Small math, big truth

well I see the numbers but less than 1000 of a kilmeter in an hour...? is that right... hell snails move faster than that...

and for the two mice comment --- two mice with thermite saddle bags .. bubb..

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]

(Hope you´re not related to the brilliant arquitect.)
Let´s try this example:
You throw a bullet as fast as you can to hit me with it right between the eyes. It will hurt, yes, it will leave a mark, yes, will it go through my skin and bones? NO. Will I collapse? NO.
Fire that same bullet from a gun, and I´ll shurely collapse and die!!
So what point have we learned here? It´s not the bullet that kills you, it´s the speed at which it´s coming at you that does the damage.

1 little bullet .10 of an oz going at a high rate of speed can kill also...much less mass than a mouse. But still the point is well taken....depends on how much penetration and internal damage to the structure it did just like one could survive the same bullet if wearing a suitable protective vest and the bullet failed to penetrate (it would hurt but not be fatal).

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...

"So what point have we learned here?"



Nothing. Your example is ludicrous. We are not made of steel.

Look at this image



Can an airplane penetrate into this powerful steel structure?

Look at this

video.google.com...

Have you seen how much powerful steel and reinforced concrete was used to build the towers?

Only one of those big steel beam could break that ridiculous aluminum plane.





[edit on 13-1-2009 by Calatrava]

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]

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.


www.britannica.com...



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 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 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 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.)

Hmmmm well I was a jet engine mechanic in the Navy and saw many engines after bird strikes. They can damage and break rotor blades if they're big enough, like a goose. The rotor blade are very light and fragile and can break away quit easily. Most bird strikes just make a mess, and can cause the engine to stall. A jet engines casing is very strong (which is why they should have survived the pentagon hit), but the internals are not.

Again not a good analogy...

Edit; of course momentum has an effect on the outcome, but again remember that the forces are still equal on both objects when they collide so the object with less mass will still fail first.

[edit on 1/16/2009 by ANOK]

Life called. Nope, I am not shy



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.



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



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.



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

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.)

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT: That´s why you see the building damaged but not destroyed. And it remains standing for quite a while. The plane however is destroyed in fractions of a second.

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'?


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?

But the question is how damaged was the building from the plane. Enough to cause it to collapse into the path of most resistance, while showing no sign of resistance in its collapse?

My whole point in this discussion is that it was physically impossible for the planes to have had any structural impact on the buildings main central structure of 48 massive steel columns. Especially, as NIST wants you to believe, enough to cause complete symmetrical failure. On top of that the WTC 2 tilt that proves the NIST hypothesis to be impossible. Unless the law of angular momentum, conservation of momentum and friction/resistance were having a day off. Maybe they were confused by the drills that day also...:LOL:

All that's left is the fire, which we also know by itself is not enough to cause global symmetrical collapses of steel buildings.

But believe what you want, I give up...