What is the flash before the plane hits the building?

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine

 

Thank you for your observations, I'll keep them in mind.

In other words, then, Pteridine wins.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine

 

Thank you for your observations, I'll keep them in mind.

In other words, then, Pteridine wins.

Yay.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK

 

How about bird, then? It will sometimes crack or break your windshield. It does not have more mass than the car. What about bullets? They do not generally have more mass than the things they penetrate. They simply have higher velocity, allowing them to impart far more energy into the impacted object.

No, the problem is you don't know enough to realise there is a difference between a bullet hitting a mass, and two objects of the same size and mass, floors, impacting. A bullet hits a very small concentrated area, it doesn't have to worry about the complete mass of what it hits, only the very tiny section it hits. If your windshield cracks from a bird it's probably because the glass had weak spot. But regardless you miss the point as usual and take it too literally, the example is two different masses colliding a bus and a bug, and what happens. You're adding details that are not needed for a generalization. Your examples do not contradict the laws we are discussing, they add unnecessary details that just over-complicate and confuse the point being made.

So why did you not do the test on that web site and prove me wrong? It's right there in black and white, a full demonstration of the physics we're discussing. It's a valid example of the laws of motion, and what happens when two objects collide. You can not get the big red truck to have more damage than the scooter no matter how fast the scooter is moving, that test PROVES my point. If you add details like, the truck was rusty and falling apart, then maybe the truck would be damaged by the scooter, but its disingenuous to keep making excuses that might add variables to the law that weren't there.

The redtruck came into the collision at 0.00 meters per second (0.00 miles per hour)
It left moving at -0.01 meters per second (-0.03 miles per hour)

The scooter came into the collision at -40.23 meters per second (-90.00 miles per hour)
It left moving at 40.22 meters per second (89.97 miles per hour)
It was jolted so much by the collision that it was sent back in the opposite direction!

www.fearofphysics.com...

The truck, large mass, is doing 0, zero, nothing, nada, MPH.

The scooter, small mass, is doing 90, ninety, nine zero, MPH.

Truck NO velocity, 95 static WTC floors.

The scooter, much velocity, 15 WTC floors falling.

Truck moves 0, zero, nothing, nada, MPH.

Scooter moves in reverse, -89.97, eighty nine point nine seven MPH.

The scooter lost, and will always lose.

What else needs to be explained?

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine

 

Thank you for your observations, I'll keep them in mind.

In other words, then, Pteridine wins.

Yay.

confirmed!

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by septic

 

because of its small mass, it might be necessary to speed the cupcake far above 500 mph to cut through a significant amount of steel.

But then you haven't actually responded to the substance of anybody's comment here. Just more eye-rolling. You're making an argument from incredulity.

You might want to link to some facts or evidence at this point.

To make it easier on Septic lets start with the cupcake in a vacuum ( although I am more than happy to include the drag coefficient of the cupcake at a standard atmosphere if anyone prefers... )

A .50 .cal BMG Ball type round has a muzzle energy of something like 15,000 Joules and will pierce 25mm ( 1 inch ) of hardened plate steel at 100 yards.

A 2oz (56 gram) cupcake has to be accelerated to about 700 meters per second ( 1600 mph) to have the equivalent energy.

Anyone who disagrees feel free to cheat the math and check here..

Kinetic Energy Equations and Formulas Calculator

Originally posted by ANOK


www.fearofphysics.com...

The truck, large mass, is doing 0, zero, nothing, nada, MPH.

The scooter, small mass, is doing 90, ninety, nine zero, MPH.

Truck NO velocity, 95 static WTC floors.

The scooter, much velocity, 15 WTC floors falling.

Truck moves 0, zero, nothing, nada, MPH.

Scooter moves in reverse, -89.97, eighty nine point nine seven MPH.

The scooter lost, and will always lose.

What else needs to be explained?

Are you trying to tell us that you're a Noplaner and the plane should have bounced off the building regardless of the speed ?

If we use your highly technical physics source www.fearofphysics.com... and substitute the plane for the scooter and one of the towers for the red truck (as you did with the top and bottom of the building) then the plane should have bounced off and headed back the other direction at 499.97 mph.

