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

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by pteridine

A multi-part theory fails if one part fails.

So if a plane didn't fly over, but flew NoC, that wouldn't prove the OS wrong?

After Napoleon Bonaparte was sentenced to exile to St. Helena, his health began deteriorating rapidly and he died six years later. The official autopsy by the British determined that he died of stomach cancer, but recent studies using modern forensic technologies shows evidence that he may have died of arsenic poisoning. If it's shown irrefutably that Napoleon died of arsenic poisoning rather than stomach cancer, does that prove Napoleon didn't really exist?

You can't use evidence of something that exists to prove it doesn't exist. Witnesses seeing the plane hitting the Pentagon necessarly means it was a genuine terrorist attack regardless of the flight path the plane took.

F=ma

Is the formula for an accelerating body. Force equals mass times acceleration.

The proper formula to determine kinetic energy is...

Ek=1/2mv^2

Kinetic Energy equals one half the mass times the velocity squared.

If you are a pilot then you know that an aircraft's maximum speed is relative to altitude. Several engineers have stated that a large pasenger jet could not fly 500 mph at tree top level and remain under any sort of control or stay in one piece. As well, "Ground Effects" limit level flight or landing for aircraft that are flying at high speed near the ground, as you may know.

I mention these points because if we take the mass of the aircraft that is described in the official story and use the formula for kinetic energy together with even 250 miles an hour we get a tremendously amount of energy that has to be absorbed by the Pentagon.

One thing I have never seen is a computer simulation of the Pentagon impact.

I don't mean a computer graphics generation of the flight and impact. I mean an actual simulation that takes into consideration all of the laws of physics.

My "guess" is that a true computer simulation of a huge commercial aircraft flying at 200+ mph would yeild a impact energy and resulting area of destruction considerably larger than the photos and video from the Pentagon indicate.

In fact, I think that is exactly why "we" have never seen a computer simulation of the any aspect of the events of 9/11.

Good computer simulations do not lie but the 9/11 Commission and the Bush Administration did - over and over and over again.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by BRAVO949

 

Are you saying that wings become stronger or weaker relative to velocity?

They are the same structure of course, with the same mass..... regardless of velocity. The point made is a fundamental of physics, especially for an object in motion. It has momentum, and kinetic energy as a result of motion. The mass is in motion, and can produce a force on impact, depending on the velocity.

F = m*a

The same way a small .45 caliber bullet will pierce through a certain thickness of a specific material, depending on its velocity. If you merely throw it by hand, then of course the momentum of the bullet is much lower than if fired from a gun.

Water, when ejected at sufficient velocity (due to very high pressures, and a concentrated stream) can cut metal. This is basic physics.

Another aspect of an airliner's wing that many fail to consider is the fuel inside. Especially, as was the case with all the jets on 9/11, when the wing tanks are completely full. Liquids are incompressible. That's why they work in hydraulic systems.

The fuel, in a container, will for a split second behave, in terms of its momentum from the inherent mass and velocity, behave with all th force as a solid.....until its container ruptures, then fluid dynamics come into play. But, the initial impact has all the kinetic energy of the total mass of the wing structure itself, + the fuel contained within.

Plus.....there is the added over-all momentum from the mass of the entire airplane, aft of the point of initial contact (the forward fuselage) that is acting, for those micro-seconds by micro-seconds, as if it were all one unit. Break-up occurs, and the energy of the velocity times mass is dissipated....

Once the mass hits an obstruction of some kind, then the chaos begins, and each material that interacts with the others will behave according to their properties, and states of energy.

Originally posted by BRAVO949
As well, "Ground Effects" limit level flight or landing for aircraft that are flying at high speed near the ground, as you may know.

Ok you learned the formula for kinetic energy and force. Next you should probably look up induced drag and tell us does it increase or decrease with velocity.

Originally posted by BRAVO949
One thing I have never seen is a computer simulation of the Pentagon impact.

I don't mean a computer graphics generation of the flight and impact. I mean an actual simulation that takes into consideration all of the laws of physics.

Probably because the one thing *I* have never seen is a simulation on how all that aircraft wreckage was strewn all over the place in a blink of an eye and how so many people specifically saw the plane hit the Pentagon if it wasn't true. So far, all the "no planers" have been able to do is make up excuses that everyone is a secret agent.

If you don't have difinitive proof of an alternative scenario that has more going for it than just abject paranoia, you might as well demand proof that the damage really wasn't caused by space unicorns.

reply to post by BRAVO949


You start out properly, but then the fallacies begin to set in:

Several engineers have stated that a large pasenger jet could not fly 500 mph at tree top level and remain under any sort of control or stay in one piece.

The are flat-out wrong. Especially about the "stay in one piece" nonsense!! But, if you care to find the sources and citation, I can then address them specifically.

As well, "Ground Effects" limit level flight or landing for aircraft that are flying at high speed near the ground, as you may know.

Baloney. Ground Effect is something not well understood by laypeople, and "used" incorrectly in these "arguments". Read this very, very thoroughly:

When the aircraft is close to the surface -- in ground effect -- coming into contact with the surface modifies the almost cylindrical vortex-induced circulation around the wing. This flattens the cylindrical circulation pattern and reduces the downwash angle of the air behind the wing. This flattening of the cylindrical circulation spreads the pattern outwards below the wing and increases the effective span of the wing. The aerodynamic aspect ratio of the wing is also increased. (The aerodynamic aspect ratio of the wing is measured between the cores of the vortices, which occur at about 80% of the geometric wingspan outside of ground effect. This aerodynamic aspect ratio has a strong inverse effect on lift-induced drag.)

When the aircraft flies close enough to the ground that the sag of the vortices trailing the wingtips is restricted by coming in contact with the ground, the backward-tilting angle of the total lift vector is reduced, thereby reducing its horizontal component and reducing induced drag.

The combination of the reduction in the downwash angle of the air behind the wing and the increases of both effective wingspan and aerodynamic aspect ratio of the wing occur when the wing is close to the surface. These increases in aerodynamic efficiency of the wing are what we call ground effect.

Aerodynamics education

I mention these points because if we take the mass of the aircraft that is described in the official story and use the formula for kinetic energy together with even 250 miles an hour we get a tremendously amount of energy that has to be absorbed by the Pentagon.

Well, finally another correct comment. ^ ^ ^ ^

One thing I have never seen is a computer simulation of the Pentagon impact.

The Purdue University did an independent investigations using super computers:

My "guess" is that a true computer simulation of a huge commercial aircraft flying at 200+ mph would yeild a impact energy and resulting area of destruction considerably larger than the photos and video from the Pentagon indicate.

Well, your "guess" would not be correct then, would it? We have seen what the inflicted actually looked like.

In fact, I think that is exactly why "we" have never seen a computer simulation of the any aspect of the events of 9/11.

Oh? Up above ^ ^ ^ . And, Purdue did a simulation for the World Trade Center too.

Good computer simulations do not lie......

Originally posted by BRAVO949

If you are a pilot then you know that an aircraft's maximum speed is relative to altitude. Several engineers have stated that a large pasenger jet could not fly 500 mph at tree top level and remain under any sort of control or stay in one piece. As well, "Ground Effects" limit level flight or landing for aircraft that are flying at high speed near the ground, as you may know.

Regardless if you've said anything else this false statement vividly reveals that you have no clue what you're talking about.... Next.....

Originally posted by BRAVO949
F=ma

Is the formula for an accelerating body. Force equals mass times acceleration.

The proper formula to determine kinetic energy is...

Ek=1/2mv^2

Kinetic Energy equals one half the mass times the velocity squared.

If you are a pilot then you know that an aircraft's maximum speed is relative to altitude. Several engineers have stated that a large pasenger jet could not fly 500 mph at tree top level and remain under any sort of control or stay in one piece. As well, "Ground Effects" limit level flight or landing for aircraft that are flying at high speed near the ground, as you may know.

Good grief, where on EARTH are ridiculous claims like this coming from?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave the plane in that vid is not doing 500mph, probably doing around 200, if that.

Find a vid of an amateur pilot actually doing 500mph at that height, and you might have something. Otherwise you are comparing tortoises and hares.

Originally posted by ANOK
Dave the plane in that vid is not doing 500mph, probably doing around 200, if that.

Find a vid of an amateur pilot actually doing 500mph at that height, and you might have something. Otherwise you are comparing tortoises and hares.

What the heck difference does it make? The professional liars of the truth movement are saying it's impossible for aircraft like this to fly so close to the ground because of some magical properties the ground introduces into Bernoulli's principle and here you're seeing it's nonsense.

If you're so adamant about drinking the conspiracy mongor Kool-Aid, then would you mind explaining THIS?

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Dave the plane in that vid is not doing 500mph, probably doing around 200, if that.

Find a vid of an amateur pilot actually doing 500mph at that height, and you might have something. Otherwise you are comparing tortoises and hares.

Hows about this one:





But how long did the hijacker fly it at that speed? Not very. So whats the big deal? Its not like he was burning the sagebrush for miles until he slammed into the building. It was in a dive at full throttle. Something that even unskilled kamikazie pilots were taught to do in Japan, where they only had very rudimentary training and told go fly and crash into a zigzagging ship thats throwing up ack ack at you from all sides. And many did find their marks. Its a little harder to hit a zigzagging ship with AA shot at you, than taking a 757 and putting it into a powder dive at full throttle into a building that is stationary and 77 feet tall and 921 feet wide.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

What the heck difference does it make?

Are you seriously asking that question?

Dave, when an aircraft moves forward air moves over the wings. The wings are designed to created low pressure over top, high pressure under, which creates lift. The faster the plane moves the more lift is created. More pressure is produced under the wings making the plane want to climb. The pilot has to fight against the planes desire to climb. At 500mph the pilot would be having to push the stick all the way forward to keep the nose level, that would make it very difficult to hold straight and level, and make it very vulnerable to a stall.
Big planes don't react immediately to input, at 500mph by the time the pilot has thought about maneuvering it's too late. One mistake would be the end.

That was one lucky amateur pilot that day huh? And lucky numerous times, not just once.

Fighter planes have a different wing type. Passenger planes are designed to create maximum lift because they are heavy and do not need to be maneuverable like a fighter. The wings on a fighter are different, they're smaller and thinner, creating less drag and lift.

In aerodynamics, wing loading is the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing.[1] The faster an aircraft flies, the more lift is produced by each unit area of wing, so a smaller wing can carry the same weight in level flight, operating at a higher wing loading.

secure.wikimedia.org...

Dave you act like this expert on all and everything 911, and you fail to understand really basic aerodynamic principles.

I'm not saying it is an impossible task in a passenger plane, but it would take all the experience and concentration of even the best pilot. But I have yet to see a passenger jet fly that low at 500mph, even having been a jet engine mechanic, and living on a major airport. So until that is demonstrated, I will always have doubts as to the credibility of that possibility.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Hows about this one:

What difference is there with this one?

You think that plane is doing 500mph?

No it isn't. Not even close.

reply to post by ANOK


But the plane is flying low and fast.

Why are you so up in arms over a plane going nearly 500mph that was in a power dive with engines at full throttle? Mr. Physics, don't you know, that a plane can actually accelerate when pointed in a downward position at full throttle? Its like driving a car down a hill and having the accelerator down to the floorboards. What was the plane suppose to do? Explode in mid-air once it reached 500mph for a few moments? But no, of course, planes are never designed to push the envelope in emergency situations.... right?

reply to post by ANOK


Sorry....you are out of your league, here!! You have no idea how to fly, it is painfully obvious:

More pressure is produced under the wings making the plane want to climb. The pilot has to fight against the planes desire to climb. At 500mph the pilot would be having to push the stick all the way forward to keep the nose level, that would make it very difficult to hold straight and level, and make it very vulnerable to a stall.

No, not "all the way forward" on the control wheel, it would not be necessary at all.

Ever heard of "elevator trim"? Or, in the case of large jets, "Stabilizer trim". Same effect, same principle, just a slightly different way to achieve it.

Go take a few flying lessons, won't you??

Oh, and especially this last bit:

....and make it very vulnerable to a stall.

Doubtful you understand what a "stall" actually is. Not based on that sentence.

Originally posted by ANOK

At 500mph the pilot would be having to push the stick all the way forward to keep the nose level, that would make it very difficult to hold straight and level, and make it very vulnerable to a stall.

This is so ignorant it hilarious. There's that masochistic streak again that's causing these posts on subject about which you have so clue. Proud Bird already mentioned it......it's called elevator or stabilizer trim..... I guess those are not a part of your WWII fighter game.... You obviously don't know what a stall of any kind is based on this comment...

Originally posted by ANOK
Big planes don't react immediately to input, at 500mph by the time the pilot has thought about maneuvering it's too late. One mistake would be the end.

So flying fast at low altitude is dangerous. Who would've thunk it!

Originally posted by ANOK
Fighter planes have a different wing type. Passenger planes are designed to create maximum lift because they are heavy and do not need to be maneuverable like a fighter. The wings on a fighter are different, they're smaller and thinner, creating less drag and lift.

Again, an ignorant statement. Not all fighter wings are thin and small. It's the relationship of the wing to the weight of the aircraft that is most important for optimum low altitude flying. It's call "wing loading". High wing loaded aircraft are more suitable for low altitude flight simply because they are less sensitive to turbulence. BTW, it was a nice rather cool fall day on 9/11/2001 so wing loading on the 757 was not a huge factor..

Originally posted by ANOK

In aerodynamics, wing loading is the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing.[1] The faster an aircraft flies, the more lift is produced by each unit area of wing, so a smaller wing can carry the same weight in level flight, operating at a higher wing loading.

secure.wikimedia.org...

Wow! You can post links! However, you obviously don't know how to apply the information to the real world...

Originally posted by ANOK
Dave you act like this expert on all and everything 911, and you fail to understand really basic aerodynamic principles.

Counseling someone after you've been exposed as ignorant in the subject matter is not a smart thing to do... You'll get caught....

