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

Originally posted by ANOK

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.

Now you're simply just making things up unrepentently as you go along. These aren't world war one biplanes where controls are operated by foot pedals and kite string. Everything is fly by wire, meaning they're computer operated. Pressing the stick forward means a descent of altitude regardless of what speed the craft is traveling, otherwise according to you, any craft flying at a constant cruise speed of 500 mph would eventually fly into outer space.

..and just what do you consider to be "the end"? It was the hijacker's goal to crash the plane into the Pentagon. That's about as much of "the end" as "the end" can get.

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

Yeah, they're all dead. Real lucky.

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.

You're changing your story now. Bernoulli's principle still applies regardless of the shape of the wing, and if the conspiracy mongors are claiming that flying so close to the ground causes some magical interruption of Bernoulli's principle then Bernoulli's principle is going to be magically interrupted regardless of the shape of the wing. Physics have to apply to your conspiracy stories just as it applies to everyone else.

How about THIS video? The deck of an aircraft carrier would cause the same magical interruption of Bernoulli's principle that an open field would have. I don't see any magical interruption, do you?



Did it ever occur to you that if you have to resort to such absurdity as microanalyzing the laws of aerodynamics to find hints of this imagined conspiracy you're "so sure" has to be there, that it's less the case there's some secret conspiracy afoot and it's more the case of extreme desperation on your part? Why not argue over the color of the shoelaces Norm Mineta was wearing on 9/11, while you're at it?

pteridine,

Thanks for the question.

Here is the simple and appropriate answer.

The conservation of Energy"

According to the laws of thermodynamics and laws of motion you can not have more energy at the end of the equation than you had at the beginning of the equation.

Proudbird mentioned kinetic energy earlier.

Energy can change state but it can not be destroyed or created.

When an aircraft hits a building the amount of destruction is directly proportional to the speed of the aircraft, the mass of the aircraft, the amount and type of fuel, the amount of air available for combustion and the potential energy in the structure.

How exactly a building reacts is very hard to predict but the energy involved is not hard to calculate. In fact it is as simple as anything can be.

In the case of the destruction of the three main buildings in New York it is clear as a bell that the energy evident in the form of destruction is enourmous compared to the the energy available at the moment before the destruction began.

Two aircraft, fire and the potential energy of three large buildings standing straigh up can not explain steel beams shot out horizontally, virtual complete pulverizing of concrete and molten metal that stayed molten for weeks afterward.

In the case of the Pentagon you have the opposite case. Way too little destruction considering the official story's account for the speed and mass of the aircraft involved.

If anyone who posts here can honestly say that took a university level physics course and is willing to argue about this basic reality then they are a victim of some sort of ideology because science will not be able to support what they claim.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by BRAVO949

 

Many talk about the "laws of physics" being violated and complain that others don't understand the "laws of physics." Then, we read that three buildings falling from two aircraft impacts and uncontrolled fires are just not possible because it just couldn't happen and the "laws of physics" would have to be violated for that to happen.

What has never been explained is what "laws of physics" would have been violated? Given that there is no evidence for any other cause of collapse, what is your theory?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Pressing the stick forward means a descent of altitude regardless of what speed the craft is traveling, otherwise according to you, any craft flying at a constant cruise speed of 500 mph would eventually fly into outer space.

At cruising altitude the air is much thinner, so 500mph will create less lift than at ground level.

Aerodynamics work the same way regardless of how the flaps are operated.

Again a very simple principle that you fail to understand.

..and just what do you consider to be "the end"? It was the hijacker's goal to crash the plane into the Pentagon. That's about as much of "the end" as "the end" can get.

The end of the plane because any mistake would make it uncontrollable, and would have crashed before it could hit the pentagon.

Yeah, they're all dead. Real lucky.

No, lucky they hit the target.

You're changing your story now. Bernoulli's principle still applies regardless of the shape of the wing, and if the conspiracy mongors are claiming that flying so close to the ground causes some magical interruption of Bernoulli's principle then Bernoulli's principle is going to be magically interrupted regardless of the shape of the wing. Physics have to apply to your conspiracy stories just as it applies to everyone else.

Changing what story?

Here is a beautifully simple and powerful result: The lift is equal to the airspeed, times the circulation, times the density of the air, times the span of the wing. This is called the Kutta-Zhukovsky theorem.12

Lift = airspeed × circulation × density × span (3.9)

www.av8n.com...

Wing size, altitude, and airspeed effect the lift.

There are several things that effect the amount of lift created. The first is speed, the faster the wing moves through the air the more air is forced over and under the wing, therefore the more lift is created. Another thing that effects the amount of lift created is the density of the air. The denser the air is the more lift is produced. This is why planes climb better in the winter, the colder air is denser. The final thing that can change the amount of lift created by the wing is the shape of the wing. Certain wings produce more lift.

library.thinkquest.org...

I don't care about your video, I am tired of explaining why you're misunderstanding this.

reply to post by BRAVO949


I assume that you have calculated the potential energy stored in the building. Once destabilized, the collapse is driven by the mass of the building accelerating due to gravity. The columns splaying outward are the result of the building structure; if it were framed differently it would have collapsed differently....or not at all. Additionally, the caloric value of the combustible contents of the building is also very large and would have fueled the underground fires that burned for weeks.

You are not totally wrong and at least you are not rude but...

I did not calculate the potential energy of the building but I could and you could and anyone could.

Let me respond to your phrase "Once destabilized", if you don't mind.

I know exactly what you mean but engineers and scientists have to be much more specific than that in explaining the destruction of what were the two tallest buildings in the world are the time (weren't they?).

"Once destabilized" does not simply mean a kid kicked the base of the building, the building was destabilized and fell down like a drunk official story supporter.

"Destabilized" when it comes to one of the WTC buildings means that a greater force had to be applied to the building than the potential energy holding it together or holding it up.

The amount of energy of the official story's aircraft was not anywhere even near the amount of energy required to match the potential energy holding the building together.

Think of it this way.

Take a .303 and fire it at fence post.

It will tear a chunk out of the wood or put a hole through it but it will not knock the post over.

The slug had loads of energy but not enough energy to shred the whole post or cut it in two.

The aircraft / WTC equation is not like setting up domino tiles and flicking one to cause all the rest to fall over.

The two towers were just shreded to hell as though they were ground up by a huge machine.

They did not fall down if you look at the video. They did not burn down or melt down either. They blow out horizontally and came crashing down.

The vidoes show clearly that "energy" was being added to the destruction each moment of the virtual free-fall event.

Way, way more enrgy than the energy that was held in the towers as potential energy in the form of mass ready to be accererated by gravity as you mentioned.

Can you appreciate that aspect of what I am saying?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by BRAVO949

 

I assume that you have calculated the potential energy stored in the building. Once destabilized, the collapse is driven by the mass of the building accelerating due to gravity. The columns splaying outward are the result of the building structure; if it were framed differently it would have collapsed differently....or not at all. Additionally, the caloric value of the combustible contents of the building is also very large and would have fueled the underground fires that burned for weeks.

reply to post by pteridine

the collapse is driven by the mass of the building accelerating due to gravity.

Then please explain from the beginning of the onset collapse why are we witnessing steel beams and support columns being blasted over 500 feet in every direction?

reply to post by BRAVO949


It is so difficult to let this sort of nonsense go unchallenged. It is Just. Flat. Wrong.

A large passenger jet can not "fly" at even 400 mph at light post altitude.

Probably not even close to 300 mph.

The huge high-bypass engines would stall dead as a door nail if the wings we still attached, that is.

Even if the plane could physically fly at 300 mph 100 feet off the ground - no one - not even a computer could control the aircraft.

Hilariously wrong. Not even close to being accurate. The claims that the engines could not operate at high airspeeds? Wrong.

