Bartfarst Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Quote: Originally Posted by venger So waht about the rest of the plane, being aproximately 100 tonnes ? Two 5 ton jet engines made from steel and titanium, the list goes on... Quote: Originally Posted by SHsheff Do you mean fragmented or vapourised? Even if it broke into fragments, surely some of those fragments would remain, and be identifiable as coming from the 757? It's not uncommon for an entire large airframe and its contents (or large amounts of it) to completely disintegrate on impact with a static object. Such shredding is a completely known and understood phenomena. But, despite that, large chunks of a 767 were found at the Pentagon. If you really want to I'll point you in that direction, assuming you'll believe it when you see it. If I can find it there is quite a famous experiment (in such circles) of an entire Phantom jet turning into dust on hitting a wall. More recently an entire C130 Hercules transport (nearly as big as a 767 and much slower) crashed into a tower building in Iran and was completely transformed into confetti sized particles at a much lower speed than the Pentagon 767. The building partially collapsed by the way Venger, nothing that you have just typed is evidence of anything. 99% of it can be properly explained, the rest is that old but very real chestnut.. human error and **** up. You're on the rails pal I was working at RAF Aldergrove when the Mull of Kintyre Chinook stoofed in, and saw the wreckage on the ground soon after. Travelling only at around 200mph there was hardly anything bigger than a car door left. I’ve seen fighter crash sites with next to nothing visible, partly because a lot goes underground (it's not unusual for heavy components like engines and undercarriage castings to end up 30 feet underground). I've also seen the Lockerbie 747 remains in a hangar at Farnborough, being jigsaw-pieced back together on a large lattice frame to piece together the order in which it fell apart and work out the nature of the bomb. Bits the size of cigarette packets. The hijackers on 9/11 had trained to push the throttles forward to maximise energy at impact, which fortunately gave them less time to adjust course aiming for the Pentagon – they went in short and the building was hit by debris rather than a direct impact. A car crash at 80mph releases 4 times more energy than an accident at 40mph. At, say, 500mph we’re looking at a human body, or chunk of metal structure, trying to deal with about 200 times the energy that a typical car crash releases. Put that into perspective! Collecting human remains from an air crash is usually tricky because the coroner needs a percentage of the body to classify it as being a person, and we often can’t find enough to fill a sock. I’ve surveyed crash sites and not found a single piece bigger than a shoebox. The Pentagon crash, like all of the other ‘evidence’, is very easily explained. One nice point on which to reflect is that it is strongly believed that the only members of the 9/11 team who knew the intent to crash rather than just hijack were the pilots. I’d like to think that the rest of the hijack teams had a rather unpleasant realisation in the last couple of seconds of their lives! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartfarst Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Venger. The world is not flat. The autopsy video from Roswell was on rubber dummies. The famous photo of Nessie was a hoax There are no fairies at the bottom of the garden The Oswald shots were not impossible Paul Daniels never did real magic Elvis does not work in a chip shop in Barnsley TWA Flight 800 was not shot down by a missile Princess diana was not murdered by the intelligence services The moon landings were not a hoax The da Vinci Code is just a novel And 9/11 was not a massive US Government conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Let's do it bit by bit. First Venger, after the last few posts by Bartfarst and myself, do you accept that an aircraft can disintegrate and leave no discernible wreckage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbradley Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 ultimately we may never know the truth. until that time i will remain doubtful of the 'official story.' it stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbradley Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartfarst Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html interesting. Yes, it is interesting, and full of speculation supported by amateur physics. There's a lot in that report which varies form ridiculous to the sublime, and a few reasonable questions thrown in. Two struck me quite well: - Hot or molten metal in the remains days/weeks after the collapse: Gas mains were ruptured and burning for a long time, with the heat contained by the rubble - a self-made furnace. - The toppled section of tower seeming to vaporise 'without explosives': Yes, it would do. Don't underestimate the peculiar things that can happen when large amounts of kinetic energy have to find a way to dissipate. A glancing blow from a non-exploding shell on a naval gun turret would sometimes incinerate the gun crew just from the