| Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Conversation with Ace Baker -10/03/09 | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 30 2009, 11:11 PM (488 Views) | |
| broken sticks | Oct 11 2009, 04:46 PM Post #16 |
|
choice cuts from 911taboo.net: "THE VIDEOS DO NOT SHOW THE PLANE OR THE BUILDING RECEIVE ANY DAMAGE" genghis expects to see damage to the plane on the outside of the building. he doesn't understand the importance of velocity. can't be helped i spose. "the front of the plane receives no physical damage THAT WE KNOW OF. this is called a fact you dummard."  "and every single plane and car crash video i have looked at the REST OF THE STRUCTURE [being joined by fixed molecules, ie being part of the same object] receive damage all over on hard impact. twisting, turning, deceleration!!. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED TO HEAR THIS YOU FUKKIN DUMB ASS?"  "when the starboard wingtip hasn't entered the building, i posed the question. what is it's motivation?." momentum. it is traveling at 540mph. genghis' videos imply the rear half of the plane should just drop or something. he forgets that pressing pause on a video does not actually slow anything down... "why are you and sticks such popularity sheep?" i'd like everyone to understand what happens in a 500mph collision, and i'd also like everyone to get along. beware! this makes me a popularity sheep apparently! "WHY WOULD THE WINGTIP NOT BOUNCE OF YOU FUKKIN RETARDED TIME WASTER? " coz its not a tennis ball? coz its traveling at 540mph? coz the side of the WTC isn't a trampoline? |
 |
 
|
| DrBabs | Oct 13 2009, 09:48 AM Post #17 |
|
Is your theory that a plane crashed into the WTC? |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Oct 13 2009, 12:00 PM Post #18 |
|
Yes. Is your theory that a light-projection hit the tower? |
|
|
|
| DrBabs | Oct 16 2009, 10:17 PM Post #19 |
|
I have never once specified the technology. I do not have any inside scoop on what the specific technology was that projected the image of the plane into the sky. But we know there isn't debris in the videos where there should be some (bouncing off the steel walls). And we know that a plane crash doesn't fume for months/years. TV Fakery is over. That doesn't mean that there were real planes. Not knowing the technology doesn't mean I don't know basic physics. And you should, too, but one thing makes me continue to be patient with you. And it's that I really didn't understand Newton's laws when I studied them in school. Yes, I understood them well enough to be able to pass the exams by plugging the right numbers into the right equations, but I never had cause to need to really, really understand them until 9/11. So after Morgan Reynolds convinced me that no plane could have survived the impact with the south face of WTC 2, I got humble and began to go over and over Newton's laws until I smashed them in my head and thoroughly understood them. Here are the results: Newton's first law. Objects will maintain their current velocity unless acted upon by an outside force. The velocity of the WTC was zero after the first hit but right before the beginning of the end. Then, the velocity was something other than zero. Some outside force was acting on the building. Bits of the building were stationary until at a certain point in time, they began to move. A force caused this change. This force was gravity, in part. The force of gravity did not change, because it never changes. (The force of gravity is almost constant at sea level on Earth.) The force that changed was the upward force provided by the steel beams. This force decreased. Gravity stayed the same. So the net force downward increased, and the building began to fall. But this doesn't explain everything. Once we start talking about the direction of movement, we move into Newton's second law. Paraphrased, this law says that forces accelerate objects in the direction of the force and proportional to the magnitude of the force. Direction: Much or most of the building went in the upward or outward direction before it began traveling downward. Gravity doesn't explain this direction. Some other force acted on the bits of the building to send them flying in all those directions. When things go flying in all directions, that is called an explosion in some cases. Magnitude: This means that the size of the force counts. If you push something a little bit, it only goes so fast. If you push it a lot, it goes faster. When the building exploded, the bits of the building weren't really traveling that fast. I've previously calculated the speed to be something near 20-30 mph. Much, much slower than a bullet or any fancy military explosion. Those go so quick and fast that you have to slow the camera down. The final demise of the WTC buildings was dramatic and rather fast, but the pieces of the building didn't zing as if they had come from a dynamite blast or anything of the sort. They were rather gently poofing out. The direction was "all over the place". So it was an explosion. But the pieces weren't traveling that fast. So it was a gentle explosion. Newton's third law I've been harping on, so I won't go into it too much here. It says that when one body exerts a force on another body, the second body exerts the same force on the first body. We would have seen a plane get smashed up at the south face of WTC 2 if there had been one. One more thing. The so-called plane didn't slice through the building like a hot knife through butter because the knife wouldn't shatter after it sliced the butter. The analogy is flawed because no one would expect a knife to be (at the same time) strong enough to slice butter yet weak enough to also be destroyed by butter. Why do you think the universe works this way? The plane was strong enough to slice through the exterior columns with no visible damage but so weak that contact with the interior columns shattered it? No. That doesn't make sense. A plane either stronger or weaker than steel. It doesn't switch from one to the other quickly after impact. Edited by DrBabs, Oct 17 2009, 12:01 AM.
|
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Oct 17 2009, 11:08 AM Post #20 |
|
i've got the inside scoop babs. here's some info on the technology involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-wing_aircraft We all actually know that aluminium doesn't bounce off steel at 540mph. no-one thinks the plane caused these fumes. it would appear that you actually don't know basic physics, let-alone the relatively complex physics involved in the plane impacts at the WTC. we've tried explaining them. and keep trying to explain them. you keep ignoring our responses, then coming back after a few days and asking the same questions on a different thread. its really helping to drive home two facts: 1. it was a plane. 2. you are a time-waster. ignoring everyone and posting the same questions over and over, despite them being answered, is NOT patience. it is ignorance. maybe its because you kept ignoring every attempt to teach you about them? how did you reach this conclusion? wishful thinking? completely wrong babs. it didn't slice through intact. and it DOES switch from strong to weak quickly after impact, as you mention it. but babs, you'll only ignore these responses for a few days then post the same questions somewhere else on here. see you on a different thread in a few days with the same answers babs! |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
11:13 PM Nov 29
