You act as if the plane had no damage done to it when it hit the building. That’s not the case. You also act as if the pumpkin had no damage done to it. That is also not the case. That pumpkin was damaged by that impact. The plane was demolished by the impact. That doesn’t all of a sudden make those steel beams impervious to breaking at those speeds. You have nothing to base your idea of indestructibility of steel in the face of a a 500 mph 140 ton plane on. Please, do the math, figure out the tensile strength, figure out the impact force. Show me that twenty 1 ft thick steel beams can withstand even the wings of the plane at 500 mph. Please. You’ve shown NOTHING but conjecture and your preconceived notions of how strong steel I-beams are.
Here’s a picture of a B25 bomber which ran into the empire state building.
B52 bombers travel at 145 mph and are much smaller than the airliners which ran into the twin towers. And yet you see that it’s left wing went through one of the steel beams.
With the form of it’s tip intact? People seem to be missing that part. Also, what makes up that form is probably hardened, solid metal, while AFAIK a plane nose is an aluminum sheath under an inch thick. I haven’t seen the hard proof of physics simulations, but intuitively the deniers claims seem pretty absurd. Also, I don’t know that the videos I’ve seen are from legitimate sources, but as someone who has edited video/pictures, the effects are noticeably bad. Either way, it is documented that the US has performed false flag attacks already, not to mention large scale terror attacks (A-bomb), overthrowing governments, tested chemical and biological weapons deployment systems in all 50 states, etc.
So you are claiming that at an assumed speed of ,say, 500 mph, virtually any object, regardless of density, will penetrate multiple,1ft. thick steel girders, [including “soft lead/copper bullets”], correct?
The aluminum skin of a modern commercial aircraft is under 2mm thick. It is basically a hollow, flying aluminum tube. The nose cone is made of plastic.
A munitions shell, on the other hand, is , as you point out, a solid object - but by definition {ie the term"shell"}, unlike [solid] bullets, it also features an explosive tip.
From what I can gather,the erroneous comparison is between a solid shell with an exploding tip travelling in excess of 1000 mph, and a thin-skinned aluminum tube with a plastic nose travelling at, at most, 250 mph.[:)]
E. R. Olovetto: “I haven’t seen the hard proof of physics simulations,”
Fortunately for you such simulations are not even necessary. Simple logic will suffice.
Just as the theories and conclusions of Austrian economics rely on simple logic for the most part, simple logic based on principles of basic Newtonian physics is all that is needed to understand that no planes hit the towers.
If you are interested in this, I’d be happy to try to demonstrate for you, just let me know.
No offense, but I am not really, besides maybe 20 minutes comparing original (? I haven’t investigated) footage from archive.org with what was supposedly later modified. SA’s last video is pretty weak IMO and got me even less interested. I don’t know what your demonstration is, but I would think that someone would be able to simulate the event, like with a car-crash reenactment used in court. There are certain obvious levels of certainty we could get from certain types of analysis and given data.
In my opinion, the appeal to rednecks shooting pumpkins through junk is irrelevant. Obviously, a feather will pass through a block of lead given enough velocity. What’s important is relative structural integrity. Another thing being ignored is (according to September Clues anyhow) two separate feeds cutting to black several frames after the nose through event. A camera, miles away doing that randomly also seems highly unlikely.
I’m taking a 3rd position, similar to how global warming alarmists are ruled out of court on the basic epistemic grounds of their models lacking both consensus and predictive power. Whether planes really were hijacked or missles and CG were used, the American government holds the blame. Haliburton is on the verge of reopening wells in Iraq (todays WSJ), and terrorists were targeting iconic American buildings, rather than Swiss or Namibian for a reason.
All- righty then.[:D] [Actually , it was nothing that I have not already said here - it would have been just a tad re-worded/ edited for clarity, that 's all.]
"besides maybe 20 minutes comparing original (? I haven’t investigated) footage from archive.org with what was supposedly later modified. "
This has in fact been done by the maker of " September Clues" in “Foxed Out” part 1 and part 2. . The new modifications that change the archives from the original archives [ that is, after “September Clues” was released and began to make an “impression”], are very apparent [ visions of “the Memory Hole” from Orwell’s 1984 [:)] ]
“In my opinion, the appeal to rednecks shooting pumpkins through junk is irrelevant.”
[:D] . It is always interesting/entertaining to me to see what people will drag up as being relevant for comparison in order to “prove” [to themselves- not me], that aircraft “really” can fly through 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings without even slowing down and without any parts flying off on initial impact.
In that particular instance, the “pumpkin through van video” argument actually worked against their case, as I tried to [politely] show in my reply.
“Obviously, a feather will pass through a block of lead given enough velocity. …”
I understand your point, but outside of Quantum mechanics [Schrodingers Cat and all that], and episodes of “Star Trek”, no .
“What’s important is relative structural integrity.”
Yes, exactly. I assume you mean molecular density and material strength -which is why feathers will not pass through lead regardless of speed, as far as I’m aware - at least outside of theoretical physics and perhaps Quantum theory- and why aluminum will not pass/cut through 1ft thick steel girders. [although maybe a plane that weighed 2000 tons might do some serious damage [:D]]
But speed is still important in this matter - remember, the [supposed] aircraft had to fly within clearly defined speed parameters which it cannot physically exceed in real life.
Comparing hollow 140 ton aluminum tubes only capable of around 250 mph at 700 feet above sea level [ a 757’s cruising speed of 500+mph is only reached at 35,000 feet, where the air is 4X thinner], with a solid lead bullet flying well in excess of 500 mph, is wrong on 2 counts: [1] it is solid metal, whereas an airliner is thin-skinned and hollow, and [2] its speed is nowhere near the same.
Besides which, a solid lead bullet will not pass through a 1ft thick steel girder regardless of what type of gun fires it- heck even armor piercing bullets fired from rifles fail to do so. This is related to relative mass of the two objects, as well as speed.
Object mass is also very important in trying to determine what happens, as Newtons 3rd law makes clear. In this case you have 140 tons hitting 500,000 tons, at around 250 mph, with exactly equal force being exerted on both objects at impact.
Now which object do you really think is going to “win” in that situation, a hollow 140 ton aluminum tube with a plastic nose , or a 500,000 ton steel and concrete structure?
"Whether planes really were hijacked or missles and CG were used, the American government holds the blame. "
I agree 100%.
However, it might still be important to some, in the grand scheme of things, to understand just how deeply involved the US TV media was, and is, in producing government propaganda.
It seems more and more obvious that they are actively involved in faking events on TV on a weekly, if not a daily basis.
The realization of this [what I would call] “fact” can have a powerful effect on a persons worldview.
For example, post “September Clues” I now believe nothing I see/ hear reported as news on TV or radio.
The incident is no more relevant than the “pumpkins through houses” video you posted, or the other posts using lead bullets, or explosive shells, or tornados for “comparison” .
You are comparing “apples and oranges” … yet again. Hence the reluctant, delayed response.
And of course, the planes construction was also entirely different.
Even if I overlook the irrelevance of the Empire State incident comparison for the moment , and just look at the photo closely, there is nothing in that photo that irrefutably shows that an aircraft wing passed intact through any steel girder{s}.
In fact, it is impossible to tell one way or another from the angle used.
Sorry, but just because some halfwit with an agenda on the internet photoshops a label on to the photo reading “wing penetration” in bright yellow on a photo where it is impossible to actually see anything of the sort does not prove that the hoped for event actually occurred.
And in fact, there is nothing in the original news reports that even mentions any wing penetration whatsoever.
Engine blocks? yes, bits of front end landing gear? yes - wings no.
The news reports only describe a 20ft. by 18 ft. hole in the side of the building [ caused by one, or both engine blocks , I would guess], not wing penetration .
And even if there had been proven wing penetration that day, it would still be entirely entirely irrelevant- different aircraft construction, entirely different building construction.
No offense intended, and not that it is really anything out of the ordinary on these boards [despite a economic philosophy supposedly mostly grounded in rules of simple, applied, logic], but you really need to develop your critical thinking faculties a little more - at the present time you seem far too willing to accept irrelevant “evidence” and “arguments” in order to prove to yourself what you “already know” happened [because you saw it “live” on the TV], while at the same time choosing to entirely ignore previously demonstrated , unassailable [what Von Mises called “immutable”], simple principles of hard physics, simply because those principles [inconveniently] do not support what you have convinced yourself that you already know.
In Real Life [not made for TV movies]
Despite yours and others wishful thinking, in real life, 2mm thick or less aluminum “skins” on aircraft, traveling at 250 mph [or even at the N.IS.T.'s mythical 500mph], cannot simultaneously pass through multiple, 1ft thick solid steel girders embedded in 500,000 ton buildings, as Newton’s [“immutable”] 3rd law clearly demonstrates.
Forget Physics?
Even if principles of simple physics are put to one side for the moment, there are many, many visual impossibilities/contradictions/anomalies in all claimed “live” 911 videos - far too many to ignore or overlook.[e.g. shadows vs. known sunlight angle, smoke direction, multiple flight paths etc. etc.]
Its funny you say the operation would have been on too large an operation… seems to me there are much larger operations (“war on drugs”, “war on terrorism”, the vietnam war, the IRS, etc) that do just as much if not more damage than the 9.11 attacks (both physically and economically) and people don’t have a clue as to how they work, why they are happening, or what is even going on. Ask any american on the street why in the good god damn we went to vietnam and I reckon most wont have a clue.
.
