Small math, big truth, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 6-1-2009 @ 11:22 PM by ANOK
reply to post by CameronFox

So where did ya go? It's not like you guys to be shy to post a reply.

You still trying to figure out the maths?

Here's another question, why does Greening have to make assumptions for his 'paper' to make sense? I thought science didn't rely on assumptions, only testable facts?

Do you have any other 'paper' other than Greenings? If the towers lack of resistance, and the WTC2 tilt, were so easily explained then where is the explanation? Surely Greening isn't the only person to tackle this problem with the official story? Why didn't NIST cover this?

The NIST report is incomplete, so why aren't you guys asking why?

If you think ignoring me is going to help you, forget it, I'll be in every thread you dare to even whisper in, just to remind you...

Why are you not asking why?

[edit on 1/6/2009 by ANOK]


reply posted on 11-1-2009 @ 09:32 AM by lycopersicum
reply to post by Calatrava


saw this on another site and thought u might like it

this is what happens to planes that tangle with steel beams.
mind you this beam is only 13,000 pounds and most of the beams at the world trade center where 30,000 or greater pounds .

if a 13,000 pound beam dropped from 80 feet can do this to a military grade B52..... Imagine what a whole 220 foot wide wall full of aluminum beams steel beams and reinforced concrete can do?

and mind you the planes wieghd roughly 300,000 pounds ..that is roughly only the weight of about 10 to 12 beams of the WTC depending on where it struck.

now lets see , 500,000 tons *2000 pounds per ton give a weight of 1,000,000,000 pounds aginst 300,000 pounds hmmm what would win that battle, better yet if i could swing an object that weighed 1,000,000,000 at 500 mile per hour and hit an object that weighed 300,000 what would happen ??

those plane didnt glide threw the WTC effortlessly like they did with out some kind of help befor they struck the building .

mass is mass physics is physics

for the structural integrity of the WTC the planes where like punching a hole in a screen door there will be a hole but the screen would not crumble



img187.imageshack.us...

www.stylofilms.com...

www.stylofilms.com...


reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 12:37 AM by ANOK
reply to post by rush969


The thing you're missing is that regardless of what speed the objects that collide are moving the forces exerted on each object is equal.

So the faster the plane is moving the more force is exerted on both the plane and the building, equally.

The reason the bullet doesn't go through you when you just throw it is there is not enough momentum, as you correctly said, but it's not just momentum working when its shot at you. A lead bullet has more mass than your body does, your body, in your example, should be the plane and the bullet the building.

Human bone has good tensile strength that resists pushing forces, but is relatively brittle and easily breaks from blunt force. Not exactly like an aluminum plane and construction steel.

You also can't have the plane being destroyed by the buildings columns, AND have the columns destroyed by the plane. Newtons physics explains this, basic physics 101.

[edit on 1/15/2009 by ANOK]


reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 01:15 AM by rush969
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by rush969


The thing you're missing is that regardless of what speed the objects that collide are moving the forces exerted on each object is equal.
So the faster the plane is moving the more force is exerted on both the plane and the building, equally.

AGREE.- That´s why the plane disintegrated and the buildings structure was damaged to the core.


The reason the bullet doesn't go through you when you just throw it is there is not enough momentum, as you correctly said, but it's not just momentum working when its shot at you. A lead bullet has more mass than your body does, your body, in your example, should be the plane and the bullet the building.

Do not agree.- (I don´t think a lead bullet has more mass than my body or yours, although I believe that´s not important in this issue.) In my example, the bullet is the plane.

You also can't have the plane being destroyed by the buildings columns, AND have the columns destroyed by the plane. Newtons physics explains this, basic physics 101.

Do not agree.- This is exactly what we see. The plane is completely destroyed by the building with it´s impact into it, but the building is NOT destroyed by the plane. Some members of the outer structure are damaged, punctured, split, fractured, and some members of the inner core structure are damaged, but the building remains standing for quite a while.


reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 04:15 AM by ANOK
Originally posted by rush969
Do not agree.- This is exactly what we see.


You don't agree because you don't understand. I didn't say the bullet has more mass than a body, I said lead has more mass than flesh or bone. It's not a matter of size, or weight, it's MASS.

in physics, quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force. The greater the mass of a body, the smaller the change produced by an applied force. By international agreement the standard unit of mass, with which the masses of all other objects are compared, is a platinum-iridium cylinder of one kilogram. This unit is commonly called the International Prototype Kilogram and is kept at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Sèvres, France. In countries that continue to favour the English system of measurement over the International System of Units (SI), the unit of mass is the slug, a mass whose weight at sea level is 32.17 pounds.

www.britannica.com...

The plane is completely destroyed by the building with it´s impact into it, but the building is NOT destroyed by the plane. Some members of the outer structure are damaged, punctured, split, fractured, and some members of the inner core structure are damaged, but the building remains standing for quite a while.


An object that has more mass (steel) would not be damaged to point of failure by a lesser mass (aluminium). You can't have it both ways, yes the plane would have been shredded by the steel, so the plane could not have damaged the steel beyond surface damage. It's the same physics that make scissors work, or a hammer, think about it.

www.physicsclassroom.com...


reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 07:44 PM by rush969
reply to post by ANOK

This is where you are getting it wrong...I think.
A bullet doesn´t have more mass than me. The density of lead is higher than mine. That´s the difference. But because the building has steel beams in it doesn´t mean the plane won´t do any damage to them, the plane is able to damage the building in relation to it´s mass and momentum. Even if the plane was made of wood, if the weight and mass relation were the same, the damage would also be considerable. One more example using your references, will a giant (say 200 pound) aluminum hammer produce dents or holes in a (say 1milimiter thick) sheet of steel? Or just because one is steel the hammer will brake apart? I don´t think so. The shape of the plane is also important because it´s almost shaped like a bullet, so that helps it a lot to “appear” going through so easily. It really isn´t, it behaves more like a liquid. But try this. You let the water of a 1 Gal. Container fall all at once on your belly from 5 in. high. Nothing happens. Drop it on your belly from a 50 feet height, you might not survive it.



reply posted on 15-1-2009 @ 10:54 PM by ANOK
reply to post by rush969


You're right to a point. What I think you're missing is the fact that when two objects collide the force of the collision is equal on both objects, regardless of which one was moving. Two objects colliding will have the same outcome if you reverse to the objects involved and have, for example, the towers move and the plane stationary.

