I think that's just an artifact of the visualization.

Yes - the video is a poor representation of what you'd expect to see in terms of simultaneous damage to both the steel and the (very soft) nose of the plane. Then so is the real-life video.

The plane IS damaged exactly as you would expect - is it now, but if so, and 'a small fraction of a second later it's entirely reduced to shreds' - then I ask again: How did it still have the mass and momentum to sever core columns en masse?

 

[lee h oswald]

A car into a wall has exactly what to do with the argument at hand? Are you saying this is a good replication of an Boeing 767 going into a building?

Again, tell us what you think happened. Quit dancing around it and tell us!

Dancing? With you? You asking? A car into a wall represents an item used as transport, constructed to withstand collision to a far greater extent than any aircraft (if aircraft collide with flocks of birds it's a hazard), coming into contact with something with more mass at high speed. It's a pretty good guide to what to expect to see in such circumstances. I'll try asking again: What would you expect to see? Even Mick says that the rendering of the video is not a good representation of what you would expect to see in terms of simultaneous damage to both parties. Then it naturally follows that neither is the 'real-life' video. Doesn't it? Isn't that logic?

 

[firepilot]

No, its not a good guide as to what you would expect to see. At all...Maybe if a 767 taxied into a wall at 120

again, tell us what you think it was. Did a 767 hit a building or not? What is your version of events?

Or even how about this. Rank these from most likely to least likely for WTC

Death rays
nuclear bomb
hologram
rigged with demolition charges
aircraft flown into it at high speed, full of fuel and people

 

[lee h oswald]

an aircraft impacting anything head on at high speed, is going to leave barely anything more than little pieces, due to the immense amount of kinetic energy.

Kinetic eh? You sure about this? I'd say some pretty big lumps left - engines, undercarriage, tail even

 

[firepilot]

If you are not able to understand why something like an jet engine or landing gear is more apt to be recognizable, then this is just beyond comprehension.

Yes, there is lots of kinetic energy. Would you like to calculate the kinetic energy of an 767, near gross weight, at high speed?

Why do you think a steel car, going into a wall, at a speed below that of a 767 liftoff speed, is a better representation than this F-4 going into a wall at 500? Since you chose to link a car crash test, instead of a plane crash test?

​

 

[lee h oswald]

No, its not a good guide as to what you would expect to see. At all...Maybe if a 767 taxied into a wall at 120

again, tell us what you think it was. Did a 767 hit a building or not? What is your version of events?

Or even how about this. Rank these from most likely to least likely for WTC

Death rays
nuclear bomb
hologram
rigged with demolition charges
aircraft flown into it at high speed, full of fuel and people

Do 767's taxi at 120mph?

If you've been following (maybe you haven't) then you'd know that I've said what I wanted to - trying to press me into an expression of what I believe based on your parameters, oh the irony, is futile. You can't respond to any questions I pose - remind me what the point of this is...oh yes: So what would be different about a wall coming at a 767 at 120mph or 500mph and hitting it?

 

[firepilot]

Do 767's taxi at 120mph?

If you've been following (maybe you haven't) then you'd know that I've said what I wanted to - trying to press me into an expression of what I believe based on your parameters, oh the irony, is futile. You can't respond to any questions I pose - remind me what the point of this is...oh yes: So what would be different about a wall coming at a 767 at 120mph or 500mph and hitting it?

Avoiding the point. Of course they do not, but its physically possible. 120 mph is below the rotation speed for takeoff of a 767. But you have this idea that a steel body car driven into a wall at 120 mph, is a great representation of what to expect from flying a 767 into a building at 500.

What would be different about 120 and 500 mph? Ever calcuated kinetic energy?

 

[lee h oswald]

If you are not able to understand why something like an jet engine or landing gear is more apt to be recognizable, then this is just beyond comprehension.

Yes, there is lots of kinetic energy. Would you like to calculate the kinetic energy of an 767, near gross weight, at high speed?

Why do you think a steel car, going into a wall, at a speed below that of a 767 liftoff speed, is a better representation than this F-4 going into a wall at 500? Since you chose to link a car crash test, instead of a plane crash test?

​

Oh dear. You said small pieces - I pointed out the bigger bits that would likely survive. Great - the plane turned to dust and the wall was ok. Good point. I just think that the 767 has so much more mass and would be meeting different resistance in different places; like where there was glass as opposed to concrete, or steel, or r/c - a wing slicing through steel r/c? After the vid you've just shown? What are you saying? You think it was a 'death ray?'

 

[lee h oswald]

Ever calcuated kinetic energy?

No, please explain how to

 

[lee h oswald]

Dancing? With you? You asking? A car into a wall represents an item used as transport, constructed to withstand collision to a far greater extent than any aircraft (if aircraft collide with flocks of birds it's a hazard), coming into contact with something with more mass at high speed. It's a pretty good guide to what to expect to see in such circumstances. I'll try asking again: What would you expect to see? Even Mick says that the rendering of the video is not a good representation of what you would expect to see in terms of simultaneous damage to both parties. Then it naturally follows that neither is the 'real-life' video. Doesn't it? Isn't that logic?

I await your answers without holding my breath. Never mind about the dancing, I've changed my mind.

 

[firepilot]

No, please explain how to

KE = 1/2 (M * (V * V)) M - mass, V - Velocity in meters/second.

The main thing to notice, is that the kinetic energy is based on a square of the velocity. An object at 500mph, has 16 times the kinetic energy of an object at 125 mph. Thats why your example of a car hitting a wall at 120, is not representative at all. You thought that there should be some kind of recognizable airplane stuck in the top of the WTC, when that is folly. That F-4 going into a wall, is a much better example, of how the aircraft mostly disintegrated.

No, the death ray is one of the many theories from the truthers.

 

[lee h oswald]

Avoiding the point. Of course they do not, but its physically possible. 120 mph is below the rotation speed for takeoff of a 767. But you have this idea that a steel body car driven into a wall at 120 mph, is a great representation of what to expect from flying a 767 into a building at 500.

What would be different about 120 and 500 mph? Ever calcuated kinetic energy?

So are you saying that the plane travelling at 500mph would look more like the video of the jet? Blown to dust because it had more kinetic energy than if it was at 120mph? If it was at 120 it would look like the car crash somewhat, and if it was at 500 it would look like the video you put up? Is that right?

 

[lee h oswald]

KE = 1/2 (M * (V * V)) M - mass, V - Velocity in meters/second.

The main thing to notice, is that the kinetic energy is based on a square of the velocity. An object at 500mph, has 16 times the kinetic energy of an object at 125 mph. Thats why your example of a car hitting a wall at 120, is not representative at all. You thought that there should be some kind of recognizable airplane stuck in the top of the WTC, when that is folly. That F-4 going into a wall, is a much better example, of how the aircraft mostly disintegrated.

No, the death ray is one of the many theories from the truthers.

Interesting. I didn't state that at all. Please show me where. So the aircraft mostly disintegrated? Like the F4? On impact?

 

[firepilot]

I will say that an object at 500, will have over 16 times the kinetic energy as one going at 120, and is more likely to be reduced to much more smaller pieces. This can not be that hard to understand??

Kinetic energy having the velocity squared as its calculation, is very basic science. If you did not realize that, then its no wonder this simple matter of physics goes over your head.

Also, that F-4 is going to have a much stronger structure than the 767 too. And it still was reduced to pretty much nothing.

 

[firepilot]

Interesting. I didn't state that at all. Please show me where. So the aircraft mostly disintegrated? Like the F4? On impact?

Who was it that stated that apparently there was 0 percent failure of the aircraft on impact?

 

[firepilot]

You are going around in circles, I have stated what I think actually happened.

I will restate it again, when you tell us what you actually think happened, and what actually hit the WTC if anything. Once you take the time to post that...then i will rejoin. But until then, you are trying to play semantics games, and go around in circles, not actually getting across any specific point.

So how about get specific, tell us what happened..

 

[lee h oswald]

Who was it that stated that apparently there was 0 percent failure of the aircraft on impact?

Not me, what I said was this: If you watch the video again, at 1 minute to 1 minute 10 seconds it shows the aircraft entering the building by cutting through the steel outer columns with no deformation or visible damage to the nose, wings, tail, engines, fuselage; nothing. The steel outer perimeter is opened up like a sardine tin with no perceptible deceleration of the aircraft, nor damage to the same. Given the length of the aircraft and the depth of the buildings, the nose, wings and fuselage would have come into contact with the central core before the entire aircraft had 'entered' the building - and still no deceleration, crumpling? Do you think that this is possible?

Well? You still haven't answered. Do you think it would be splattered like the structurally superior F4? Is that what you would expect to see?

 

[lee h oswald]

Originally Posted by firepilot
Who was it that stated that apparently there was 0 percent failure of the aircraft on impact?


Yes, exactly - on impact there was no (0%) visible deformation (damage) etc. to the aircraft - loads to the building 100% of the damage shown was to the building. Looked nothing like your F4 though. How do you explain that?

 

[lee h oswald]

I will say that an object at 500, will have over 16 times the kinetic energy as one going at 120, and is more likely to be reduced to much more smaller pieces. This can not be that hard to understand??

