THE "CHATBOX"

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby scud on Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:53 pm

No, you’re right Brian. Though it is true to say that an aircraft moving at the advertised total speed and weight equates to a certain amount of energy it would in no way mean that it had the same destructive capabilities as something ‘designed’ for the purpose. For instance, another equivalent that I made this afternoon with the two calculators is that my car only needs to be traveling at just over walking pace to equal the muzzle energy of a .50 BMG bullet (don’t think I need to mention which of the two I’d rather be hit with).

To take it to an extreme we could have the same mass and speed of ‘aircraft’ advertised by 911 inc’ but made out of expanded styrofoam. For sure, it would be a hell of a lot bigger but its overall energy upon impact would be the same....would a giant Styrofoam 767 moving at 500mph damage the WTC?

There’s no doubt that materials of a softer composition can damage materials of greater density / hardness if impacted at sufficient velocity. For instance lead / copper jacketed bullets fired close range from a comparatively low powered handgun will easily pass through a steel car door. But there again, bullets are designed to do this...not a huge amount of overall energy but concentrated onto a very small area (like 9mm diameter) and it’s gonna take a substantial piece of armour to stop it.

Is a 767 designed for destructive purposes? You know, like a bullet? Nah...course it isn’t. IMOH, against a steel and concrete skyscraper It should realistically have been the proverbial pillow case.
scud
Member
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby Boethius on Sat Feb 07, 2015 2:30 am

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


First of all, that's not a crater, it's some loose soil scooped out.

Secondly, until you figure out the difference between weight and mass I advise you to remove yourself from scientific discussion.
Boethius
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sat Feb 07, 2015 2:34 am

Woah, now. Our scud is a good scientist, normally. He keeps abreast of a lot of different things from all over the place. Just in case you thought he might be a shill. I really don't think he is. He helped us start a lot of good questions.

So anyway, let's realize we agree the official story is insane. If we're going to debate just how insane and try to quantify it against a realistic scenario, let us also recognize it is a complex topic. It deserves time and patience. I trust scud is coming at this from a good place, and so is Boethius.

We all agree about this, let us celebrate that!

Let us not divide ourselves over the physics. Simon and I are still going to look at our own numbers of this. Whatever proof we come up with is still just an opinion about an obvious hoax. I also think scud may be onto something — there must be a simple transformation model for velocity; molecules imbued with enough kinetic energy take time to shed it as they encounter/collide with the energy of other materials. It might ultimately not add up to much, and it definitely wouldn't explain the absurd fake videos of "impacts", so let us take comfort in the notion that we are now simply discussing what we might use against future PsyOps.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby Maat on Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:24 am

Hey Brian, just remembered this oldie for some reason :D


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mCHhXUtcWw
Maat
Member
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby Boethius on Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:25 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Woah, now. Our scud is a good scientist, normally. He keeps abreast of a lot of different things from all over the place. Just in case you thought he might be a shill. I really don't think he is. He helped us start a lot of good questions.

So anyway, let's realize we agree the official story is insane. If we're going to debate just how insane and try to quantify it against a realistic scenario, let us also recognize it is a complex topic. It deserves time and patience. I trust scud is coming at this from a good place, and so is Boethius.

We all agree about this, let us celebrate that!

Let us not divide ourselves over the physics. Simon and I are still going to look at our own numbers of this. Whatever proof we come up with is still just an opinion about an obvious hoax. I also think scud may be onto something — there must be a simple transformation model for velocity; molecules imbued with enough kinetic energy take time to shed it as they encounter/collide with the energy of other materials. It might ultimately not add up to much, and it definitely wouldn't explain the absurd fake videos of "impacts", so let us take comfort in the notion that we are now simply discussing what we might use against future PsyOps.


Quite a double standard you got there, Hoi. You're so careful about grammar, spelling and punctuation. So worried about how this forum might appear to outsiders yet when someone makes a scientific error anyone who has taken High School physics would avoid, you want to give them a break.