This Boeing 757 is flying at 350 knots!!!:

This Boeing 757-200 of No.40 Squadron, Royal New Zealand Air Force, is performing a 350 knot pass at 100 ft, before displaying the 757's awesome power-to-weight ratio with a 45 degree climb out to 7,500ft. The video was taken at RNZAF Base Whenuapai, Auckland, New Zealand.

So, that claim is busted.

What's next, let's see....Oh:

Even if the plane could physically fly at 300 mph 100 feet off the ground - no one - not even a computer could control the aircraft.

OK...so, why should anything written in your post about flying jets be taken seriously??

Like, this one:

A large passenger jet can not "fly" at even 400 mph at light post altitude.

(See above....if you can't understand that going from 350 knots to 400 is not much of a differnce, then maybe an airline pilot career isn't the right choice, if you were thinking of going that route).

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Completely worthless, and deceptive video:

Did you watch the "WTC 9/11 - Controlability" video linked to? The proven limitations of a 757?

(Also, nowhere in the video does it mention the 757 limitations, at all).

The silly analogy to driving a car through a Jiffy Lube? Comedy gold, thanks as always to our intrepid narrator, and agent provocateur of PfT.....the Rob Balsamo. Still pushing the same lies.

The "Revolution Radio" interview is also very old news.....and, based on MY experiences in a simulator....a total crock of [snip]. The guys (was it at America West? I forget) that claimed they had to "slow down to approach speeds" to hit the WTC Towers, that is ridiculous. I'd go as far as to say the pilot (sim instructor) being interviewed in the audio clip is lying, as a shill for the PfT crowd.

A Dutch TV documentary show called "Zembla" in 2006 did an hour's worth about the Pentagon in particular, and the many silly "conspiracy" claims, such as that appallingly bad piece of junk "Loose Change".

Two of the show's segments from YouTube, below. (In Dutch, with English subtitles). This Part opens with clips from "Loose Change", and narrator Dylan Avery's voice, telling lies and exaggerating as usual....saying it was a "330° turn at 530 miles per hour"... It was NOT at that airspeed, during the turn. He lies a lot more, in his lousy film.

The part about flying a jet simulator by a fairly inexperienced Private Pilot begins at 12:40 below......:

Part 2:



....and, Part 3 is the continuation, after the simulator experiment with the conclusions drawn:



Also, from the "PfT" 'Controllability' nonsense, the computer graphic showing the 767 in New York wallowing all over the sky is pathetically wrong. The strawman assertions of the "25' margin for error" is also ridiculous.

I'd bet you (using that video's car analogy again) that you could drive your car at high speed into an obstruction, like a bridge abutment, that was actually narrower than your car, and still be able to hit it dead on.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

Um, no, the NOC has been addressed in this thread. Nice try.

Um, no, nobody has offered any witness who contradicts the NOC testimony.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Uhhhh, Again, How's "Operation Accountability" going? I'm on pins and needles waiting to hear about that critical operation?

Originally posted by BRAVO949

"Destabilized" when it comes to one of the WTC buildings means that a greater force had to be applied to the building than the potential energy holding it together or holding it up.

The amount of energy of the official story's aircraft was not anywhere even near the amount of energy required to match the potential energy holding the building together.

Think of it this way.

Take a .303 and fire it at fence post.

It will tear a chunk out of the wood or put a hole through it but it will not knock the post over.

The slug had loads of energy but not enough energy to shred the whole post or cut it in two.

The aircraft / WTC equation is not like setting up domino tiles and flicking one to cause all the rest to fall over.

The two towers were just shreded to hell as though they were ground up by a huge machine.

They did not fall down if you look at the video. They did not burn down or melt down either. They blow out horizontally and came crashing down.

The vidoes show clearly that "energy" was being added to the destruction each moment of the virtual free-fall event.

Way, way more enrgy than the energy that was held in the towers as potential energy in the form of mass ready to be accererated by gravity as you mentioned.

