What a vapid response. Did it not occur to you that your point is asinine when you typed it? Faked? There is no point discussing the subject with an argument of such stunted logic, but here goes 1). Prove the evidence was faked, you have the burden here as it is you who claims it was faked. Where is your evidence? 2). There is no 'lack' of physical evidence, there is a plethora of physical evidence that you choose to ignore. This is called 'cherry-picking' and it is logically fallacious. 3). There is plenty of proof that the hijackers existed. Only crank sites state otherwise and their arguments have been disproved repeatedly. The ball is in your court truther. Show me some actual evidence for your claims, not just specious maths.
well purdue and MIT use different physics than the rest of us. They use green physics which yields answers that factors in and are relative to grant dollars. case in point: Bird fea: normal people physics then there is wtc tower based upon (green) physics we can see that green physics is much more efficient, so we must keep that in mind when performing a peer review. Had 93 been going a little faster it would have made it to china and been a break through in lowered transportation costs.
well you can believe what you want but you cant make up your own facts you believe that too right then there is the other real world problem where they actually run planes into poles and even at very low speeds slices the wing clean off. But I wont bother you with any facts. carry on
LOLOL Like no-planers do, you mean? Too (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dumb. No, because that was a dishonest attempt to misrepresent the theme. Yes, and you know why and how that test was conducted. You have been debunked on this more times than I care to remember. Why start using facts now? You never have before. I understand that you can't let F=ma get in the way of a retarded story like no planes. Go back to your nukes, kid.
and additionally .... A = F/M This is also very useful for calculating the acceleration of that mass the airliner would have had to displace in the process of making that initial entry hole.
Do you get the fact that an aircraft impacting the wall as was alleged, would have to displace mass in order to make that initial entry hole, and in doing so would have to overcome the inertia of said mass, of course resulting in a reduction in speed of the aircraft, and said reduction in speed would cause the aircraft to be stressed, and the math clearly shows that a reduction of 11 mph in 5 milliseconds would result in >100 g therefore, no airliner could possibly remain whole for the remaining 65 milliseconds that it would take for the wings to reach the wall. The airliners story as told by the mainstream media is a lie!
Yet the planes penetrated the towers so your claim is specious. As to being 'alleged', that's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing risible! You are trying to prove there were no planes when clearly there were. This is insane. Why do you ignore the empirical evidence in favour of your own fallacious maths? That's poor reasoning. A little tip here: if Nukeboy comes out of his basement in favour of your theory, then you KNOW something is wrong with it. LOLOL
You have so far, produced no evidence that proves the hijacked airliners story. where is the physical proof, the forensically verified remains of the aircraft?
Can YOU read my previous post? I asked for proof by physical evidence that would indicate the airliners in question did indeed crash at the locations alleged. Is there any such proof, and if so, where is it?
so you allege that reality is not only one airliner making a wing shaped gash in a skyscraper, but TWO and these airliners completely disappeared inside the skyscraper without leaving any significant bits of the aircraft outside on the entry hole side of the building. and to this you charge "incredulity" however, can you get your head around the concept that in order to actually make that hole in the wall, the airliner would have to displace tons of mass? This is a non-trivial matter, the fact is that the math clearly indicates that there would be >100 g deceleration of the airliner, this would cause catastrophic failure of the whole airliner. people attempt to negate this, or just deny that its a factor, but its real, and there is no getting around the having to displace mass problem.
So you still think that over 70,000 tons of force would not do anything in 1/5th the blink of an eye to your alleged 3 ton wall, which was basically a grid. Go figure.
Do the math, what is the equal and opposite re-action to an airliner colliding with a stationary mass and the airliner was allegedly traveling at 540 mph, in order to move that tonnage of mass, the airliner would have to give up some of its energy, and thereby lose a bit of that speed, a reduction in speed by 11 mph would be sufficient to cause serious consequences to the airliner.
You still have not figured out that it did a lot of damage to the aircraft eh? Do you still expect it to bounce off?
I know that such a collision would do a LOT of damage to the aircraft, and why do we not see this damage as being obvious, in the form of broken off wings, tail, control surfaces, bits of the airliner that would have most certainly have to be left behind on the entry hole side of the skyscraper.
You still think in 1/5th the blink of an eye an aircraft will just fall apart. I think you watch too much TV. The video you see of it can only be two frames at the most. Remember, all those parts and pieces are all hooked together and at that fast, nothing has any time to be 'left behind' but would continue to enter the space opened by the aircraft or literally be demolished. BTW, how do you know nothing was left behind.
argument from incredulity! The fact is that given the alleged speed of the alleged airliner, the event would have a total of 70 milliseconds to play out that is the time between first contact of the nose, and the time when the wings would have any possibility of contacting the wall, and in that 70 milliseconds, a LOT can happen, why do you think that 1,000 frames per second cameras are employed to document crash tests?
I would say that the results of the collision would be dependent upon what the two objects colliding, what each of them was made of. You have given the mass of each object, but its shape and material would have some calculation, IMO. And welcome!
Given that the wall was made out of steel box columns and the airliner was aluminum and we know that airliners are built as light as possible to maximize their utility as passenger and cargo caring vehicles. so given that the collision would involve at the very least having to overcome the inertia of the steel mass in the wall ( that is the amount of material that would have to be displaced in order to make that hole ) Thus it becomes sort of a moot point, without displacing the mass to create that hole, there could not be that initial entry hole, without having to displace said mass. in addition to the force required to break/bend and overcome friction involved in cramming a 5 meter diameter aircraft body into a 3.6 meter space as defined by the deck spacing, The whole concept of having a collision as alleged, without serious consequences, that is the aircraft breaking apart before it had any chance to make the infamous wing shaped gash, is completely mad!
I don't have to. You have the burden of proof. You have the burden to demonstrate to me that the airliners were faked along with the empirical evidence. Your specious maths aren't convincing.
Impact and impulse .... You look it up ...... - - - Updated - - - Given that the MSM was the first to have promoted the story about the hijacked airliners, and so far have produced no proof at all that said airliners were real .... what is there?
This is tedious. Again: Try the airlines' records, the manufacturer's records, the insurance companies' records, the DNA, the families' insurance claims, the evidence for the Moussaoui trial, the physical evidence found on site, etc... So far, 9/11 truth have produced no proof at all that said airliners were fake .... what is there?