If we calculate force in grams of weight instead of kilograms of mass we look ridiculous to anyone with a scientific background.

Many of these hoaxes are exposed through the science behind them but few people actively working in science dare to speak up because it would be a death sentence for their career. If you're trying to entice these people to break their silence and spill the beans, you're going to have to support a more rigorous standard of scientific discussion.
Boethius
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sat Feb 07, 2015 3:06 pm

I don't think I have a double standard, Boethius. I am just asking scud to demonstrate that he knows what he's talking about. Grammar is not the same as what we use the grammar to discuss.

Seems to me if scud doesn't have a response, you are sitting pretty on your maths, and we can rest assured you have the highest standard for scientific calculations of the non-impact. This is how I feel already, but again — the point of this site is to encourage everyone to research it for themselves. I think we will have a hard time doing much better than you have. Thank you indeed for raising the bar. All it took was a tiny amount of time out of your busy day, and it just makes it all the more evident to everyone that it's the lack of time given to research things for one's self that does the most to prop up the lies.

Let us give people that time.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby brianv on Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:29 pm

Derailing the Chatbox FFS. Wish I was a mod :ph34r:

Can we get back to the matter at hand. Maybe start a new thread.

And just to quickly reply to scud...or a question actually. Why is it when a "crashing airplane" is being discussed, people immediately start talking about armoured bullets and objects being fired from a gun? An airplane is an airplane - it's not a fucking armoured bullet and it's not a jack-hammer. It's a soft bodied blimp being held aloft by it's wings and sucked forward by it's engines.

"There’s no doubt that materials of a softer composition can damage materials of greater density / hardness if impacted at sufficient velocity."


Please give an example of this! Maybe punch the nearest wall as hard as you can, and report back to me!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby scud on Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:25 pm

Many thanks for your kind words Hoi and to reiterate, I’m not a physicist and have zero qualifications in the subject and perfectly willing to stand corrected should I post something that doesn’t make ‘scientific sense’.

Well, I apologise for posting that strange, Lockerbie trench scene as a response to ‘airplanes should make 50 ft craters if they carry as much energy as you say they do’...it was just meant to be a bit tongue in cheek sort of thing rather than facetious.

Anyways, not that it’s really all that important but I can’t quite see where I’ve fouled up by a factor of 9.8.

Ok, so here it is again -

We have an agreed velocity of 500 mp/h which is equal to 223.52 meters per second...
http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/conver ... locity.php

We have an agreed ‘weight’ of 180,000 kg which is exactly the same ‘weight’ as 180,000,000 grams (need to convert kilos to grams simply because the calculator doesn’t give us the option).

So, put these two figures into here... http://billstclair.com/energy.html and the result is
4,505,506,115 joules of energy.

Copy and paste that number into this guy... http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm and convert to ‘ton [explosive]’ and the figure is 1.076 tons.

I’m really not following this mass vs weight thing. Dunno, must have drifted off in class or something, but I’d genuinely like to have the error clearly explained, I mean the calculator itself doesn’t mention ‘mass’ just ‘weight’ also wiki describes the 767 has having a ‘maximum takeoff weight’... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767
Seems fair use of the word to me.

Brian wrote:
Why is it when a "crashing airplane" is being discussed, people immediately start talking about armoured bullets and objects being fired from a gun? An airplane is an airplane - it's not a fucking armoured bullet and it's not a jack-hammer. It's a soft bodied blimp being held aloft by it's wings and sucked forward by it's engines.


Brian, respects but I think that you may not have finished reading my previous post...

Is a 767 designed for destructive purposes? You know, like a bullet? Nah...course it isn’t. IMOH, against a steel and concrete skyscraper It should realistically have been the proverbial pillow case.
scud
Member
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby brianv on Sat Feb 07, 2015 6:42 pm

Yes, I did read all of your post! And you did not answer my question...with respect.