So speed and size is not going to overcome more mass by itself.

Try hitting your steel plate with an aluminium hammer. It doesn't matter how hard you hit it, the alumimium hammer will fail before the steel does, and once it fails (the plane) it cannot continue causing damage to the steel (wtc columns). It's not about just damaging it (the steel plate may develop dents and dings), for the planes impact to have had an effect on the towers integrity it would have to have caused columns to actually fail, or break....

You can argue all day that the planes could have caused failure to the structures columns but it's HIGHLY unlikely.

The only thing more speed, or the planes shape would effect is the damage to the plane itself.


reply posted on 16-1-2009 @ 03:38 PM by rush969
reply to post by ANOK


You have to think of this in terms of mass and momentum. Yesterday we got a perfect example of this. How can a bird which is basically soft skin, brittle small light bones, and liquids consisting of water and blood, cause damage to a jet engine, which is like a giant blender, and is made with some of the strongest metals? Well the bird obviously disintegrated (planes) but in the process, due to the speed of the collision, due to it´s mass and momentum it caused significant damage to that strong engine. (Buildings.)



reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 11:47 AM by CameronFox
Originally posted by ANOK


So where did ya go? It's not like you guys to be shy to post a reply.


Life called. Nope, I am not shy

You still trying to figure out the maths?


Nope, I have actually been involved in researching religious cults. (Scientology) They seem to be more exciting these days. The 911 stuff is getting a little old.

Here's another question, why does Greening have to make assumptions for his 'paper' to make sense? I thought science didn't rely on assumptions, only testable facts?


I can not speak for Mr. Greening. That is why I gave you his contact information. If you are searching for the truth, have you contacted him directly? I am quite certain his response will be much more relevant.


F. R. Greening
Greening@sympatico.ca

The NIST report is incomplete, so why aren't you guys asking why?


We are not the ones asking questions and demanding answers. You are mate. So, the question is... why haven't you contacted NIST?

In regards to other professionals? There is a member here I believe his name is Newtons Bit. He is a structural engineer. You may want to read one of his posts at the JREF forum where he goes into detail.
forums.randi.org...

Again, you can send him a U2U here or at the JREF forum if you have any questions.

I hope this helps.

If you think ignoring me is going to help you, forget it, I'll be in every thread you dare to even whisper in, just to remind you...


Awww how cute, I have an internet stalker. I am flattered.


reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 05:32 PM by rush969
reply to post by ANOK


OK. Let´s back up for a second and analyze a couple of points a little more.
I have not made the claim that the plane isn´t damaged or is less damaged.
What I´m saying is that the plane is perfectly capable of producing great damage to the building in it´s exterior as well as the inner core.
“Fluid dynamics” is what is used to try to figure out how that mass having such a great momentum goes into that building.
I have another example I´d like to run by you also with the watter. If you fill up a rubber balloon say with 1 Gal. Of watter and drop it on your head from a height of 2 feet. What will happen?
The balloon will probably burst, and you will get wet, right? And it won´t even hurt you.
But if that same balloon is dropped on your head from 50 feet, it might kill you. The elements haven´t changed, you are a lot stronger that the watter and rubber, but the momentum that it gets from the speed that it acquires falling from that height gives it a killing force that can brake your neck. Sure, the balloon still disintegrates (planes), but you suffer quite a different result as well. (Buildings.)



reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 06:35 PM by ANOK
reply to post by rush969


It's not as simple as you want it to be. Who is to say dropping that balloon would kill you? There are more factors than just height and velocity going on in your example.

You're stretching with your examples, and not coming close to anything that represents a building collapsing and the physics involved.

We're talking construction steel and aluminium. The amount of speed to make the aluminium become stronger than the steel is far more than a passenger jet can manage.

Why don't we use real world examples that actually represent the materials involved, steel and aluminium. Remember the hammer example I explained pages ago? Go back to it. You could hit a steel plate as hard as you can with an aluminium hammer and the hammer will always fail before the steel does. Or hit a sheet of aluminum with a steel hammer, again the aluminium will fail first. This is basic physics, and your attempt to spin won't change it.

Remember earlier I suggested learning about 'conservation of momentum'?

The Law of Momentum Conservation

The Law of Action-Reaction (Revisited)

A collision is an interaction between two objects which have made contact (usually) with each other. As in any interaction, a collision results in a force being applied to the two colliding objects. Such collisions are governed by Newton's laws of motion. In the second unit of The Physics Classroom, Newton's third law of motion was introduced and discussed. It was said that...

... in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the force on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

The only thing that is unequal is the acceleration of each object at collision, which is dependent on force and mass. Both objects receive a backwards force (acceleration) on collision, the object with less mass (the plane) will receive more backwards force than the building (the greater mass). So the plane cannot cause more damage to the greater mass than it received itself.

So to sum up for one last time, if the plane was shredded it CANNOT also shred that which shredded it. Does this finally make sense?
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 14 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 7 days ago with 13 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags