It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

page: 85
141
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Can you tell me exactly what you think your video proves
NO really please explain what you think it shows explain to the others in words becuase I need a

edit on 14-11-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)




The answer YOUR POOR undestanding of physics thats what!
edit on 14-11-2010 by wmd_2008 because: add a statement




posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
I am not here to offer theory, nor does my opinion mean much.

And that is all you have, your opinion!


none of whats contained here is opinion...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

the only opinion is yours claiming its not evidence.


Originally posted by dereks

i prefer to follow the evidence.

Wrong, you avoid the evidence as it destroys your silly conspiracy theory!


what evidence? where exactly is your evidence? help me out cuz i can't find it.

the only evidence and argument i see being posted is this one... www.abovetopsecret.com... and its not from you... nor do i see you address it with any counter-argument other than posting an OPINION to avoid it


Originally posted by dereksThere is a growing mountain of evidence which conflicts with the OS

Wrong again, that is just your opinion..


if that were true, you'd have been able to show exactly how and why this evidence is based on opinion and not fact www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by dereksThey are losing of course.

And yet wrong again, it is the truthers that are losing, as their conspiracy theories get sillier and sillier - one only has to read the threads that they post here to see how silly that they are!


which is nothing more than your un-educated OPINION.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Originally posted by MrSpad
Where did the planes, crew and passengers go etc.?

Especially as their belongings, DNA etc were found at all the crash sites - but it is a question the silly conspiracy theorists refuse to answer.


the more important question is why silly anti-conspiracy theorists and those who defend the most illogical and insane conspiracy theory in the history of the world, blindly accept the OS even with all the contradictions to it and refuse to answer questions like why the the planes have never been forensically identified let alone the unanswered questions about DNA and BELONGINGS


Originally posted by dereks
The same as if the planes were remote controlled - much harder to fly than real planes, so how was it done?


and the only theory that explains that and everything else better than all other theories, is No Real Planes Theory and TV FAKERY.

go figure



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by pr3l33t
 


about 911 ...the only credible website is www.drjudywood.com ...most other 911 websites are trying to mask the real truth..this is fact..why do you think they put 2 bullets in the head of judy's student helping her..



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


you forgotten the central wing spar, engine hardpoints, luggage containers full of luggage (they can withstand some explosions) etc and the fact that upto a 315,000 lb (maximum take off weight) aircraft flying at 530 mph+, there is enough energy here to destroy lots of things, let alone a building.

Wee Mad



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


Orion....are you an airline pilot? DO you have ANY flying experience at all? (Real airplanes....any desktop PC simulator doesn't count).

I ask only because you are so keen to believe the "P4T". The only people who DO buy into any of that crap are those who are laypersons, and easily fooled by all the bells and whistles and fake "appeals to authority."

What I find draining is "TiffyInLA"s repeat ....errrrm...."posts"....(some people may wish to refer to such "posts" as "spamming". I will let the readers decide on that). This is a direct and obvious tactic learned at the feet of Rob Balsamo, as he (via his "surrogates") desperately continues to promote his little "group", and keeps spinning and spinning, slinging the same crapola left and right...and sullying this Board in the process.

The most recent instance of (the above) was just "posted", YET AGAIN...including the same two YouTube videos that I have ALREADY addressed, multiple times. DO you see, yet, what' s going on here????

Those of us who DO have actual, real-life and extensive experience have our hands tied, in a forum format such as this....especially when faced with a charlatan (Rob Balsamo) who will stop at nothing to spew garbage, for personal and financial and ego-stroking reasons.

In order to respond to the (alleged) spam, those of us who attempt to educate are forced with two choices: Reply in kind (spam ourselves....ICK!), or write and write and write, in ways that differ, but that relate and retell the same principles and points. It is just that some people's minds don't "click", they don't "get it" until just the right analogy is presented....it is different for everyone.

Think back to being in grade school, for example....ever been in, say....math class, and everyone else understood the problem on the chalkboard, but you didn't quite "get it"? In a great world, the teacher would have had the patience to come over, and keep working it with you, one-on-one, until finding that "key" to open the locks in your mind. It is about perception, and understanding.

I don't know how else to describe it, in this post. I encourage people to contemplate further. AND I encourage people to review...SERIOUSLY review...the history of postings made by "TiffanyInLA" in this thread, to see the patterns. Day in, day out, since "she" became a member of ATS. I also wish to have people focus on the join date, with ATS.

AND, upthread a bit, I recall a particularly hilarious "external" snippet "she" posted, about American 77 and the Pentagon, that was attributed to Rob Balsamo, back in 2007. Comedy GOLD!!!! (But, again...proves my points raised, above...)



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


you forgotten the central wing spar, engine hardpoints, luggage containers full of luggage (they can withstand some explosions) etc and the fact that upto a 315,000 lb (maximum take off weight) aircraft flying at 530 mph+, there is enough energy here to destroy lots of things, let alone a building.

"enough" energy doesn't really say much, does it? What it says is that, in your unquantified opinion, a 767 at cruise has the energy to knock down a 450 million kilogram structure.
Well, now, how much kinetic energy really is in a 315,000 pound airplane at 530mph?
We can use your weight, although after takeoff and some flight, and given that for the planned flight a full fuel load wouldn't be needed, the weight would be less than MTOW. 315,000 pounds is 142,882 kilograms. 530 mph is 853 kilometers/hour or 237 meters/second, so using the formula for kinetic energy, KE =1/2mv^2 where KE is kinetic energy, m is mass and v is velocity, you end up with close to 4 megajoules. That is 4 million joules. A standard .6 pound stick of dynamite, with an energy density of 7.5MJ/kg, contains 2.1 MJ of energy. So a Boeing 767-222 at MTOW at 530 mph has the same energy as two whole sticks of dynamite.
Perhaps you would rather compare it with a bomb, such as we see dropped on stuff in Iraq or A'stan. The most common bomb is the Mark 82 500 pounder. It has 79 kilograms of high explosive, either H-6, Minotol, or Tritonol, all of which carry an energy density of 4.7 MJ/kg, so a single 500 pound dumb bomb is 92 times more energetic than a a Boeing 767-222 at MTOW at 530 mph.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Two sticks of dynamite????

Doctor, are you sure you want to stay with that math?? Did you really calculate the KE in that body, the Boeing 767, at its estimated mass (overall) and velocity?

www.crashdamagerepair.com...

What would you do with the site I linked, up above? Enter the variables, and see the results, and tell us what you think.

The only arguable variable will be the "stopping distance". The dynamics of the airplane impacts are extremely complicated, of course. But, is it a fact that upon initial impact the force impinging upon the outer facade of the buildings was equivalent to the "stopping distance" being "zero"?

Of course, that would be only a fraction of a second, but could be responsible for the initial impetus, as the mass (with all that KE behind it) acted upon the fixed building structure.

Subsequent to initial penetration, the mass would be separating into other, individual components, and acting accordingly, as it also was decelerating, expending its KE in that manner.

Yes??

Show us the specifics, please. "two sticks of dynamite"?? Really?? How about calculating the POUNDS OF FORCE EXERTED???




edit on 14 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

Can you tell me exactly what you think your video proves
NO really please explain what you think it shows explain to the others in words becuase I need a

The answer YOUR POOR undestanding of physics thats what!
The plane scrapping video? That is one. I could not find one I watched a year ago that I thought was interesting, that showed a skip-loader type piece of equipment take a plane down to a dumpster load in time lapse. A person can find other video off the one I linked to, browse around and get an idea of what happened to a plane when a heavy steel thing touches it.
As for physics, the speed of the plane would just excelerate the destruction, kind of like a chopping block and knife, compared to an electric blender.
I spent a considerable amount of time looking at, and contemplating what a really strong hurricane does to houses and storm serge and how a fluid can tear things down, or just move through a building and leaving the main supports. This, I think is analogous to a bunch of fuel in a plane as the container shreds, leaving the fluid to work its will.
The plane went splat, to put it simply. I watched it, as it happened, and that is how it looked, a plane running into something that wrecked the plane. I never got the impression that there was a building that got wrecked by something running into it. That is just ridiculous to even imagine, but that is the lie we are supposed to believe because of a blood thirsty war mongering regime that has taken over the government to use our country as a surrogate army to make themselves fabulously wealthy. It's about time people wake up and believe their own senses and use their own power of reasoning and not think you are living in a hive where questions are not tolerated.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

you forgotten the central wing spar, engine hardpoints, luggage containers full of luggage (they can withstand some explosions) etc and the fact that upto a 315,000 lb (maximum take off weight) aircraft flying at 530 mph+, there is enough energy here to destroy lots of things, let alone a building.

Wee Mad
I think the video shows wings crumpling like dry sticks, so?
I heard about explosion proof containers from Michael Rivero on What Really Happened radio show when the news was a bomb on a plane from Yemen. When I was working for car dealerships, they had a bomb proof shed to hold the volatile paints and thinners for the paint booth. Not sure what made it bomb proof exactly but I'm sure you could drive over it with a Caterpillar and it would be flat when you were done.
edit on 14-11-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


You can crush a .38 calibre bullet with a hammer.

Fire that same bullet from a gun???? Then IT becomes the boss.....



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Two sticks of dynamite????

Doctor, are you sure you want to stay with that math?? Did you really calculate the KE in that body, the Boeing 767, at its estimated mass (overall) and velocity?

www.crashdamagerepair.com...

What would you do with the site I linked, up above? Enter the variables, and see the results, and tell us what you think.

The only arguable variable will be the "stopping distance". The dynamics of the airplane impacts are extremely complicated, of course. But, is it a fact that upon initial impact the force impinging upon the outer facade of the buildings was equivalent to the "stopping distance" being "zero"?

Of course, that would be only a fraction of a second, but could be responsible for the initial impetus, as the mass (with all that KE behind it) acted upon the fixed building structure.

Subsequent to initial penetration, the mass would be separating into other, individual components, and acting accordingly, as it also was decelerating, expending its KE in that manner.

Yes??

Show us the specifics, please. "two sticks of dynamite"?? Really?? How about calculating the POUNDS OF FORCE EXERTED???




edit on 14 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


Stopping distance is only relevant to acceleration (g)loading. "Pounds of force exerted" is not a unit of energy. Energy is related to force and work. But a pound of force exerted is the measure for weight. At 1 g, one average passenger, according to the FAA exerts 170 pounds of force on whatever he is standing/sitting/laying on. Kinetic energy That is static force or rest mass times acceleration (g). The kinetic energy of an object is the energy it possesses because of its motion. Because of its motion and mass, it can do work. Ok, since hypertechnics is apparently required, and since a Boeing 767 has a finite mass, the more proper term would be translational kinetic energy. Any inherent angular momentum would be represented by rotational kinetic energy. Oh yeah, one other caveat. The formula for kinetic energy (Esubk = 1/2 mv^2 holds for mass travelling at substantially less than the speed of light. If travelling near c (3x10^8m/sec), you need to include rest mass relativistic kinetic energy so the formula becomes Esubk = mc^2-msboc^2.. Questions, so far?
As for the link you provided, it computes crash force, which is a meaningless term in physics. The post I replied to talked in terms of "enough energy" to do something. Energy is, in the SI system, expressed in joules. 1 joule is the energy expended in moving a force of 1 newton through a distance of 1 meter. For ease, a newton is equal to the amount of net force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one meter per second per second. So, as you should be able to see, kinetic energy, expressed in joules, is related to both mass and velocity.
I realize you don't like the answer, but do the math. Spend some time learing the intricacies of Newton's Second Law and the motion equations involving displacement, velocity and acceleration. Then do the math.
Esbk = 1/2 m v^2; so
kinetic energy = 1/2 237meters/second times (142.882kg)^2; so
kinetic energy = 1/2 (237x56,169); so
kinetic energy = 1/2 (237x3 154 956 561)=3.73862352x10^6 = 3.7KJ
A stick (.6 pound) of dynamite has 2.1 KJ See, physics.indiana.edu...



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I wish they would have missed and hit the ocean instead. maybe then we would have more freedoms left.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Im sorry but if you take a car as an example, it runs off the road at 50 miles and hour and crashes through a building, damaging a large proportion video example then times this up with an aircraft at 530mph or more, what sort of damage do you think it will cause,

Also the wing spar is one of the most strongest part of the aircraft, next to the landing gear struts and engine hardpoints, these parts alone if fired at a building would cause major structural damage / failure,

if you also look at the example of the Locherbie disaster, this aircraft (a 747) exploded at 31000 ft, and crashed down


A minute later, the wing section containing 200,000 lb (91,000 kg) of fuel hit the ground at Sherwood Crescent, Lockerbie. The British Geological Survey in southern Scotland registered a seismic event measuring 1.6 on the Richter scale as all trace of two families, several houses, and the 196 ft (60 m) wing of the aircraft disappeared.




Or you can look at

Empire State building aircrash

If you look at the link above it shows a B25 crash into the empire state building and the hole that it caused,

B25
General characteristics
Crew: six (two pilots, navigator/bombardier, turret gunner/engineer, radio operator/waist gunner, tail gunner
Length: 52 ft 11 in (16.1 m)
Wingspan: 67 ft 6 in (20.6 m)
Height: 17 ft 7 in (4.8 m)
Wing area: 610 sq ft (57 m²)
Empty weight: 21,120 lb (9,580 kg)
Loaded weight: 33,510 lb (15,200 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 41,800 lb (19,000 kg)
Powerplant: 2× Wright R-2600 "Cyclone" radials, 1,850 hp (1,380 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 275 mph (239 kn, 442 km/h)
Cruise speed: 230 mph (200 kn, 370 km/h)
Combat radius: 1,350 mi (1,170 nmi, 2,170 km)
Ferry range: 2,700 mi (2,300 nmi, 4,300 km)
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,600 m)
Rate of climb: 790 ft/min (4 m/s)
Wing loading: 55 lb/ft² (270 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.110 hp/lb (182 W/kg)


Compared with a 767-200
767 specs

or the 767-200ER


Passenger Seating Configuration
Typical 3-class
Typical 2-class
Typical 1-class
181
224
up to 255
Cargo 3,180 cu ft (90.1 cu m)
Engines
maximum thrust Pratt & Whitney PW4000
60,200 lb

GE CF6-80C2
62,100 lb
Maximum Fuel Capacity 23,980 U.S. gal (90,770 L)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 395,000 lb (179,170 kg)
Maximum Range 6,385 nmi (12,195 km)

Typical city pairs:
New York to Beijing
Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 feet Mach 0.80 (530 mph, 851 kph)
Basic Dimensions
Wing Span
Overall Length
Tail Height
Interior Cabin Width
156 ft 1 in (47.6 m)
159 ft 2 in (48.5 m)
52 ft (15.8 m)
15 ft 6 in (4.7 m)


And also 4nsicphd, if you think that a loaded 767-200 travelling at 530+mph has the same force and two sticks of dynamite, if your brains were made of the same stuff you wont have enough to blow your hat off.

Wee Mad Mental

edit on 14/11/2010 by weemadmental because: add picture

edit on 14/11/2010 by weemadmental because: add specs



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 



You've cited Newton's Second Law? You realize that in Newton's calculations they were "generic" in the sense that they assumed a an imagined "particle", not a body of aggregate particles. (And, in a larger scale, to planets and celestial bodies in a vacuum as well...UNTIL that celestial body impacts or is acted upon by another, then it gets more complicated).

I know this is from Wiki, feel free to tear it down if you find any factual errors...(more citations follow):


Newton's laws are applied to bodies (objects) which are considered or idealized as a particle, in the sense that the extent of the body is neglected in the evaluation of its motion, i.e., the object is small compared to the distances involved in the analysis, or the deformation and rotation of the body is of no importance in the analysis. Therefore, a planet can be idealized as a particle for analysis of its orbital motion around a star.

In their original form, Newton's laws of motion are not adequate to characterize the motion of rigid bodies and deformable bodies. Leonard Euler in 1750 introduced a generalization of Newton's laws of motion for rigid bodies called the Euler's laws of motion, later applied as well for deformable bodies assumed as a continuum.


en.wikipedia.org...'s_laws_of_motion


Euler's Laws

I feel you may be distracting (intentionally, or not) with those calculations, and the joules of force....rather than the gross facts of the mass, and its effects. Which are real-world, common sense observable, too.

Say you had a sort of evil "Hobson's Choice" to make.... (imagine a horror movie scenario, for instance)...where you were given the selection of a .22 calibre bullet fired into your leg, from one foot away, from a small pistol. OR, a cannonball, three inches in diameter, from a cannon also one foot distance, at the same location?

In your experience, which of those projectiles will cause the most injury to your limb? And why?

Take the same projectiles (the .22 bullet) and the the cannonball, and just drop them, using the acceleration of gravity, onto your leg.

MASS + VELOCITY.

Show us how the Boeing 767, with its estimated mass (somewhere around 250,000 - 280,000 pounds? Or more?? We can certainly determine, from records, the ramp weight, and then estimate the burnoff by the flight duration, from taxi from gate, to takeoff and climb, to descent and impact, yes???)...that mass, and that velocity, is only equal to the explosive force (in joules) of two sticks of dynamite???

Oh, and doesn't dynamite explode in a 360-degree direction? How is it directed, if you attempt to channel all the explosive energy?? Are you sure you wish to stick to those analogies??

You have a Ph.D., for goshsakes!!!







edit on 14 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Also you have not factored into account the explosive power of the fuel volume on board the aircraft or the explosive conditions of any items on board or in the hold,

please add these in before saying that a jet liner at 530+ mph is the equivalent force of two sticks of dynamite, this is obviously not the same, also a stick of dynamite, to be effective when demolishing requires to be put into a hole in the structure so that its explosive power can cause the greatest damage (aircraft inside of building)

Wee Mad



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by weemadmental
 


And maybe if you would get out of Mommy's basement and take a physics class or 2, you might see that energy has some relationship to damage caused, but it is neither linear nor directly proportional. Damage has much more to do with materials science and dynamics, like points of impact, pressures, compression strengths and so forth. And the kinetic energy referred to in the post to which I replied ignores deflagration energies of the kerosene (jet fuel) carried in the wing. In every gallon of kerosene, there are 1.422E+8, or 142,200,000 joules of energy. That is 72 sticks of dynamite per gallon of jet fuel. My point was to respond to the assertion that a 767 has enough energy because of mass and velocity to knock a tower down, as opposed to enough chemical energy to burn it down. Because of the limited burning temperature of kerosene in a non-stoichiometric fire, one can argue that neither happened. But to knock it down? A 142,000 kilogram airplane hitting a 455,000 ton structure is the same weight to weight ratio as a one ounce rain drop hitting a 170 pound man. The ultimate point is, that if you are going to use a term like "energy", which has a quantitative aspect, know the numbers. For energy, it might be units expressed in joules, newton meters per second squared, calories, kilocalories (the Calories on the side of the cereal box), BTUs, eVs, newton-meters/radians, ergs, foot-pounds, horsepower-hours, kilowatt hours, Rydbergs unit ,Hartrees, or any one of a number of other derived units, but regardless of the unit, know the definition or equivalent SI unit . For example, if you prefer thermochemistry using calories, knowing that one calorie is 4.184 joules allows you to say with authority that a stick of dynamite has the same energy as 14 thousand Hostess Twinkies (TM), but less than 3,000 Big Macs (with cheese.). Or to put it another way, you've probably heard of dynamite sex. 1 stick of dynamite has the same energy (2.1MJ) as the energy expended during 7,000 hours of non-stop sexual intercourse. Yeah for NSFW science! The BigBang Theory guys would be so proud.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by weemadmental
 
Sorry for bringing all this stuff up because it really is not on topic.
I was responding to another post about someone claiming to be some sort of structure expert and how. . .etc.
The subject of the thread is about how difficult it is to reconcile the flight path of the plane that supposedly hit the south WTC tower. My opinion is that there is some sort of trickery involved. There was a plane that hit the building, I'm sure of that, since I saw it happen. But it was not whatever it was that came down at the crazy angle that we are supposed to think it did. That was made up to explain something that hit the building, that was not an airliner type plane. I don't know what type of craft it was, but it probably hit at the same time as the big plane, but it would have had to hit the west wall of the Tower, not the South, as we see in the photos with the plane silhouette hole in it. The other thing would have mostly gone right into the building, then exploded, being a weapon designed to do that exactly, and not a passenger plane that is designed to just take off and land, not take down skyscrapers. So, this hypothetical other craft that hit the west wall just made a small hole and went unnoticed, since there was tons of other stuff going on at the north and south walls.
I have spent a couple thousand hours studying these photos and video, along with maps and 3D models, and making my own models. What I believe is that a weapon grade military type explosive directed from the center of the inside of the building, went out through the east wall of the second tower as a yellow plasma, that was separate from the explosions coming off the south wall, and the jet fuel fire-ball that came out the north wall , and the later fuel fire that then engulfed the east wall. That explosion, I think coming from the other, unknown type craft, is what took out the center columns that allowed the ultimate collapse to start.
The trickery I mentioned is what it takes to somehow blend the two things into looking like it was one contiguous event. Well, it wasn't because I watched the real plane fly up from the Narrows low to the water, then gain altitude and turn to the right to hit the tower.

edit on 14-11-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


you forgotten the central wing spar, engine hardpoints, luggage containers full of luggage (they can withstand some explosions) etc and the fact that upto a 315,000 lb (maximum take off weight) aircraft flying at 530 mph+, there is enough energy here to destroy lots of things, let alone a building.

"enough" energy doesn't really say much, does it? What it says is that, in your unquantified opinion, a 767 at cruise has the energy to knock down a 450 million kilogram structure.
Well, now, how much kinetic energy really is in a 315,000 pound airplane at 530mph?
We can use your weight, although after takeoff and some flight, and given that for the planned flight a full fuel load wouldn't be needed, the weight would be less than MTOW. 315,000 pounds is 142,882 kilograms. 530 mph is 853 kilometers/hour or 237 meters/second, so using the formula for kinetic energy, KE =1/2mv^2 where KE is kinetic energy, m is mass and v is velocity, you end up with close to 4 megajoules. That is 4 million joules. A standard .6 pound stick of dynamite, with an energy density of 7.5MJ/kg, contains 2.1 MJ of energy. So a Boeing 767-222 at MTOW at 530 mph has the same energy as two whole sticks of dynamite.
Perhaps you would rather compare it with a bomb, such as we see dropped on stuff in Iraq or A'stan. The most common bomb is the Mark 82 500 pounder. It has 79 kilograms of high explosive, either H-6, Minotol, or Tritonol, all of which carry an energy density of 4.7 MJ/kg, so a single 500 pound dumb bomb is 92 times more energetic than a a Boeing 767-222 at MTOW at 530 mph.


When you came up with 2 sticks of dynamite as equivalent to impact of 315,000 lb airliner at 530 mph didn't that ring any alarm bells for you ?

Using the exact same figures and formula I make the kinetic energy not 4 million joules but over 4000 million joules.

So, if you are right about the dynamite sticks then 2000 sticks would be appropriate.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


i am speaking to the lay persons on this board, you seem an intelligent guy with what you have posted but when we look at what had happened, everything has to be taken into account, not just the force of an aircraft hitting a solid structure, we have to look at all of the factors and i have responded to highlight these issues, i am however correct with what i have stated, that the force (energy, again for the lay persons on this board) of the impact, the explosive power of Jet A1, and anything else that was held on board, has to be taken all into account,

so this will be more that 2 sticks of dynamite of energy,

and by the way i am Scottish, i have experience in these matters and we really don't have basements over here like you guys in the states or like your mommy might have
, in fact i am lucky to have been in about 10 basements in all of my life, i have been in bomb, nuclear and biological shelters a few time though.

Wee Mad
edit on 14/11/2010 by weemadmental because: spelling was terrible




top topics



 
141
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join