The reason I'm asking is because that was the same tactic employed by the SFT911 crowd, whenever the argument got around to the plane impact, all the whack jobs came out. One clown compared the airplane impact to a nail-gun. You see where this is going? A hollow plastic-cum-aluminum nail. POOF!

Another guy said "what about Martial Arts guys breaking planks of wood with their fists". I invited them to try it...as I'm inviting you.
I also enquired if it was a "Kung Fu" airplane. I think I was banned after that!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby scud on Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:29 pm

Here’s a potato going through the front of a car...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP8oCvacvAg

Potato = soft, car = hard. OK?
scud
Member
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby brianv on Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:05 pm

Jaysus if the IRA had known that - they could have just fired spuds at the brits all day instead of having to buy RPG7's from Colonel DaffyDuck.

IMO The point blank blast from the canon made the hole and the spud, if it was a spud and if the video is legit, passed through it. Just like how RPG7's work in fact.

Here again we have the nail-gun example!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:55 pm

Looks like a thin hollow wall of stronger metal versus a hefty solid concentrated chunk of potato, even if it is real.

I can drop a piece of bread through a sheet of tin foil, that doesn't mean my bread is going to destroy a can.

Not really comparable to a nearly hollow airliner hitting a thick wall of steel. Fire a wall of steel beams at an airplane and see if the airplane turns out alright, maybe?

It's an interesting point, though, scud. Have any formulas we can try to finagle into shape, particularly in regards to thicknesses and speeds?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby simonshack on Sun Feb 08, 2015 4:02 am

*
A sad event of the past - yet a useful one to our current discourse : Indycar smashes head-on into concrete wall at 200mph :


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEM6Z7IV0i4

As you can see, absolutely NOTHING goes through the wall. The entire car bounces back into the race track.

It's not like we have never seen fast vehicles impacting concrete (or steel) walls before. Walls tend to win.


This sort of steel structure would not allow any airplane wings to penetrate it - let alone carve a cartoon-style silhouette of themselves as shown on TV. Full stop. As simple as that. I find the 'scientific' debates about this rather ridiculous and boring. But maybe it's just me...

Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby Observer on Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:36 pm

The peacemaker in me wants to say, "Good humans Brian and Scud seem to me to be in full agreement about the the fact that wing entry was-and-is a TOTAL impossibility, they simply are getting pulled into a debate about the detailed calculations which attempt to quantify the DEGREE of absurdity of the agreed wing-entry impossibility."

Which is why I am glad to see your cool reply Simon, reminding us to zoom OUT for a moment away from debating the decimal places, and be strong in our Unity & Solidarity gained by the fact that EVERYONE here agrees that a real plane DEFINITELY would have had its wings broken right off. Period.

Since the wings didn't fall off in the videos, those videos are absolutely proven fakes, no detailed calculations needed, the mere fact that the videos show wings NOT breaking off and NOT falling down is ABSOLUTE proof all of the "plane" videos were forged, thus all the corresponding official videos from that day were forged, and thus all the corresponding "amateur" videos from the day are also forged, because they all claim the "plane" impossibility occurred.

And thus, as shocking as the enormousness of this war-initiating fraud was, the bottom line is that all of the videos depicting the towers being hit by "planes" and turning to dust soon after were ALL forged, while in fact: in the middle of an empty public-cleared-out Lower Manhattan, a normal demolition took place while all public on-lookers were trapped FAR AWAY, unable to see with their own eyes in this safe controlled demolition being obscured by military obscuration smoke, due to the surrounding waters and the police barricade all the way across 14th street at 7AM which people mistakenly remember as being implemented around 8AM, plus an EMP pulse thrown in for complete shutdown of video cameras, et voilà!

ZERO public witnesses to the safe controlled demolition (just a bunch of folks across the water who saw a bunch of smoke.)

7 billion witnesses to the video forgeries of planes with wings that don't break off and steel buildings that explode and eject steel beams which are shown to turn to dust while falling, all absolutely impossible, all absolutely forgeries."