Kinetic energy having the velocity squared as its calculation, is very basic science. If you did not realize that, then its no wonder this simple matter of physics goes over your head.

Also, that F-4 is going to have a much stronger structure than the 767 too. And it still was reduced to pretty much nothing.

..

 

[MikeC]

Nothing visible from how far away??

that's not the same as there being no ACTUAL damage or deformation. It just means that in the fraction of a second the leading edges etc were in the process of hitting things the camera was too far away and/or at the wrong angle to capture the detail.

Is that your idea of evidence that it's all a fake??

 

[Mick West]

Even Mick says that the rendering of the video is not a good representation of what you would expect to see in terms of simultaneous damage to both parties. Then it naturally follows that neither is the 'real-life' video. Doesn't it? Isn't that logic?

But I think the rendering IS a good representation of what you would see.

 

[lee h oswald]

But I think the rendering IS a good representation of what you would see.

Really, this is getting ridiculous. Here's what you said in response to my comment about there being no visible damage to the aircraft but a lot to the building in the cartoon you presented as evidence: No, obviously it was damaged at the same time. The visualization does not show that particularly well

The plane IS damaged exactly as you would expect - a small fraction of a second later it's entirely reduced to shreds. The visualization of this does also seem to lag behind the building damage.

So, which is it then? 'does not show well'...or 'is good'?




Your comments were the reason I wrote this: Yes - the video is a poor representation of what you'd expect to see in terms of simultaneous damage to both the steel and the (very soft) nose of the plane. Then so is the real-life video.

The plane IS damaged exactly as you would expect - is it now, but if so, and 'a small fraction of a second later it's entirely reduced to shreds' - then I ask again: How did it still have the mass and momentum to sever core columns en masse?

How about answering some of those questions? I'm again interested how you're going to reconcile these two versions of what you think.

 

[lee h oswald]

Nothing visible from how far away??

that's not the same as there being no ACTUAL damage or deformation. It just means that in the fraction of a second the leading edges etc were in the process of hitting things the camera was too far away and/or at the wrong angle to capture the detail.

Is that your idea of evidence that it's all a fake??

Have you actually read any of this thread? Or are you just wading in with your preconceived ideas?

 

[Mick West]

I really don't see the conflict. It was reduced to shreds by a rapid series of individual impacts. Some of which might have damaged some interior columns. Some of which clearly did destroy the exterior columns.

The simulation shows the nose breaking up into neat little paper thin triangles, the breakup seems to lag a frame or two behind the impact. It's minor cosmetic details like that that I'm referring to. The overall sequence of events and end result seems plausible.

Consider deformation. What exactly would you expect the plane to look like 0.01 seconds into the wall?

 

[lee h oswald]

The plane IS damaged exactly as you would expect

Is what you said. Which meaning of the word 'exactly' were you thinking of at the time? Exactly, but not at the right time? Does that count as 'exactly'? No.

 

[Mick West]

Exactly as not outside the bounds of expectation.

Thanks to Heisenberg, "exactly" can never be literal, but I'm trying to use common parlance here.

I think the basis of you argument seems to be that plane looked weird as it seemed to sink into the building? Is that it?

I'd agree it looked weird. Not something you see every day.

 

[lee h oswald]

I really don't see the conflict. It was reduced to shreds by a rapid series of individual impacts. Some of which might have damaged some interior columns. Some of which clearly did destroy the exterior columns.

The simulation shows the nose breaking up into neat little paper thin triangles, the breakup seems to lag a frame or two behind the impact. It's minor cosmetic details like that that I'm referring to. The overall sequence of events and end result seems plausible.

Consider deformation. What exactly would you expect the plane to look like 0.01 seconds into the wall?

You can't see the conflict between 'does not show well'...or 'is good'? Can I recommend an optician?

This is like Orwell's Ministry of Truth. The simulation shows the nose breaking up after - that's AFTER - it passed through the facade of steel and concrete, after. That is not 'exactly what you'd expect', is it? 'Seems' doesn't come into it - is that your favourite word? 'Minor', 'cosmetic', and you're asking me to 'consider deformation'?!

 

[lee h oswald]

Exactly as not outside the bounds of expectation.

Thanks to Heisenberg, "exactly" can never be literal, but I'm trying to use common parlance here.

I think the basis of you argument seems to be that plane looked weird as it seemed to sink into the building? Is that it?

I'd agree it looked weird. Not something you see every day.

As predicted, your argument falls back on philosophy. No, you're wrong and it's very obvious to anyone reading through this carefully and watching your propaganda video. Are you after a Homeland Security 'Institute' (that's a good one) grant, like Purdue University? Or are you just afraid to say anything controversial in case you get a knock on your door?

