THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby simonshack on Fri Feb 06, 2015 2:49 am

Boethius wrote:
So there it is. A giant plane going as fast as it possibly can is only about as good as a few sticks of dynamite.


:lol: Excellent, Boethius. Love your way of 'simplifying the absurdity' of it all... If any airplane could make a 100+storey skyscraper collapse from top to toe - this would be the cheapest way of demolishing ANY old high-rise building! No need for expensive / expert dynamite demolition crews. Just throw an old airplane into the building, et voilà : skyscraper neatly crumbles down in cloud of dust!

As for your calculations, I will double-check them just for fun - but at first sight - they sound quite sound and reasonable to me. <_<
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby Boethius on Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:30 pm

simonshack wrote:
Boethius wrote:
So there it is. A giant plane going as fast as it possibly can is only about as good as a few sticks of dynamite.


:lol: Excellent, Boethius. Love your way of 'simplifying the absurdity' of it all... If any airplane could make a 100+storey skyscraper collapse from top to toe - this would be the cheapest way of demolishing ANY old high-rise building! No need for expensive / expert dynamite demolition crews. Just throw an old airplane into the building, et voilà : skyscraper neatly crumbles down in cloud of dust!

As for your calculations, I will double-check them just for fun - but at first sight - they sound quite sound and reasonable to me. <_<


There's a reason cannon shells explode. The force of a chemical reaction such as nitroglycerine is many orders of magnitude more powerful than the physical collision of an object of the same mass. But we are to believe that the Arab world, even someone as rich as Bin Laden, can do no better than use a technique from the 15th century. They can fly airplanes but can't do first year college physics. Ah, the mystery of billionaire, backwards towel heads living in caves.

Why didn't they charter a private plane from Teterboro, load it with dynamite and slam it into the towers? Were they throwing empty trash cans at Soviets tanks in Afghanistan?
Boethius
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby brianv on Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:39 pm

These are the exact same arguments I put forward, minus the math, at Prof Jim Fetzer's "Scholars for 911" in the beginning, and was ridiculed. Don't forget Boethius, that an airplane can travel nowhere near it's max cruising speed of 500 MPH at sea level practically. I argued that the airplane would have been crushed like a dime. Since "the airplane hit the building at 200mph", it follows that the building hit the airplane at 200mph.

Who was asking about germanium fuzz ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkpaj7-gr9k B)
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby Boethius on Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:51 pm

Once more into this silliness:

One of the twin towers weighs 750,000 tons
One Soviet T-90 tank weighs 50 tons

Weight of 767 airplane = 180,000 kg = 180 tons

Airplane weighs .00024 of one tower

What is .00024 of a T-90?

12 kg or 25 pounds

Here's a picture of a 25 pound aluminum cylinder.
Image


Here's a T-90
Image

given that an airplane vs. one of the Twin Towers is equivalent to a garbage can vs. the tank, do you think people who had been fighting against the T-90 in Afghanistan would have used an airplane to attack a massive object? The same way the garbage can crumples against the tank, the airplane would crumple against the tower. The planes would have never had a chance to explode inside the building because like the trash can against the T-90, they would have never penetrated the skin.
Boethius
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby brianv on Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:16 pm

Not one of the so called professors tackled this simple problem. The Woods and the Fetzers, it's as plain as the noses on their lying faces, that their task was to lead us away from this simplest of flaws in the physics of the cartoon that aired.

Have you seen the Purdue simulation Boethius?


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8
Last edited by brianv on Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: typo
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby smarterthantheythink on Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:39 pm

brianv wrote:It is with great sadness that I will no longer be participating in cluesforum. I have asked Simon to delete my account here.

Good Luck

Please, pardon my interruption.

While I offer nothing to this forum, I do gain a great deal and have the utmost respect for all of you and the tireless work you put into your research. Brilliant minds here.

I was shocked and saddened by your sudden exit, as I bet others were. I just wanted to say that I'm delighted that you are back Brianv and didn't leave forever.

To me, you're almost like the big brother, protector if you will, to Simon, Hoi, and the rest of the forum ... you don't take any shit and that's admirable.

Welcome back! I read daily, I missed you and I'm sure I'm not alone.
smarterthantheythink
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:12 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby bostonterrierowner on Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:16 pm

Deleted. Posted by mistake

p.s.

Good to see you back Brianv. Hope you haven't been "Michael J. Foxed" :)
bostonterrierowner
Member
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby brianv on Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:21 pm

@smarter That's very...touching, thank you!

bostonterrierowner wrote:
Good to see you back Brianv. Hope you haven't been "Michael J. Foxed" :)


Of course it's fuckin' me...and to be honest, I was getting a bit worried about you! :P
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby scud on Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:56 pm

Boethius wrote:
1 Boeing 767 going 500 mph creates a force of .00048 tons of TNT or .48 kg or 2.5 sticks of dynamite

So there it is. A giant plane going as fast as it possibly can is only about as good as a few sticks of dynamite.


I make it just over one ton of TNT.

