New video of explosion at the Twin Towers without a plane

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: DoneWithHumans

Its funny how the SEC had no issues finding the evidence.

Clue:
They had to look?

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

One of the most destructive, non-nuclear weapons in our inventory is the Fuel Air Explosive.

This, is a fraction of the fuel load carried by an airliner..

www.youtube.com...

Claiming a nearly full load of jet fuel, will not have the same effect as a TNT type warhead...is...sad.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: AgarthaSeed


Claiming a nearly full load of jet fuel, will not have the same effect as a TNT type warhead...is...sad.

lol

I felt that too..

a reply to: Zaphod58

Okay, you HAVE to IM me the response you deleted........

And, to the idea expressed by Agartha that every weld and rivet holding the tail to the airframe would have instantly popped and dropped the tail outside the Pentagon...that is just silly.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

It was probably over nonsense with Newton's law, when collision is 101 first week stuff, normally depicted as cars.

www.thoughtco.com...

FORCE - COLLIDING WITH A WALL Consider case A, in which car A collides with static unbreakable wall. The situation begins with car A traveling at a velocity v and it ends with a velocity of 0. The force of this situation is defined by Newton's second law of motion. Force equals mass times acceleration. In this case, the acceleration is (v - 0)/t, where t is whatever time it takes car A to come to a stop. The car exerts this force in the direction of the wall, but the wall (which is static and unbreakable) exerts an equal force back on the car, per Newton's third law of motion. It is this equal force which causes cars to accordion up during collisions.

He basically goofed, and tried to assert the Third law is the opposite of the part in Bold.
Or rather, he actually only misquoted the Third Law, for the Second Law, trying to explain the Speed over-weighed everything. But it really sounded like he misunderstood the Third Law.

The Pentagon wall is obviously not unbreakable, but you would have to calculate still for the ricochet caused by the Third Law. This includes the whole Plane 'exploding' from raw force exerting tension to the nose at 'ludicrous speed'.

a reply to: DoneWithHumans

Go back and read the post again. How does that not sound like they were talking about a large piece of tail ending up on the lawn? I said from the start that debris would go in all directions, but large pieces of the tail wouldn't be intact, which is what that post sounded like he was saying. Did I misunderstand, possibly, but all I can do is respond to what was posted and how I understand it.

Yes, pieces of the tail would have gone backwards, as did pieces of the forward fuselage, wings, and other bits of aircraft.

As for the removed post, don't worry about it. It was posted, I thought better of it and removed it. End of story.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Because of the force of the Third Law, you can't really claim to know what pieces would be intact. It could rip in half from tension, or reduce kinetic energy perfectly as it crashes. It actually could end up doing a lot of different things with very minor changed positioning to the crash.

The more you understand the Third Law, the less likely it seems to claim this means it would shatter at all.

The Second law is all about the shatter. Lots of speed = lots of energy released, pretty simple.

Sorry for trying to clear up an argument over semantics between two people saying the same thing.

But this is why it was salty when you brought up the Third Law.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Zaphod58

Okay, you HAVE to IM me the response you deleted........

And, to the idea expressed by Agartha that every weld and rivet holding the tail to the airframe would have instantly popped and dropped the tail outside the Pentagon...that is just silly.

Way to put words in my mouth! You've added nothing of value to this convo, so continue patting yourself on the back!

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

One of the most destructive, non-nuclear weapons in our inventory is the Fuel Air Explosive.

This, is a fraction of the fuel load carried by an airliner..

www.youtube.com...

Claiming a nearly full load of jet fuel, will not have the same effect as a TNT type warhead...is...sad.

Claiming that a missile would leave the same debris as a crashed airliner is...well...laughable. Especially considering the fact we're debating a plane crash that never happened and very well could have been a missile to begin with.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

What do you think an airliner becomes when somebody points it at a target? It is then a missile, an offensive weapon..and in the case of airliners with the oxygen cylinders in the nose...one with a "warhead".

Think about it. A missile contains the explosive potential to destroy something much larger than the missile itself. That's it's design and purpose.

A passenger jet is designed to transport people. Upon impact it will not behave the same way as an actual warhead.

You mix jet fuel and lots of oxygen you get this.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

By the way probably the most powerful conventional explosive we have.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

For some reason that video looks fake. The colours in the video dont look right on the explosion, the second clip of the plane added, does not look right either. It looks far to false then the many videos showing planes going into the towers originally look. I understand the point of view here, as if to say we have been duped but something feels more fishy about this video then it does the actual published story of planes hitting the towers.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

What do you think an airliner becomes when somebody points it at a target? It is then a missile, an offensive weapon..and in the case of airliners with the oxygen cylinders in the nose...one with a "warhead".

Think about it. A missile contains the explosive potential to destroy something much larger than the missile itself. That's it's design and purpose.

A passenger jet is designed to transport people. Upon impact it will not behave the same way as an actual warhead.

You mix jet fuel and lots of oxygen you get this.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

By the way probably the most powerful conventional explosive we have.

I'm well aware of it's destructive ability. The argument was over an aircraft leaving different debris than a missile. Not the debris from the Pentagon building itself, but what would be left of the aircraft.

A few members here have been twisting my words. But hey, they're defending the official BS story so they have to get creative.

Screw it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Screw it.

The American people thank you.

Well there was a plane for sure too many amateur videos of the sound of the plane going in.

I get the comparison but when it comes to destructive power a thermobaric warhead and a jet liner shouldn't really be mentioned together. They spread a combustable and then ignite it. A thermobaric weapon certainly doesn't use jet kero to do its damage.

a reply to: sg1642

When I took flight school we had magneto switches and the only time you panicked was when Lester switched that to the off position looked back in horror and yelled its the bewitching hour before slumping over the stick!

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

What do you think an airliner becomes when somebody points it at a target? It is then a missile, an offensive weapon..and in the case of airliners with the oxygen cylinders in the nose...one with a "warhead".

Think about it. A missile contains the explosive potential to destroy something much larger than the missile itself. That's it's design and purpose.

A passenger jet is designed to transport people. Upon impact it will not behave the same way as an actual warhead.

You mix jet fuel and lots of oxygen you get this.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

By the way probably the most powerful conventional explosive we have.

I'm well aware of it's destructive ability. The argument was over an aircraft leaving different debris than a missile. Not the debris from the Pentagon building itself, but what would be left of the aircraft.

A few members here have been twisting my words. But hey, they're defending the official BS story so they have to get creative.

Ok with the explosive force and the impact your talking small pieces of most of the plane. It's made of composite material which wouldn't hold up well in a colision. So most of it would become very small fragments the parts that would survive to be recognizable would be parts of the air frame and engine.

Problem is they are mostly aluminium and if the fire gets hot enough you will have secondary explosions. Much like thermite actually don't think many people realize aluminum is highly explosive at its melting point


Here a worker overy heats the aluminium.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

If you're familiar with Brinell hardness tests, then yes.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Who said anything about leaving the same type of debris. it was about explosive potential. And since I have no problems finding airliner wreckage at the crash sites, most of your points are moot.