Amazingly you have just used physics to prove Video Fakery and even provided a science source to back it up. Congradulations. It's so fortunate for the truth movement that there is a physic website that has scooters and big red trucks....AND... you don't have to do any math !!!

reply to post by ANOK


What happened to the "truck" here...





or here...?



Bird Strike.

reply to post by waypastvne

the plane should have bounced off the building regardless of the speed ?

Surely the scooter...I mean, plane...would just need to go faster, right?

Amazingly you have just used physics to prove Video Fakery and even provided a science source to back it up.

Let this be a lesson to you all.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot

To make it easier on Septic lets start with the cupcake in a vacuum ( although I am more than happy to include the drag coefficient of the cupcake at a standard atmosphere if anyone prefers... )

Does that include the icing?

What about sprinkles? Would that affect the flight of the cupcake...?

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Don't the birds prove how flimsy the planes are? The impact of a bird is one thing, but throw a building up there and the plane will fly right through, am I right?

Originally posted by thedman

Does that include the icing?

What about sprinkles? Would that affect the flight of the cupcake...?

Not in a vacuum.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

Don't the birds prove how flimsy the planes are? The impact of a bird is one thing, but throw a building up there and the plane will fly right through, am I right?

All it proves is that with enough velocity a small mass can do a lot of damage to a much larger mass.

Have you seen this before? What do you think will happen if you exchange the chicken for an equivalent mass of cupcake?

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by thedman

Does that include the icing?

What about sprinkles? Would that affect the flight of the cupcake...?

Not in a vacuum.

What kind of vacuum cleaner do you need to get the 700 meter per second velocity ?

Hoover or Electrolux ?

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


I think this site has the concept of HOAX reversed, at least with regards to 911 science and the few characters I have met here.

What's this about you and your chicken? Oh. Myth busters...is that the level we've reached now?

reply to post by Drunkenparrot

All it proves is that with enough velocity a small mass can do a lot of damage to a much larger mass.

Is that what it proves?

I don't know about the readers but for me this nonsense must stop.

If you shot a bird out a cannon and it hit a stationary plane, would the damage be different? If it was roughly the same impact velocity it would be roughly the same damage, right?

Now, if you smacked the stationary jet with a 500000 ton building, would you still expect the jet to cut the building in half?

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

I think this site has the concept of HOAX reversed, at least with regards to 911 science the few characters I have met here.

What's this about you and your chicken? Oh. Myth busters...is that the level we've reached now?

Look, I'm not the one having trouble understanding.

It is clear that you don't have a grasp on the math otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I detest youtube videos as proof of anything but understand it is a more digestible format for some.

I posted the the mythbusters clip for your benifit not my own.

Do you disagree with the conclusions in the Mythbusters clip or are you just trying for a cheap shot?

I will source PHYSORG.com for reference if you wish to be glib, the laws of nature are universal and not subject to individual interpretation as you seem to believe.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot

Do you disagree with the conclusions in the Mythbusters clip or are you just trying for a cheap shot?

Cheap shot? Hell, you guys leave low hanging fruit all over the place, what can you expect?

The mythbusters clip supports my contention that no matter if the plane is moving and collides with a much slower chicken, or whether the chicken is moving and collides with a stationary plane, the damage will be comparable.

The same applies when you reverse the equation of the building and the jet, either way you slice it, the jet gets creamed.

reply to post by septic


Do you mean to suggest that the chicken sustains no damage? Both the jet and what the jet is impacting sustain damage. To think otherwise is to be, frankly, stupid.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

Do you mean to suggest that the chicken sustains no damage? Both the jet and what the jet is impacting sustain damage. To think otherwise is to be, frankly, stupid.

I see, you're like the comic relief character who comes in and drops a little quip of irrelevance; it's like letting one go in the elevator...takes you completely by surprise, and you're afraid to look people in the eye.

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

Do you mean to suggest that the chicken sustains no damage? Both the jet and what the jet is impacting sustain damage. To think otherwise is to be, frankly, stupid.

I see, you're like the comic relief character who comes in and drops a little quip of irrelevance; it's like letting one go in the elevator...takes you completely by surprise, and you're afraid to look people in the eye.

How is it irrelevant? Clearly, both objects sustain damage. Am I speaking in tongues?