Can you appreciate that aspect of what I am saying?

Firing a .303 into a fence post [you wouldn't happen to be somewhere in the old British empire?] is not a good analogy for an aircraft striking a building.

The structure of the building is what has some confused about the "exploding" building. The floor trusses connecting the core to the outer columns are the only thing keeping the outer columns from peeling away and breaking apart as they fall. As the building collapsed, the small bolts holding the floor to the outer columns sheared and what was seen was the outer columns peeling away and breaking apart as they fell.
The energy being added was the energy of each additional floor as the building collapsed.

Can you show your calculations regarding that "way more energy" statement.

reply to post by pteridine

As the building collapsed, the small bolts holding the floor to the outer columns sheared and what was seen was the outer columns peeling away and breaking apart as they fell.
The energy being added was the energy of each additional floor as the building collapsed.

Can you show your calculations regarding that "way more energy" statement

So in a nutshell your saying that everyone eyes are deceiving them accept yours.
You are claiming that the “outer columns were just peeling away and breaking apart as they fell.”
Yet we all see something else, we don’t see a building just falling down, we see steel beams being blasted from every floor over 500 feet in every direction, care to explain why you do not see this?
Perhaps you would care to explain why would WTC 1&2 have steel beams hurling over 500 feet outwards in every direction just on a normal collapse?

Since your “opinion” is no demolition was used and you argue everything BUT demolition or explosions I would love to see you show your science to support your theory?

reply to post by impressme


A steel beam, ended up 500 feet away from a building that was 1100 feet high, and which videos show large sections of the building falling like a felled tree......gee I wonder.............

Thoughts anyone?

reply to post by impressme


I do not argue for demolition because there is no evidence of demolition.

reply to post by pteridine

I do not argue for demolition because there is no evidence of demolition.

Well science disagrees with you.

Your whole theory cannot stand up to any science and to believe in your conspiracy theory one has to toss out simple logic.
You say there is no evidence of demolition yet no one has investigated demolition, so I would love to see this credible source that debunkers are putting their faith into?
I also asked you a question to show your science proving a natural collapse and don’t waste your time showing me NIST pseudo-science, experts in their field have written plenty of technical papers proving NIST report is a fraud and is seriously flawed.

reply to post by impressme


There is no evidence of demolitions.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by impressme

 

There is no evidence of demolitions.

edit on 11/17/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)

There is also an extreme lack of evidence that planes and fire caused the floors to pancake (even NIST agrees with that lol).

So where does that leave us eh?

With questions that still need answering. Like how did the towers collapse with no slowing of the collapse wave as energy was converted to deformation, sound, heat etc.

Questions like how did WTC 7 fall mostly in its own footprint from fires and asymmetrical damage?

(and no, I am not interested in your answers to those rhetorical questions pter because you don't have the answers)

reply to post by pteridine

There is no evidence of demolitions.

edit on 11/17/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)

Your “assumptions” are completely false. There are eyewitnesses that know what an explosion is since they have some training in fighting fires.
Just because the fraudulent NIST report made the claim that there is no evidence of demolition doesn’t mean they are right.
NIST admitted publicly that they NEVER looked into investigating demolition, perhaps they were ordered from the White House not to discuss demolition and try to sell science to the public showing how the WTC pancaked, however their pseudo-science fell slap apart when experts started to scrutinizes their work.

The fact is the only thing that can “scientifically explain” the demise of the WTC is demolition and nothing else. Furthermore you have no science to support your conspiracy theory.

118 Witnesses:
The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers

www.journalof911studies.com...

Why can nobody explain tome what should have happened to the plane when it exceeded its VMO or whatever it's called?

If I stole a plane and tried to fly it into the Sears tower at that speed what would happen? Would I veer off and crash into the ground? Shoot up in the air? Would the plane fall apart instantly?

As for the columns at the WTC blasting 500 feet, everybody knows that they fell into their footprint. That's how we know it was a demo!