I see Simon and all of the good humans here who announce to humanity, "These videos the government(s) keep showing us are fake!", to be as important to the SURVIVAL OF HUMANITY as the child who and saved all the townspeople by saying, "Hey everybody, open your eyes and admit it, the king is wearing no clothes! Why did we allow the town's taxes to have been stolen by this huge lie? Why did we believe these absurd justifications which fooled us into giving up our hard earned resources, which we saved up through decades of sweat and toil? Run the liars out of town! Wake up and don't let yourselves ever be fooled again by such absurd lies!"

Just as Voltaire said, "Imagine how many wars could have been prevented, if - when the first man in history ever to place four sticks in the ground and claim, 'From now on, the kilometers in-between thus belong to me, and you thus must pay me to walk through, or rest on the grass of, or eat the fruit from, this large area I just claimed as my own' - the people had replied how they SHOULD have replied: by laughing loudly in the face of such an absurd idea and running that absurd claimant out of town in exile for having committed such a fraudulent attempt at stealing from the rest of humanity what rightfully belongs to all individual humans to walk across and share equally and move about freely upon: The Earth."

So too, the same applies now, "Imagine how many wars can be prevented, from right now, 2015, if - each time fraudsters forge images claiming that 'Humans should allow millions of innocent people somewhere to be killed and to have their land stolen, as well as the constitutional rights of all humans being cancelled forever too" all based on some justification story being told using lies and forged images - the people will from 2015 reply how they SHOULD reply: by laughing loudly in the face of such an absurd idea and running those absurd claimants out of town in exile for having committed such a fraudulent attempt at stealing from the rest of humanity what rightfully belongs to all individual humans to walk across and share equally: Peace (meaning the absolute lack of government-paid-soldiers killing humans WHO ARE non-tried and thus literally innocent-of-murder, anywhere on Earth) and Constitutional Rights (meaning the right to do whatever you want to do AS LONG AS you cause damage to no other human, anywhere on Earth.)"

Oops, sorry for jumping in and posting this, I had planned to diligently remain silent for my first few months as a member, I guess I just kinda got overly excited by my ability to finally share a little summary of reality which I learned through the community sharing here. If posting the above was out of line please do feel free to delete it. Just some thoughts that arose in my mind and heart, in response to the above chatbox conversation. :-)



***********************


Slight correction, I wrote a sentence which was slightly incorrect and slightly unclear:

"all public on-lookers were trapped FAR AWAY, unable to see with their own eyes in this safe controlled demolition being obscured by military obscuration smoke, due to the surrounding waters and the police barricade all the way across 14th street at 7AM which people mistakenly remember as being implemented around 8AM, plus an EMP pulse thrown in for complete shutdown of video cameras, et voilà!"

I should have written the following sentence, to be more correct and more clear:

"all public on-lookers were trapped FAR AWAY, unable to see with their own eyes in this safe controlled demolition being obscured by military obscuration smoke, due to the surrounding waters and the police barricade all the way across 14th street* at 7:46AM** which people mistakenly remember as being implemented around 8:46AM, plus an EMP pulse thrown in for complete shutdown of video cameras, et voilà!"


* = 14th Street, or some line quite close to that, the point being that the pubic WAS completely evacuated by a police barricade line that pushed its way all the way as far north as around 14th street.

* = 7:46AM, or some time quite close to that, the point being that that police-military-drill-barricade-line-evacuation occurred at a time slightly BEFORE the 8:46AM forged-video-play-start-time on TV.
Observer
Banned
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread postby simonshack on Sun Feb 08, 2015 2:31 pm

Observer wrote: If posting the above was out of line please do feel free to delete it. Just some thoughts that arose in my mind and heart, in response to the above chatbox conversation. :-)


Oh, not at all, dear Observer - I'm not gonna delete any common sense from this forum!

Your above post comes as a most welcome breeze of fresh air, as far as I'm concerned. :)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests