Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

page: 61
20
<< 58  59  60   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


You can't leave it there. What do you say is the reason she picked it up ?




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
You guys are complete idiots if you think a plane can hit a 'breakaway' light pole and not receive damage, or even be moved off course enough for a novice pilot to not be able to handle it.

Find a pic of an object that hit a breakaway light pole that did not receive damage itself. Remember Newtons 3rd law, it applies here. Breakaway or not, there will be damage.

For example, the caption on this pic says, 'Twised 3 lumbar Vertebraes at 65 MPH hitting a breakaway light pole. I can still hear the glass shattering.' Please notice the car is damaged, and it hit sideways not straight on. Now imagine the force of a plane at 500mph, and don't forget Newtons 3rd law.

www.flickr.com...

edit on 1/11/2012 by ANOK because: typo



Your problem is very typical for someone not very well educated trying to analyze a physics problem. You have to apply ALL of Newton's Physics Laws, not just concentrating on the ones you think you understand. You have done this repeatedly demonstrating profound ignorance as a consequence.

Of course, there was damage to the leading edges of the wings, but not enough to cause control problems particularly considering that he crashed in seconds after hitting those poles. I'll even go so far as to speculate that the aircraft could have been recovered for landing had it not crashed. He didn't have to worry about that, did he?

It is confounding why you keep embarrassing yourself with these ignorant pronouncements. Are you trying to become the poster boy for why some people are "truthers"? If so, you're succeeding.
edit on 12-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


You can't leave it there. What do you say is the reason she picked it up ?


i believe she said it landed in her passenger's seat entering via her open sunroof. Maybe she wanted to have someone be able to sit in that seat without having a sharp piece of composite material puncture their buttocks!



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Your problem is very typical for someone not very well educated trying to analyze a physics problem.


Really.


You have to apply ALL of Newton's Physics Laws, not just concentrating on the ones you think you understand. You have done this repeatedly demonstrating profound ignorance as a consequence.


This is true, but for my point the the third law, equal and opposite reaction, is all that is required. The other two laws do not contradict my point. If you fail to understand then it's not my problem.


Of course, there was damage to the leading edges of the wings, but not enough to cause control problems particularly considering that he crashed in seconds after hitting those poles. I'll even go so far as to speculate that the aircraft could have been recovered for landing had it not crashed. He didn't have to worry about that, did he?


Well that is simply a difference is opinion isn't it? If a bird hitting a wing can cause a huge hole then I would sumise that a light pole would do more. I mean a bird is already 'broken away', so that is no excuse.


It is confounding why you keep embarrassing yourself with these ignorant pronouncements. Are you trying to become the poster boy for why some people are "truthers"? If so, you're succeeding.


Really. The problem isn't what I am saying it is your interpenetration of it. It is confounding that all you can do is try to belittle people, instead of participating in a meaningful discussion.









edit on 1/12/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Oh I see now where your misconceptions lie:


If a bird hitting a wing can cause a huge hole then I would sumise that a light pole would do more.


A bird is more akin to a "projectile" in the sense that it's mass (all of it) can be considered to be concentrated on a trajectory that is parallel to the impact direction.

Hitting a light pole only reacts with that portion of the pole's mass that is in contact with the surface (wing leading edge) that strikes it. Further, the impetus of the wing strike begins to impart motion to the pole, but the pole IS designed to break-away at its base, thus it accelerates in the direction the wing is travelling, and quickly falls out of the wing's path.

The trap, here, is the "argument from incredulity".


BTW......there is a possibility that had this been a different airplane, with a differently designed wing, and at a slower velocity, (slower velocity, the momentum of motion is lesser, and the pole's own inertia would have greater effect .....more time for the object being struck to "interact" and inflict more damage)....the pole could have possibly caused more damage...to the wing, perhaps to even shear off a few feet of the outer portion, had the impact occurred that far out. The 757 wing leading edge, though, is quite robust.

And in any case, even a few feet off the tip would be controllable, especially given that it was only a second (two at most) from impact with the Pentagon.

Take a look at the photos on this site. They show the Leading Edge Slats extended....but when they are retracted, and flush with the rest of the wing, they are quite strong.



ALSO......your first two images (above) of bird strike examples are on light airplanes......not built as strongly as Transport Category jets.

The second two, can't tell the airplane type, but the leading edges appear to be heavier gauge metal, with correspondingly less damage.

In ANY case, the point you are trying to make is refuted by those four photos: THOSE airplanes encountered birds, and then landed safely, despite the damage!!!!

NO ONE is saying that the strikes on the light poles didn't damage the wing.....it's just that those hits weren't enough to affect the airplane's trajectory, nor its controllability.
edit on Thu 12 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
A bird is more akin to a "projectile" in the sense that it's mass (all of it) can be considered to be concentrated on a trajectory that is parallel to the impact direction.


Rubbish. How is a bird a projectile, and what difference does it make? You need to go back and re-read Newtons third law.


Hitting a light pole only reacts with that portion of the pole's mass that is in contact with the surface (wing leading edge) that strikes it.


So what? There is still more mass in the part of the pole hitting the wing than a bird.


BTW......there is a possibility that had this been a different airplane, with a differently designed wing, and at a slower velocity, (slower velocity, the momentum of motion is lesser, and the pole's own inertia would have greater effect .....more time for the object being struck to "interact" and inflict more damage)....the pole could have possibly caused more damage...to the wing, perhaps to even shear off a few feet of the outer portion, had the impact occurred that far out. The 757 wing leading edge, though, is quite robust.


Rubbish, I told you not to forget Newtons third law, and yet you have just proved you fail to understand that law.
No matter the speed of the objects, the relative damage to each object is dictated by mass. Velocity effects both objects equally, less velocity means less damage to BOTH objects. Equal opposite reaction law never changes.


And in any case, even a few feet off the tip would be controllable, especially given that it was only a second (two at most) from impact with the Pentagon.


Oh, so now you know where the wings were struck?


ALSO......your first two images (above) of bird strike examples are on light airplanes......not built as strongly as Transport Category jets.


Again so what? You just keep making excuses to ignore known laws of physics. I am just pointing out the plane could not have hit multiple light poles, knock them down, and not received damage that could have caused an amateur pilot to panic, or try to overcompensate for the fact that the plane would have moved when it struck the poles. Planes don't fly on rails you know. There is a big difference to a bird strike at altitude where the pilot has lots of room, to an amateur hitting light poles at ground level doing over the max speed of the plane.

It is just one of many extremely lucky incidences for an amateur pilot to have pulled off. I don't buy it for a second, if you pay attention to the other points, such as witnesses seeing the plane SOS, the official story just falls apart. You obvioulsy have a reason to not see the obvious.

edit on 1/12/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You quote Newton a lot but there still seem to be fundamental problems with your physics.

You say that " the relative damage to each object is dictated by mass " but common sense must tell you this isn't true. I can shoot an armour piercing bullet through a steel plate 1m by 1m and the damage to the bullet will be just the same if the plate is 10m by 10m or 100m by 100m



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ANOK
 


You quote Newton a lot but there still seem to be fundamental problems with your physics.

You say that " the relative damage to each object is dictated by mass " but common sense must tell you this isn't true. I can shoot an armour piercing bullet through a steel plate 1m by 1m and the damage to the bullet will be just the same if the plate is 10m by 10m or 100m by 100m



Of course it's not true, Anok doesn't know what he's talking about. At all. And the "dictated by mass" comment seals the deal for me, in the sense that now I am absolutely certain he doesn't know what he's talking about.

And about Penny Elgas: I believe the wing part she donated to the museum may have been ripped off by the VDOT pole at the cloverleaf bridge, but I can't be sure, of course.
edit on 12-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ANOK
 


You quote Newton a lot but there still seem to be fundamental problems with your physics.

You say that " the relative damage to each object is dictated by mass " but common sense must tell you this isn't true. I can shoot an armour piercing bullet through a steel plate 1m by 1m and the damage to the bullet will be just the same if the plate is 10m by 10m or 100m by 100m



I think I just heard something explode, over the net.


Yeah quoting N3rdL over and over may look snazzy to someone who is not well-versed in physics, but it means diddly squat to those of us that actually know and understand how to implement it into our lives and observations. What you just pointed out is a major fact that I am sure ANOK didnt realize or think of in his version of "N3rdL forbids it" bit.

I once saw a car drive into house. But the house has far more mass than the car, so the car should have been obliterated and the house unscathed. And yet, I saw a huge gaping hole inside the house, and a partial collapse while the car had a slightly smashed hood. Oh no! NrdL has been violated!



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Really. The problem isn't what I am saying it is your interpenetration of it. It is confounding that all you can do is try to belittle people, instead of participating in a meaningful discussion.


Really?