heat generated by a few milliseconds of intense friction, and most of the anti-tank rounds fired by main battle tanks contain no explosive whatsoever, they are just solid darts of tungsten or depleted uranium, but melt armour plate and explode their target because of pressure and heat generated by friction alone. The energies released when something the mass of one of those towers collapses and plummets to earth is staggering, huge pressures and temperatures are generated which cause effects that might seem ‘mysterious’ but are in fact easily explained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Yes, it is interesting, and full of speculation supported by amateur physics. There's a lot in that report which varies form ridiculous to the sublime, and a few reasonable questions thrown in. Two struck me quite well: I have to take you to task there Bartfarst. That report an appalling peice of work with nothing of interest It starts off with a pre-determined conclusion and works backwards via an individuals particular sphere of interest (which is virtually irrelevant to the case in hand) to 'prove' a bunch of straw man theories that don't stand up in a slight breeze of objectivity. It appear to have been written by a 15 year old in a GCSE physiscs lesson, or (more likely) a failing academic looking to revive a flagging career. He may be a member the Pshysics and Astronomy Department but it seems that his expertise is nuclear fusion and solar energy... not structures. He still doesn't offer an explanation for 'molten steel' though - not even a conspiratorial one other than to suggest that it was caused by thermite charges and that it was still molten some 6-8 weeks later? Sounds like he's mixing up demolition charges with solar activity. Edit: his use of photos "Non-symmetrical collapse of tall buildings" is more than a bit flakey too since they were the subject of the Kobe earthquake which had more than it's fair share of regular, ongoing lateral movement at the base of the building of up to 1m, and possible soil liquification of several metres. Once again, it's shoddy evidence at the least! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartfarst Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I have to take you to task there Bartfarst. That report an appalling peice of work with nothing of interest It starts off with a pre-determined conclusion and works backwards via an individuals particular sphere of interest (which is virtually irrelevant to the case in hand) to 'prove' a bunch of straw man theories that don't stand up in a slight breeze of objectivity. It appear to have been written by a 15 year old in a GCSE physiscs lesson, or (more likely) a failing academic looking to revive a flagging career. He may be a member the Pshysics and Astronomy Department but it seems that his expertise is nuclear fusion and solar energy... not structures. He still doesn't offer an explanation for 'molten steel' though - not even a conspiratorial one other than to suggest that it was caused by thermite charges and that it was still molten some 6-8 weeks later? Sounds like he's mixing up demolition charges with solar activity. Edit: his use of photos "Non-symmetrical collapse of tall buildings" is more than a bit flakey too since they were the subject of the Kobe earthquake which had more than it's fair share of regular, ongoing lateral movement at the base of the building of up to 1m, and possible soil liquification of several metres. Once again, it's shoddy evidence at the least! I was trying to me 'nice'. I can't believe you actually pulled me up for being too soft with an opposing contributor. That’s a first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Hehe, it was more than a bit tongue in cheek The lower profile has been noticed. I'm a bit gobsmacked at the number of so called academics that seem to be peddling dodgy science on this topic though. It just goes to show that the 'scientific community' has it's fair share of nutters¹ just like all the other walks of life. ¹Insert word of choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbradley Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 but those long words sound so convincing... i still think the grounds for supporting the official 'pancake' theory and very shaky (possibly on the verge of collapse) i checked out this site linked below, which proposes an intriguing review/critique of the documentary. as i mentioned previously, i am well aware that arguments can be synthesised by selectively choosing evidence which supports the hypothesis, and neglecting all else. the 'bible code' is a fascinating but ultimately superficial phenomenon, and an example of this kind of thing. the reason why i said the video 'wasnt perfect' was exactly that...there is some excellent material and some dodgy stuff, all linked in together; it appears that the strength of the sources is subordinate to the overall shape of the theory. this other guy reckons that the documentary contains significant flaws, and that many of the conclusions reached are of dubious origin. he still thinks the buildings were detonated. http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1787340.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.