No, the basis of my argument is inherent in the words I have written thus far, you choose an inability to see what is in front of you. It really appears pointless trying to reason with you, even though the reasoning is clear.

 

[Mick West]

I'm afraid I was driven to philosophy through your insistent analysis of my turns of phrase. Sorry about that, but when you ask me for nuanced meaning of words, we will inevitably veer into epistemology.

Bottom line, I think the simulation and the videos are fine. Perfectly reasonable representations of what actually happened, or, for the unknown segments, what might have happened.

I'm sorry I've failed to explain this to you.

 

[lee h oswald]

Actually, I'm finding myself quite incredulous! Why? That you can really argue that 'does not show well'...or 'is good' has no conflict.

 

[lee h oswald]

I'm afraid I was driven to philosophy through your insistent analysis of my turns of phrase. Sorry about that, but when you ask me for nuanced meaning of words, we will inevitably veer into epistemology.

Bottom line, I think the simulation and the videos are fine. Perfectly reasonable representations of what actually happened, or, for the unknown segments, what might have happened.

I'm sorry I've failed to explain this to you.

Everything is reduced to philosophy in the end. Now you're being all humble? What?! I didn't ask for any nuanced meaning - we're talking about the meaning of exactly.

So if a 767 at 500 goes through the building with no deceleration and no deformation to the nose, wings, fuselage, engines or tail - which, by the way, you are saying explicitly is perfectly reasonable to expect, then how does a structurally superior (according to one of your contributors) F4 come to turn to dust in a similar test?

 

[lee h oswald]

I'm afraid I was driven to philosophy through your insistent analysis of my turns of phrase. Sorry about that, but when you ask me for nuanced meaning of words, we will inevitably veer into epistemology.

Bottom line, I think the simulation and the videos are fine. Perfectly reasonable representations of what actually happened, or, for the unknown segments, what might have happened.

I'm sorry I've failed to explain this to you.

Did you just get laid?

 

[MikeC]

no actual answer huh??

 

[Mick West]

Maybe the problem is you are thinking in terms of two objects in simple collision?

Really there are multiple objects and multiple collisions. All happening very fast.

 

[firepilot]

Everything is reduced to philosophy in the end. Now you're being all humble? What?! I didn't ask for any nuanced meaning - we're talking about the meaning of exactly.

So if a 767 at 500 goes through the building with no deceleration and no deformation to the nose, wings, fuselage, engines or tail - which, by the way, you are saying explicitly is perfectly reasonable to expect, then how does a structurally superior (according to one of your contributors) F4 come to turn to dust in a similar test?

Your lack of knowledge of basic physics, is rather bewildering at times.

Of course it decelerated. If not, it and fragments, chunks thereof, would have continued right through at the same speed. Did the vast majority of it come to a stop inside? Yes, then it decelerated.

Again, you make your claims of an intact 767, no deformation, no failure, that visibly slows, and should be seen crinkling as it hits, like a beer can pressed against the wall. You see none of that in the F-4 crash against the wall.

You also had no idea what kinetic energy meant, or how velocity is a part of it.
You think a car into a wall, is a good representation of a crash, when you could have easily found a plane crash video instead. Only took me a few seconds to find that F-4 crash video.

Again I beg you, tell us what really happened. Tell us what we are actually watching in that video. You refuse at every request to tell us what you think happened.

 

[lee h oswald]

Yeah, maybe that's the problem

Maybe the problem is you are thinking in terms of two objects in simple collision?

Really there are multiple objects and multiple collisions. All happening very fast.

Really, are there?

 

[lee h oswald]

Your lack of knowledge of basic physics, is rather bewildering at times.

Of course it decelerated. If not, it and fragments, chunks thereof, would have continued right through at the same speed. Did the vast majority of it come to a stop inside? Yes, then it decelerated.

Again, you make your claims of an intact 767, no deformation, no failure, that visibly slows, and should be seen crinkling as it hits, like a beer can pressed against the wall. You see none of that in the F-4 crash against the wall.

You also had no idea what kinetic energy meant, or how velocity is a part of it.
You think a car into a wall, is a good representation of a crash, when you could have easily found a plane crash video instead. Only took me a few seconds to find that F-4 crash video.

Again I beg you, tell us what really happened. Tell us what we are actually watching in that video. You refuse at every request to tell us what you think happened.

isn't your argument counter-intuitive? or at least counter to what we see in video?

 

[Mick West]

The leading surfaces of the plane were obviously crushed as they broke the exterior wall of the building. This created a hole through which the rest of the plane passed. Future collisions inside the building fully destroyed the plane.