Translation of the above - You don't participate in meaningful discussion because I don't like or agree with what you say.
------------------------------------
There have been numerous people already tell you that you don't have a clue of what you're talking about. How many more is it going to take for you to realize that you don't have a clue of what you're talking about?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by ANOK
Really. The problem isn't what I am saying it is your interpenetration of it. It is confounding that all you can do is try to belittle people, instead of participating in a meaningful discussion.


Really?

Translation of the above - You don't participate in meaningful discussion because I don't like or agree with what you say.
------------------------------------
There have been numerous people already tell you that you don't have a clue of what you're talking about. How many more is it going to take for you to realize that you don't have a clue of what you're talking about?


It's a problem that there tends to be a lot bigger pool of clueless people than there are people with even a rudimentary understanding of physics and collision dynamics, so this is a lost cause.

People who apply 'intuitive physics' to complex real world events get burned every time, and when they are informed of their mishaps, they dig in, determined to maximize their self-embarrassment. Like Rob Balsamo.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Balsamo, meanwhile, is still over at his own forum plunging himself neck deep into his own bizarre delusions about radio altimeters, still peddling the straw man argument that I believe a slower CPU and a faster CPU are equivalent because electrons and radio waves travel at the speed of light.

And he still doesn't understand why the radalt signal interval formula multiples the height by two.

No wonder they haven't come back here.

I think OSS may have realized his mentor is in way over his head.

I'm playing with the idea of giving Balsamo and his sycophants a full blown lecture about microprocessors and instruction pipelines, but hey, a radar altimeter isn't a personal computer, so what good will that do.

It's a disaster to witness these people identifying themselves as pilots and avionics experts, knowing there are lives at stake when they take their blithering incompetence along with them to their day jobs.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
The problem is the OSers want to make it appear to be a more complicated problem than it is, in order to confuse people, and make it appear no one but the government 'experts' could possibly understand.

There is nothing complicated about two colliding objects, it's about as simple as you can get when it comes to physics. What other factors are involved with a wing hitting a light pole? I have shown that regardless of whether it is a 'brake away' light pole, anything hitting it is still damaged. An object moving faster will have more damage, an object hitting more than one pole will have multiple damage. An objects basically floating on air will move when it hits something. Factors that seem to be ignored imo. Factors that are relevant.

I'm just saying that was one lucky amateur pilot. He must have had a boatload of luck with him that morning, maybe government issue eh?



edit on 1/12/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
The problem is the OSers want to make it appear to be a more complicated problem than it is, in order to confuse people, and make it appear no one but the government 'experts' could possibly understand.

There is nothing complicated about two colliding objects, it's about as simple as you can get when it comes to physics. What other factors are involved with a wing hitting a light pole? I have shown that regardless of whether it is a 'brake away' light pole, anything hitting it is still damaged. An object moving faster will have more damage, an object hitting more than one pole will have multiple damage. An objects basically floating on air will move when it hits something. Factors that seem to be ignored imo. Factors that are relevant.

I'm just saying that was one lucky amateur pilot. He must have had a boatload of luck with him that morning, maybe government issue eh?



edit on 1/12/2012 by ANOK because: typo


I love Einstein, and I hate it when people use him to make favorable comparisons to their own anti-scientific conspiracy or debunker gibberish.


“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”


-- Albert.

Yeah, the plane was damaged hitting the light poles, as were the light poles.

And it was soon to crash, rendering the wing damage irrelevant because it wasn't going to land anywhere.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Let me say something nice here.

Anok, if I insinuated you are dumb, I apologize, you seem too smart to buy into this BS.

If you like Einstein, then honor him by studying physics.

There is a good teacher, from my country, who taught at MIT, and his name is Walter Lewin

These video courses are free.
edit on 12-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




I'm just saying that was one lucky amateur pilot. He must have had a boatload of luck with him that morning, maybe government issue eh?

There have been countless airplanes with severe damage that have landed safely. Google the stories of the WW2 B17.
A few light poles a couple of seconds before impact would have no effect.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Yes - Anok - you are right.

Your physics is correct and frankly these others are not "talking" physics at all.

I am sure Proudbird is a good pilot and he has demonstrated that he knows a lot about aircraft but he just does not have the first clue about physics.

Physics is not always intuitive otherwise it would not have taken to the last few hundred years to come up with Newtons laws let alone quantum mechanics. These guys trying to respond to you have never formally studied physics or did and failed. The bird and the pole comparison above sounds like the days of alchemy at best.

As you have stated it, it is a simple vector problem. The entire mass of the pole must be taken into account.

You only problem here is the quantity of contrarians not the quality.

Carry on!


Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by ProudBird
A bird is more akin to a "projectile" in the sense that it's mass (all of it) can be considered to be concentrated on a trajectory that is parallel to the impact direction.


Rubbish. How is a bird a projectile, and what difference does it make? You need to go back and re-read Newtons third law.


Hitting a light pole only reacts with that portion of the pole's mass that is in contact with the surface (wing leading edge) that strikes it.


So what? There is still more mass in the part of the pole hitting the wing than a bird.


BTW......there is a possibility that had this been a different airplane, with a differently designed wing, and at a slower velocity, (slower velocity, the momentum of motion is lesser, and the pole's own inertia would have greater effect .....more time for the object being struck to "interact" and inflict more damage)....the pole could have possibly caused more damage...to the wing, perhaps to even shear off a few feet of the outer portion, had the impact occurred that far out. The 757 wing leading edge, though, is quite robust.


Rubbish, I told you not to forget Newtons third law, and yet you have just proved you fail to understand that law.
No matter the speed of the objects, the relative damage to each object is dictated by mass. Velocity effects both objects equally, less velocity means less damage to BOTH objects. Equal opposite reaction law never changes.


And in any case, even a few feet off the tip would be controllable, especially given that it was only a second (two at most) from impact with the Pentagon.


Oh, so now you know where the wings were struck?


ALSO......your first two images (above) of bird strike examples are on light airplanes......not built as strongly as Transport Category jets.


Again so what? You just keep making excuses to ignore known laws of physics. I am just pointing out the plane could not have hit multiple light poles, knock them down, and not received damage that could have caused an amateur pilot to panic, or try to overcompensate for the fact that the plane would have moved when it struck the poles. Planes don't fly on rails you know. There is a big difference to a bird strike at altitude where the pilot has lots of room, to an amateur hitting light poles at ground level doing over the max speed of the plane.

It is just one of many extremely lucky incidences for an amateur pilot to have pulled off. I don't buy it for a second, if you pay attention to the other points, such as witnesses seeing the plane SOS, the official story just falls apart. You obvioulsy have a reason to not see the obvious.

edit on 1/12/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by BRAVO949
 


NO, he (and you) are the ones mistaken, here.

A few things....as I mentioned, in terms of a bird strike, you have the entire mass of the bird concentrated, "like" a projectile. Think of a cannonball, if that helps. Then, when I said that the part of the light pole that is struck, that one area in square inches is not the TOTAL mass of the light pole, I was "informed" that it was "as much as a bird".

Sorry, but a minimal cross section of the lamp pole we're talking about? Certainly not as heavy, nor massive, as a large bird. Think of a (hollow) pole say X number of inches in diameter, of X metal, and a cross section of X inches in height. A ring of metal, in other words. Weigh that (mental exercise) and then find a bird that is comparable weight.

Here's another comparison......a spear or an arrow. Shoot either at a given velocity at a target. First, have it travel "point on", as usually expected for such things....(this represents all of the mass concentrated into a smaller frontal area, like the bird example).

Now, at the same velocity, have the spear or arrow impact the target "side on".

See the difference?


Sorry, but contrary to your "praise" and assertion that the other member is "right".....it is clear in the actual physical world that you are both wrong. Also, contrary to the mention of "intuition" in physics being a "problem" for us, it is actually the false understanding that is "intuitive" on your parts.


In any case, the other member's assertions are moot --- that the striking of the light poles should have "somehow" cased an instant loss of control. This ignores the sheer and incredibly huge difference in the mass of the two objects:

The airplane and the pole. Those poles would have seemed insignificant to a mass AND velocity contained by that airplane. What seems to not be understood here is the concept of FORCE.

The misapplication of Newton's Third Law is almost laughable, if it weren't such a tragic event.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I think with your scenario of a novice pilot battling with controls as a result of lightpole strikes you are ignoring the time-frame available for this drama.

The first lightpole struck was something a bit over 1000 feet from the impact point. I don't have the exact measurement to hand but I expect somebody does. But the aircraft at that point was travelling at 815 feet per second. The total time from hitting the first lightpole to crashing into the Pentagon was therefore 1 second and a fraction.

Given that very short time I don't believe there was any opportunity for the pilot to "panic" as you suggest and I think that having the most experienced 757 pilot in the world in the seat would have been very unlikely to have made any difference at that stage. The die was cast.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Shills eh, they do try to refute everything, but physics and evidence do not lie!

Time for that transparent investigation that never happened!





top topics
 
20
<< 58  59  60   >>

log in

join