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

Well, depends on what you are referring to as the "nosecone". The composite cap that is mounted to the forward bulkhead of the nose section, OR if you are referring TO the nose section itself. Quite likely that pieces of the composite cap stuck around until what was left of the nose section punched out into the drive. Either way, its like arguing if a handgun with 10 rounds pointed at your heart is more dangerous than a handgun with 5 rounds. In the end, it doesnt really matter. The photos of the wreckage show pieces of the nose gear and cockpit lying just outside of the "punch out" hole. Does it really matter if the entirity of the composite nosecap made it all the way through the building?

"It doesn't really matter"??

I'm not referring to anything. The FBI at the Massaoui trial, a military witness/survivor and a government "scientist" all identified it as a "nosecone".

A previous poster told me that the entire vertical stabilizer was "smashed to smithereens" (words to that effect), yet made no marks on the facade (admitted by the ASCE Report)
We are shown anonymous, undated, unverified photos of unidentified scrap that is purported to come from the 12 ton engine.
Yet you don't raise an eyebrow that the alleged nosecone smashed its way through the perimeter wall (reinforced), the second floor slab, columns and the "punch out hole" and remain in recognizable form?

I ask again. Really? How was this physically possible?

Please don't post childish remarks or irrelevant analogies.

10 pages and alleged "skeptics" want to talk about anything but the NOC testimony.

Stay on topic and post the OCT path "witnesses" to counter them please.

And for those arguing that speeds of 500mph are possible at low altitude..







Here's a pilot forum that's not P4911T to explain it for you

www.pprune.org...

Later

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Oh dear....oh dear, oh dear.....LOL!

Not again!! It's the "Attack Of The Killer Vg Diagram!!!"

(I see someone who is far too influenced by the baloney dripping over at P$911T, as you wrote it...I use "PfT").

Let me help.....Oh, and about PPRuNe? The link you gave to that particular page was the ONLY one where anyone bothered to entertain that nonsense....and, note the account name used by the person who posted it?

"RalphTheMouth" That is either Rob Balsamo himself (founder and really all that "is" PfT), or possibly might be one of his acolytes. Because, the altered (very colorful) one was created by none other than Balsamo.

He found it from (most likely) the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, published by the FAA(**) here in the USA. He altered a Vg Diagram that is designed to reflect a typical small airplane, by simply re-labeling the airspeeds along the bottom.

~~~(**)Here, the link takes you to the latest version....the same (original) chart is found on page 4-33...however, in the latest update from FAA the graphics and colors are a bit different. Older versions of the book (check in a library) will show the older version of the diagram......

Pssst: Also at PPRuNe, note the responses....quite hilarious:

"Taking a generic Vg diagram and adding numbers does not make it a 767 Vg diagram. A Vg diagram is produced from aero data for specific altitudes and weights. You took a generic Vg diagram, erased the legends and added your own legends erroneously. "

And,

"It was faked to fool people. It is not a 767 Vg diagram. What weight and altitude is the Vg diagram for? Right, it is a fake diargram made up to fool people, done by a conspracy theoriests on 911. He took a generic Vg diagram and place a new axis on, the scale is off. "

____________________________


Problem for him is....it is irrelevant to large commercial jets in the "Transport" category that are certificated to FAR Part 25 standards. Many other criteria are more applicable than a simplistic "Vg Diagram". Here, it is a similar representation (and generic), but a bit more complex: www.flightsimaviation.com...

It speaks to the lack of intellectual honesty (or, aviation expertise and knowledge) contained within the gentleman's brain, however.


In any event, using the brightly colorful version is far more visually "impactful" (pun)...and much 'hay' was made about the "Red Zone"! (Cue dramatic music: Dun, Dun, Dunnhhh!) As if entry into any portion of that part of the Flight Envelope would result in an "immediate" crash, or "total" structural failure...or, some such nonsense.

"Structural" failure can be anything from an access panel coming off, or a fairing, etc. Or even, such permanent "bending" of the some structure to the point where either extensive repairs are required, or the airplane is "written off" to the insurance company.

Anyway, the "Vg Diagram" depicts, for the aspiring pilot who is learning, or just wishes to refresh his knowledge, the concept of "Maneuvering Speed" or Va for smaller airplanes. The "Handbook" is geared to those sorts of pilots.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

That was quite a debate, if one wants to call it that. I once thought Mr. Summers did a great job with his research. It was sad to hear him and the host fumble so much against someone who is claimed to be a nutter. I must admit Mr. Ranke did an excellent job.

To ProudBird,

You may want to read the other reply posts at pprune.

if you can get the the following data you can draw it

Vs1, Vmo, design limit load; you can draw it

www.pprune.org...

The diagram is not "fake". It is clearly plotted using the Speeds as set by Boeing input into a typical Flight Envelope. You can make your own if you know the speeds.

www.pprune.org...


I think I would rather listen to the pilots over there who have more than 2 posts unlike the person you sourced who appparently has some sort of agenda.