| 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: |
| The F=MA argument | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 14 2008, 08:18 PM (2,564 Views) | |
| shure | Oct 14 2008, 08:18 PM Post #1 |
Administrator
|
I asked Joe about the argument people use to try and debunk us using F=MA (Force = Mass * Acceleration) when trying to justify how the plane could meld into a steel and concrete building, heres what Joe had to say; Hi, Jeff, Yes, I know what they are trying to say. But, they are defeating themselves. In the case of the anomalous entry of flight 175 into WTC 2, they are saying that the force of the 767 allowed it to enter the building. But, they are forgetting about acceleration. In this case, the acceleration part of 'Force equals Mass times Acceleration' is really negative, that is, it is opposed to the speed of the 767, meaning the plane must decelerate as it makes contact with the building to release any energy. When the 767 hits the building its mass must decelerate to equal the force applied to the building. But, it doesn't decelerate, It just melds into the building, meaning that no force is applied, meaning what we are seeing in the videos must be fake. The plane passes into the building at the same speed that it flies through thin air. According to video, the plane enters the building without using any force. Impossible!!!!!! Regards, Joe Keith PS: In a nutshell, these retards are trying to say that the force (a combination of the plane's mass and high speed) of the 767 hitting WTC 2 was so great that the plane acted like a bullet fired into balsa wood, and severed every part of the building that it came in contact with. ridiculous!!!!!! In reality, the video shows the 767 melding into the building without using any force. |
 |
 
|
| Jim | Oct 15 2008, 03:11 AM Post #2 |
|
Also, as Joe has pointed out, the realistic maximum speed of a 767 at 700 ft elevation would be only about half of what NIST estimates, 544 mph. The air density at 1000 ft is about 2.6 times that as the 30,000 ft elevation. Therefore, the kinetic energy they estimate, 1/2m(v squared), is 4 times larger than reasonable, not a few percent, 400%. NIST determined their velocity by averaging the velocities calculated on something like 5 different videos. Doesn't that raise a big red flag? The velocities were different in different clips, but they should be the same! |
|
|
|
| Witness | Oct 20 2008, 06:37 PM Post #3 |
|
Jeff, I thought I asked you nicely to leave that poor senile old man alone! He has never proven anything regarding 911 and neither have you or your Terrorist Sympathizing Friends! Yes Genghis, thats YOU! You are a Terrorist Sympathizer and your at the Top of the Watch List with Jeff |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Oct 28 2008, 01:03 AM Post #4 |
|
Deleted User
|
The rear of a real airplane would not necessarily decelerate much as the nose hits. It has to do with how strongly (or weakly) the plane is connected together. The Force Paradox According to the official story, the top part of each twin tower crushed itself, and the entire intact undamaged structure below it, into fine powder, in something just a little bit longer than free fall time. Fast "collapse" times require very low resistance from below, because the greater the resistance, the more energy is absorbed by the resisting part, the less energy is available to accelerate falling mass downward, the slower the collapse time. On the other hand, the building and all its contents were converted into very fine powder. Mechanical crushing requires extremely high resistance. A hammer requires an anvil. A mortar requires a pestle. You can smash a piece of ice into small chips with a hammer, but it better be sitting on a hard floor. Imagine trying to shatter a piece of ice while in free fall. It won't work. And then imagine that while in free fall, you not only manage to shatter the ice, but shatter the hammer as well. It makes no sense whatsoever. As a rule, collisions between objects do not cause mutual annihilation. This contradiction was pointed out by many, and dubbed “The Resistance Paradox” by Gerard Holmgren. Clearly, the twin towers were blown to kingdom come. Period. I apply the same reasoning to the real airplane hypothesis. No official airplane theory exists. To the extent that it does, it is argued there that mass times velocity gives total kinetic energy, thus the impacting airplane is equivalent to so many tons of TNT. This treats the entire airplane as a single mass, a single solid object. But, in explaining why the back part of the plane does not appear to slow down, the official theorists say that the plane is more like a liquid, or a constellation of very small parts, unconnected. It atomizes, completely shatters, thus relieving the back part of any obligation to slow down. Just as in the case of the towers’ “collapse”, the official story is trying to have it both ways. The plane is both strong enough to act like a solid in terms of the total kinetic energy, but weak enough to act like a liquid in terms of the deceleration of the back part. It makes no sense. To actually think about it correctly, we must consider the power of the impact. Power is force over time. That is force divided by time. The longer a period of time over which a force is spread out, the less power it delivers, and the less destruction it causes. A burning log releases more energy than a stick of dynamite. The reason a stick of dynamite can destroy your fireplace, while a burning log cannot, is that the dynamite releases its energy in a much shorter period of time than does the fire. The dynamite has less energy, but much more power. If indeed the airplane is weak enough to atomize on impact, which I think is basically correct based on the Sandia F-4 video, then it would be like a bug on the windshield to a twin tower. Much of it would turn to confetti, large parts like wing flaps or tail sections would bounce off. Engines, being steel and titanium, are strong, and might make a significant dent or maybe sever a column. A plane-shaped hole is strictly ruled out. Ghostplane and the other airplane entry videos look cartoon-ish because they depict cartoon physics. They show no crash physics at all. My recreation of Ghostplane looks essentially identical to the original, devoid of crash physics. Thus, a consideration of Newton’s Laws and the Force Paradox lends no support to the real plane hypothesis, while being perfectly consistent with the compositing hypothesis. |
|
|
|
| shure | Nov 3 2008, 07:52 AM Post #5 |
|
Administrator
|
Thanks for the excellent info Ace! |
|
|
|
| genghis6199 | Nov 3 2008, 09:53 AM Post #6 |
|
you're a bush voter aren't you troy? |
|
|
|
| Witness | Nov 4 2008, 01:32 AM Post #7 |
|
Fuck! You caught me Redhanded Genghis Boy, is my face Red |
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Nov 4 2008, 01:42 PM Post #8 |
|
Maybe the neck is also red 
|
|
|
|
| Witness | Nov 16 2008, 05:43 AM Post #9 |
|
Ragu Sauce is Definitely Red! |
|
|
|
| kahlmyishmael | Dec 31 2008, 09:28 PM Post #10 |
|
I like that explanation also...particulary the COMPARISON between "the real plane hypothesis" vs "video compositing" hypothesis |
|
|
|
| ToothedV | Jan 8 2009, 03:00 AM Post #11 |
|
You are all forgetting that this force is acting on the plane equally, and this plane is weaker and less dense than the contact area of the tower. We would be surprised if the bullet was squashed by the equal force on it by the balsa wood and the balsa wood was not damaged! |
|
|
|
| achimspok | Aug 9 2009, 10:42 PM Post #12 |
|
By using the method for "motion detection by subtraction" it is possible to 100% stabilize the tail of the plane. When done, simply count the pixels of displacement and the deceleration becomes visible. It becomes also visible that the impact of the fuselage (1) decelerated the plane a little bit. The impact of the engines (2) decelerated the plane a little bit more and the impact of the wings (3) decelerated the plane much more.  Slowing down means "negative acceleration". After the impact of the wings the plane lost about 42% of it's initial speed. initial speed = 255 m/s = 570mph ve - v0 = -131 m/s = -293mph t = 0.04 sec a = ( ve - v0 ) / t = 3275 m/s² mass = 130,000kg FORCE = 426,000,000 N Q: How can water cut through steel? A: at 900mph Q: Impossible speed? A: No. Edited by achimspok, Aug 10 2009, 01:24 AM.
|
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Aug 11 2009, 04:43 PM Post #13 |
|
Achimspok, can that be done with the Fairbanks shot? |
|
|
|
| achimspok | Aug 11 2009, 08:01 PM Post #14 |
|
May be. The problem is, the whole plane isn't much bigger than a few pixel. Look at the difference. The first 5 frames 60px, next 5 frames 3px less, next 6px less, 28 less... You need a stabilized blow up. At least the major change after the impact of the wings should be visible. I tried a blow up of Scott Meyers but it's problematic (blurry) either. May be I should try the motion detection method with the video. Here are the stills from the NIST report: 
Edited by achimspok, Aug 11 2009, 10:16 PM.
|
|
|
|
| RasgaSaias | Aug 11 2009, 10:34 PM Post #15 |
|
Yes, I know. There are some technical difficulties. Although I've tried it manually. Frame by frame. I increased size, cropped, stabilized and rotated the best copy we have from the Fairbanks shot: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=72AC8N0B Then used the tower edge as reference and compared it with equidistant lines.  There's some deceleration at least at the end. I should have tested this a long time ago. Edited by RasgaSaias, Aug 12 2009, 12:18 AM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · 9/11 Research · Next Topic » |
1:05 PM Dec 4