500 mp/h = approx’ 225 meters per second.
180,000 Kg = 180,000,000 grams.
Shove these two figures (grams and meters per sec') into the second column of this calc'... http://billstclair.com/energy.html
..gives us 4,567,182,415 joules which according to this converter...http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm equates to 1.091 tons explosive.

The two are not really comparable though as the TNT would deliver all its energy much quicker (thus with far more damage) than our fictitious kinetic equivalent.

Anyways, I thought it might be fun to see how much kinetic energy the ‘ISS’ would possess using the two tools linked above.

Speed 7,660 meters per second.

Mass 419,455 kilograms (419,455,000 grams).

Result... 12,342,484,964,129 Joules = 2,949.9 tons of explosive! Hmm, perhaps interesting to see if we could calculate total energy expenditure of all the supposed ‘launches’ that have been required to date to achieve this outlandish :P figure...just to be sure we’re not getting ‘over unity’ (free energy).

Here’s a 100 ton ammo dump exploding...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0NG5LOJawU
scud
Member
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby brianv on Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:24 pm

scud wrote:Boethius wrote:
1 Boeing 767 going 500 mph creates a force of .00048 tons of TNT or .48 kg or 2.5 sticks of dynamite

So there it is. A giant plane going as fast as it possibly can is only about as good as a few sticks of dynamite.


I make it just over one ton of TNT.



Would that be if the mass was uniform? A block of Steel against a "small" impact area? Think wrecking ball! Not a soft bodied irregular shaped object hitting a wide span of denser material. Remember the only real weight in the plane is it's still-running engines which would have snapped off by the forces in the first instant!

How would a soft body airplane fare in this "1 Ton of TNT" impact? Would it disintegrate in a microsecond? Or would it continue flying through the building just missing Stanley under his desk and then vacate through the rear exit? And what would become of the fuel in this hypothetical impact, wouldn't it vapourise in the same instant?

Maths Question : Wouldn't the same impact be shared by both objects?
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby Boethius on Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:08 pm

scud wrote:Boethius wrote:
1 Boeing 767 going 500 mph creates a force of .00048 tons of TNT or .48 kg or 2.5 sticks of dynamite

So there it is. A giant plane going as fast as it possibly can is only about as good as a few sticks of dynamite.


I make it just over one ton of TNT.

500 mp/h = approx’ 225 meters per second.
180,000 Kg = 180,000,000 grams.
Shove these two figures (grams and meters per sec') into the second column of this calc'... http://billstclair.com/energy.html
..gives us 4,567,182,415 joules which according to this converter...http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm equates to 1.091 tons explosive.

The two are not really comparable though as the TNT would deliver all its energy much quicker (thus with far more damage) than our fictitious kinetic equivalent.

Anyways, I thought it might be fun to see how much kinetic energy the ‘ISS’ would possess using the two tools linked above.

Speed 7,660 meters per second.

Mass 419,455 kilograms (419,455,000 grams).

Result... 12,342,484,964,129 Joules = 2,949.9 tons of explosive! Hmm, perhaps interesting to see if we could calculate total energy expenditure of all the supposed ‘launches’ that have been required to date to achieve this outlandish :P figure...just to be sure we’re not getting ‘over unity’ (free energy).

Here’s a 100 ton ammo dump exploding...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0NG5LOJawU



You are off by a factor of 9.8 on the mass of the airplane. You must divide weight by 9.8 to find mass

And when you calculate force the mass is in kg not g.

Do you really think an airplane crash equals 1 Ton of TNT? If that were the case every plane crash would leave a 50-foot crater.
Boethius
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby Boethius on Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:23 pm

Back to the subject of a plane crashing with a force of, let's say 4,000,000 N

The facade of the Twin Towers probably had a tensile strength of no better than 0.2 MPa which means 200,000 N per square meter is all it can take. A plane crash clearly shears off the facade.

The steel columns and reinforced concrete has as tensile strength of 200 Mpa and will not budge when hit by a plane.

A plane hits a tower and the facade peels off.

What happens to the plane? It must absorb 2,000,000 N of force as well. While aluminum itself may be very strong, the structure of the airplane, a hollow tube is very weak, like a car with front-end impact zones, the top of the airplane will crumple while the steel rod beneath it will shatter upon meeting the towers internal structure. I need to look into the properties of a giant aluminum tube but I feel it will show it to be an incredibly weak structure that cannot absorb much force.
Boethius
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby Boethius on Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:40 pm

Here's a video of a B-52 going nose first into the ground. You can clearly see how the plane disintegrates upon impact.
The explosion is the fuel and not the force of the impact.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=182AepOJjMs
Boethius
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby scud on Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:59 pm

Do you really think an airplane crash equals 1 Ton of TNT? If that were the case every plane crash would leave a 50-foot crater.


Image
scud
Member
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby brianv on Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:27 pm

scud wrote:
Do you really think an airplane crash equals 1 Ton of TNT? If that were the case every plane crash would leave a 50-foot crater.


Image


Where's the airplane?

This is a media image from the "Lockerbie" scam, not a great scientific example by any means.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests