@Denierbud11 i have relatives who were executed by nazis in poland, and im not here to argue about the moon or anything else, if planes are so strong they why dont they start using laser guided Boeings as bunker busters?
newtons laws for impact depth...Projectile: Full metal projectiles should be made of a material with a very high density, like uranium (19.1 g/cm³) or lead (11.3 g/cm³). According to Newton's approximation, a full metal projectile made of uranium will pierce through roughly 2.5 times its own length of steel armor. the columns were as strong as steel armor, so your saying aluminum is stronger than uranium?
no the columns were not as strong as steel armor -- who the hells tells you this stupid shit? do you just make it up? I can't believe you are that stupid that you think the steel exterior of the trade centers, which were covered with an aluminum clad facing, are as strong as armor
good lord are you stupid -- seriously stupid, bye a clue cookie or something
@Denierbud11 how about you bring one piece of science to this argument, 1 law, or even anything? youre just like everyone else once their beat they just sit theyre saying youre stupid, or you beleive this, but yes .5 in -2.5in thick steel is what used to make tanks and any other armor. and if you could explain how building 7 fell in the fashion but was not hit by a plane
@Denierbud11 all you did was copy and paste a video that didn't contain a single formula, a law of physics or anything, you fail to see that a plane which is a lot less dense then the towers, a steel truck moving at 20mph is enough to go in and out of an airplane, but your saying a twin tower at 600mph cannot?
your analog of a building flying into a plane is wrong on so many levels
I cited the Perdue similuation, which is backed up by physics -- the analysis and supporting data is available, the original video publication even gives contacts at the university -- feel free to use google
@Denierbud11 Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. its easy to follow someone else but drawing your own conclusions is something greater, why should i contact a university when the man who created physics was self taught?
@Denierbud11 many physicists and even 9/11 commissioners dont buy the story, i myself after studying physics in school and on my own can draw conclusions on many levels, and i will ask you again how is purdue correct when using newtons formula for impact, can pierce twice its length? "According to Newton's approximation, a full metal projectile made of uranium will pierce through roughly 2.5 times its own length of steel armor." courtesy of mr newton.
@Denierbud11 i dont need to argue this anymore but blood cancer multiple myloma and other conditions only caused by radiation exposure killed 900 ground zero workers
Some studies have also suggested links to acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) in children and to chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and other blood-related cancers, such as multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, in adults." However, the evidence is not as strong for these cancers " you would have to be breathing in benzene for years to get cancer there were people who had symptoms of radiation sickness within weeks
and you know this how? you have no proof, and there is no proof in the article that radiaion is the only cause -- the patient believes its benzene, but you know the twoof
what a laugh
and that is one, 899 to go, oh, he's still alive, you claimed 900 dead, so you still have 900 dead to go
@Denierbud11 that post was copied straight from a benzene website benzene is in cigarettes and you dont see people dropping dead after 10-15 years of smoking you my friend your pathetic you dont bring up any science
I love how the narrator says "The basic wing structure remains intact" and you follow with "SEE A TELEPHONE PHONE BLEW IT UP LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL"
where you getting 14" from anyway?that steel wasnt 14" at that height,as it it erected higher it gets thinner,you are sorely misinformed.you ever heard of math?if so you might want to get out your calculator.you have no video to compare this with because that was 1st time it happened.WTC was 4 inches thick at bottom at that height it was more like 1 inch.dumbass
@solidblack013 dumbass? i love it. ok, lets conciede(falsly) that the beams were an inch thick at that height. people think of an inch thick beam as being small... its and inch, then space, then another inch on the back side.. but thats just the face... on both edged it is solid steel more than a half foot thick... i think its you that should do some calculating and research before you go spouting nonsense... also... aluminum supposed did this through at least three layers of beams so shut it
@solidblack013 dumbass? i love it. ok, lets conciede(falsly) that the beams were an inch thick at that height. people think of an inch thick beam as being small... its and inch, then space, then another inch on the back side.. but thats just the face... on both edged it is solid steel more than a half foot thick... i think its you that should do some calculating and research before you go spouting nonsense... also... aluminum supposed did this through at least three layers of beams so shut it
@Denierbud11 im aware of that but .25 in steel or 2.5ins thick i still personally think the inner columns would not have taken any damage and the building did not collapse in a pancake fashio
@Denierbud11 i have watched this and its a complete mockery to physics for steel to pierce steel it has to be tipped with depleted uranium or tungsten, the whole plane would have disintegrated upon impact and would not have entered the tower
so you know more then the experts at Perdue -- in your world, the building would be plane proof and the plane would have disintigrated, yet when a smaller and slower WWII bomber hit the empire state building, not only did the plane enter, but an engine even exited -- another engine went down a elevator shaft
but what the hell, you are a twoofer, you know better
@Denierbud11 i can guarentee you no aluminum fuselage can penetrate concrete or steel, that is a fact, the engines are heavy and have steel components thats how they penetrate steel, the rest of the plane is no heavy than carbon fiber or titanium, you must not know a lot about crash physics, newtons 3rd law of physics states every action has an equal reaction .5 in thick steel beams moving at 500mph would shred apart any aluminum, you cannot argue this, the steel was designed to take a plane
@Denierbud11 Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor. Still, a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building. After the flames were extinguished and the remains of the victims removed, the rest of the wreckage was removed through the building.
@Denierbud11 youll failing to understand that an aluminum plane does not have the momentum to cut steel, it cannot focus all its energy into a small point no larger than .5in and simply 600mph is not fast in penetrating speed, a small bullet tipped with depleted uranium is more likely to cut a tower column than an airliner
@Denierbud11 key words "simulation" dosent mean its true there was a time when everyone in the world believed the earth was flat but that dosent make it true, it only takes 5% of a country to start a revolution so i clearly dont need idiots like you to believe me, only newtons laws of impact penetration, which say one must have more mass to penetrate one other and must be moving at supersonic not subsonic speeds
@Denierbud11 once again 3rd law of physics take a twin tower and send it at a stationary 767 weighed 350,000 pds and a twin tower weighing 500,000 tons the plane would not stand a chance.. pure physics is a simple concept if it werent true then how come then use tungsten or depleted uranium to make armor piercing rounds, why dont they use aluminum if it can penetrate steel, which is stronger than armor?
@Denierbud11 Stiffness refers to how much a material bends when a load is applied, Aluminum’s modulus is about 10 million psi, Steel’s modulus is about 3 times that: 30 million psi.
Strength refers to the maximum load that a material can be subjected to without yielding.
. For steels, it varies from about 28.5 to 30 million psi; for aluminum it ranges from 9.9 to 10.3 million psi
that plane can't go 500 miles per hour on a horizontal plane at sea level you moron. ONly at high altitude where the air is thin can it reach that speed. Call any pilot of commercial airline and they'll laugh at the 500 mph story. It would face too much wind and thick atmosphere resistance. only on a vertical could it reach that speed. vibrating apart nearly on the way down. on a horizontal the motor mounts would shear off for sure if you got over 450. IDIOT!!! you kid has a moron for dad
I'm not sure which is more annoying Moon hoaxers with their claims of radiation (which implies that all current missions in space are fake, and the entire world is in on the same conspiracy), or the 9/11 truthers with there shaky grasp of physics and material sciences, and the worst: their heavily edited videos of the events of that day.
Aluminum will absolutely cut through steel. You bunch of turkeys need to learn some basic laws of physics.
Have you ever heard of shaped charges...? How can a few *ounces* of copper penetrate six inches of hardened steel on a tank...? Move those few ounces of copper at several thousand mph and it rips through steel like butter. Aluminum moving at 500mph has *no problem* tearing through steel.
Honestly, take a physics class. You guys are embarrassing.
First off...The columns were not 14'(feet?) thick.
They were 14"(inches) wide, hollow, and made with 1/4 inch thick steel.
2nd..What happened to the 12" thick poles in the video? They snapped in half! Although most columns just broke at their weakest point (the bolts that held them together). Some were cut due to the speed of the jet travelling in excess of 400mph.
3rd...The towers WERE designed to absorb the impact of any large aircraft.
Your points are amazingly correct. My favorite is the speed of sound question.
It would not been cinematic enough to wait those natural seconds with the sound blast - he had this in mind for sure!
I am already wondering why people didn't run out of the theatres when they saw King Kong doing it's climbing on WTC ...screaming.and shouting "there is a big monkey on the towers".
To anyone who doesn't think a 400,000 pd. jet travelling in excess of 400mph can't penetrate a wall of steel columns that are just bolted together...Google "USS Hinsdale" and take a look at the photo of what happened to that ship after a Kamakazi pilot flew his 7000 pd. plane at approx. 300mph into the steel plated side of it.
Without commenting on the rest of the questionable events of 9-11, this video proves nothing. That crashing plane was not flying anywhere near 500+mph. If the planes that hit the towers were going 180mph or so, you might have a point. The speed and combined weight of the plane/fuel can't just be ignored.
Speed has nothing to do with it, only Newton's 3rd law and the properties of the materials involved. Steel>Aluminum. Watch this steel bar traveling 500mph cut through a steel passenger car like butter, what do you think would happen to an aluminum plane? watch?v=A0xQTCsDQ8E
the jumpers were faked pics. almost all imagery was controlled. why no plane vorticies in the smoke??? the whole thing was a fake. victims and planes. yes the buildings were brought down with explosions. and if a wooden pole can cut a wing in half... why does it cut through steel beams like butter.. cause its fake people! use your brains, or die!
Okay as Devils Advocate, at first i thought the wing COULD have been broken by the impact on the ground but you can clearly see the OUTER pole cuts through the wing like butter. Interesting.
Also: in WTC 1 and 2 the planes are so strong they cut through steel, but at the Pentagon, they are so weak they dissapear completely?? yeah right.
@regger099 At the Pentagon the plane both disappears AND punches a hole through three rings, while at Shanksville the plane was so sharp it slid right underground and the ground closed over it!!!!
Wow, take a physics class. The speeds these planes were flying at would easily cut through steel. There was an enormous amount of force being applied when the planes wings met the steel beams. Linear momentum, inertia, deformation times, and sheer force all played a crucial roll in this tragedy. If aluminum can't cut through steel, then soft lead bullets fired at high velocity should never punch holes through steel either, right?
@megalithii Please consider this from Jonathan D. Salant; AP, 9-18-2001, Seattle Times archived online as it says:
"At their base near Atlantic City, N.J., the marshals practice in two retired airliners. The marshals shoot special hollow-point, aluminum bullets that kill without penetrating the skin of airplanes."
Aluminum bullet goes faster than a jet, yet won't overpenetrate aluminum aircraft.
Lead is 4.2x denser and malleable, aluminum is brittle, tends to break apart on impact.
indy cars hit walls at 250 mph and turn to scrap and the concrete walls are still there, aluminium through 14 inch steel? NOT !!!!!!! David Rockerfeller is pissed at whoever wrote this script for him because they really fucked up on this one !!!!!
the pressure washer demonstrates a crucial point: At high speeds, seemingly soft materials are able to cut through much harder materials. At high enough pressure, water can cut steel. So why is it impossible for an aluminum wing to go through a steel beam?
This post is dedicated to all the critical thinkers out there. Don't believe the lies.
@philerrup As far as I know that it a common misconception about high water pressure cutters, the water is filled with grit of some kind.
A softer material cannot cut a harder one, hardness is defined by the ability of one material to scratch another. A softer material can force through a harder but the mechanism is different
Not sure how it relates to answering the question here, but it is something odd. At the very least this does not comport very well with the story told about flight 77.
darkwing a hard material cuts softer because it can resist more pressure. However, if the hard material does take damage. That's the reason knives and other cutting tools need periodic sharpening. When the soft material hits the harder one at high speed, the soft material will still take the brunt of the damage, but can cause a surprising amount of damage to the "stronger" material. BTW, there are pure water steel cutters, though adding grit makes them more effective. Food for thought
for water to cut steel philerup,,,,,,,,,the pressure is so intense and so focused on a single point of the steel ffor such a long period of time,,,,,,,,,the reason these planes could not do this is because aluminum cannot be harnessed and used in such a vast array of ways like water,,,,,,,,the aluminum plane cannot even go the speeds they say it was going,,,,,,,,at 750 feet altitude a plane could only reach approximately 300 mph,,,,,and it is spread out over such a great distance,,no match
bopper, you answered your own question. pressure intense enough to go through the steel. The plane would exert 80,000 psi on the side of the building if it hit it. Is that enough to go through the wall? I think so. If you don't, please provide some math to prove it. I did the math, but don't have the space to show it here. character limit
one thought, is judy collins getting any royalties for the use of her song?
Anyway, the point that aluminum can't cut steel: to the maker of the video. I propose this.
Go to a local hardware store (you probably hate Home Despot)
Rent a pressure washer. Fire it up, dial the pressure to max, and point if at your eye. Then fire away. I mean, it's water, right? Water can't cut you, so go ahead. Please post a videol.
a judy collins song? showing a test with a plane weighing less than half as much, going 1/4 as fast? Very nostalgic, but not very useful. Apples and oranges, folks. Might as well show car crash tests, or a demo with paper airplanes. Oh well, believe what you want. It's a free country.
i think the planes were real. magic is real! science is fake! physics is fake! my mommy told me that paper is stronger then steel! i may be stupid, but stupid is what stupid does! im 30 years old and im still a virgin. i should go buy a fat black hooker. but i have warts on my cock.
i sucked bin ladens cock while george bush ass raped me. they both came in my mouth. they gave me 2 dollars and they forced me to go on youtube to lie abot 9/11. i love sucking dick.
the planes that hit the towers werent real at all. btw, a boeing 767 cannot fly at 500mph at ONLY 700ft. the only way it can reach over 500mph is if its at over 30,000 feet! people are so stupid to believe that 2 planes hit the towers. that shit was sooo fake. btw, theres under 40 footages. where are the thousands?
If the object is fixed the kinetic energy that has been imparted to the second (fixed) object will cause it to try to move regardless. If the collision had sufficient energy (i.e. the object was moving at high enough speed) the second object with break and move.
So there is my explanation. I'd like to hear your research, its only fair given that you accuse me of being ignorant yet present no facts to back up your own argument and ignore those which contradict it.
EvilUSAandthe911Lie aluminum can cut through steel. In fact a feather could cut through steel if it's accelerated to a high enough velocity. From everyday experience we don't see aluminum cutting through steel. But we also know that something which is massless (an electron for instance) can be superheated (accelerated) to cut through solid Diamond. It's a question of force and momentum. We're talking about macroscaled things here. An accelerating 767 is forceful.
you obviously are making shit up. mythbusters had trouble getting straw to pierce wood at well over a hundred miles per hour, how the fuck is a feather (weaker than straw) going to pierce steel (stronger than wood). provide one shred of proof to your supposed fact. dickweed.
Sorry but he's not 'making shit up', he's quoting the laws of physics. See his earlier comment regarding the mathematics involved. Also, you can't compare a 1950s aircraft like the Constellation seen here with a modern 767. Finally, please don't insult people with whom you disagree, it doesn't make you look clever or hard.
where in the laws of physics does it state that feathers can cut through steel. the reality is youre far too ignorant to even speculate on this issue. do some real research and quit selling lies for the corporate war profiteering fucks.
I apologise if I gave the impression I was speculating. I'll put it simply. When objects collide there is a transfer of energy. The kinetic energy of the moving object is transferred to the object with which it collides. If this object is free standing and not fixed it will move away at a velocity determined by the 2 objects relative masses and the direction of the collision.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
9/11 is real! my 2 year old niece that i raped was on the plane. she was born in 2004. but she died like the rest. ass fucked. do you want you cock sucked?
Physics. A feather COULD pierce steel at high enough velocities. It's inertia would not be inhibited by the counter force of the steel, given a velocity vector with great enough magnitude. I concede that it could not occur on earth (because of frictional forces and combustible oxygen) but I'm merely making the point that extreme conditions produce extreme results.
If you have a problem with Newtonian mechanics I suggest you consult a book, and not television. 100 mph is not sufficient. .5c is.
The first plane is taking off... Going no more than 50-60 miles per hour. The force generated is dependent on the moment exerted per unit time. [MV]/T = F Ergo, a take off has little momentum, applied for little time... It does not have enough force to split the pole.
Now, take a plane traveling at 500 MPH... w/ cargo and passengers (more mass)... ACCELERATING into the crash. You'll have ATLEAST 20x the force....
Not only is DavidAlan right, but if anything this video undermines the case of the poster. Yes, the telephone pole messed up the wing (the sky is also blue, fyi), but the plane also messed up the pole (the sun is bright, incase you haven't checked). The question is momentum. Stop with the spooky conspiracy bullshit and go read a physics book and work the damn numbers yourself. Further, this is extremely apples and oranges, but I'd say if anything it undermines the conspiracy nutbar's case.
There was a deformation of aluminium, but the very important kinetic energy of the plahe allowed it to cut through the steel; without this kinetic energy, effectively the aluminium wouldn't have cut through the steel.
You can't take the comparison of a knife cutting through butter, because the knife doesn't have the speed of a plane.
With kinetic energy, even a pumpkin can break through a metallic door:
watch?v=didpjwBgFqY&feature=player_embedded
You must not reason uniquely in terms of difference of hardness of material.
This is only good in static comparison.
Kinetic energy completely changes the conditions, and gives to the softer material properties which allow it to get through harder material, which it couldn't without this kinetic energy.
In the middle age, swords, knives and axes could not pierce the iron armours of the knights, but the crossbow's arrows could, and they were not made with a harder steel; th's their velocity which was making the whole difference.
The boeing was a plane full of people with wings full of fuel.
When it hit the WTC, it hit it with a formidable kinetic energy which gave it the power to break through the steel bars.
There was air between the steel bars, so parts of the plane could go though without resistance; the parts which met the iron bars struck them with so much violence that it was enough to cut through them even though steel is a priori harder than aluminium.
If truthers had some interest to prove that a bomber didn't hit the empire state building, they would make everything they can to try to prove it, with flawed demonstrations, and directed testimonies.
They would even probably find window cleaners who said they saw nothing!
And don't believe I reject all conspiracies just because they are conspiracies.
I'm even a moon hoax believer, but I reject the theory of the inside job.
That doesn't mean that I think that Bush and his staff were honest, because I'm convinced they lied about Iraq, that they photoshopped WMD on an IRAQ stallite map, and made a forged letter Saddam would have sent to the Niger president to get uranium that in fact he never sent.
@hunchbacked "That doesn't mean that I think that Bush and his staff were honest" Dude, the towers didnt come down due to fire or the "planecrash" nore the combination. 10 floor per second mate, think about it. this aint no matter youtube pride. its about the truth. dont think nist has an explanation to the collapse, they dont. only to the initiation, wich is redicilous of course. 10 floor per second. peace.
@hunchbacked dont get me the wrong say hunch, i never said bush and his staff orhestrated 9/11, their only job was to lie about it. to deceive the nation and scare the american ppl. the group that were a part of this event act in total secret, we will never know who they are. it all comes down to what force can make 10 floor collapse in 1 second. You are still in the first phace of post 9/11. No one can rush it for you, but it will come to you. Because we all have the sense in us
The conspiracists say clearly that Bush and his staff did orchestrate the 9/11 events.
They outright accuse them of having murdered thousands of American citizens.
It's an accusation which is more than serious and which would require a very serious investigation; yet there are many lies among the conspiracists, many unchecked facts, many unprovern assertions.
@hunchbacked He never was whanted by FBI. "hijackers" were orig from Saudi Arabia, and yet USA invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The day after the new afhanian regime took power they signed an agreement that alowed us american cooperations draw pipelines through the country. Theres plenty...its discusting and pervers when you start lookin into it. Hunch, its big dude, very big. I know they know we know whats going on, they dont give a shit. Ppl are afraid of loosin their jobs etc.
@EvilUSAandthe911Lie Hmm... well, I suppose all of the videos showing the plane flying into the building is not proof enough? Prove what to you? That what we saw was actually not possible? Dude, seriously... do you think it was CGI or something? The hijacked planes buried themselves into the towers. Thousands of people in NYC watched it with their own eyeballs. So again, prove what, exactly? That what happened didn't really happen?
I think you should commit suicide right now; because, the longer you go on in your egregious insanity telling monstrously evil lies for a few dollars, the worse the afterlife will be for you. Do yourself a favor and kill yourself this immediately. If you had any self respect you would... but that's a real long shot. LOL!
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since the govt. committed 9/11, why arent truthers demanding the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is on trial for his life for a crime truthers claim he did not commit?
If there was no flight 93, please explain how 95% of the plane debris was recovered?
If there was no flight 77, please explain how 130+ witnesses reported seeing a plane?
Aluminum will absolutely cut through steel. You bunch of turkeys need to learn some basic laws of physics.
Have you ever heard of shaped charges...? How can a few *ounces* of copper penetrate six inches of hardened steel on a tank...? Move those few ounces of copper at several thousand mph and it rips through steel like butter. Aluminum moving at 500mph has *no problem* tearing through steel.
Honestly, take a physics class. You guys are embarrassing.
@sdtangler I believe you but the planes that hit the wtc wern't moving at 500mph, they would hardly of been seen at that speed, there's video after video of it, they wern't going that fast at all
@skyline5011. Flight 11 was travelling at 490 mph. When it hit, it triggered seismographs all over the Northeast. You can easily see a plane travelling that fast. Have you ever been to an airshow? They'll always fly a (much smaller) jet by the crowd at near the speed of sound, or over 600mph. Flight 175 was estimated to be traveling at 590 mph. 175 dove from 28,000 feet in a short distance - it could easily reach that speed. The speeds of both planes were calculated from videos.
@sdtangler LMAO!!! You dont have the faintest foggiest notion about the bull you speak. vmo(velocity max operating) is 360 kia (knots indicated airspeed) beyond which the aircraft is in grave danger for several reasons. Control is lost as the air deflected off the leading edges of the vert and horiz stabilizer is deflected beyond the range where rudder or elevator have ANY effect. High speed compressor stall will kill engines. To exceed 400 kia the wings are coming off the airplane. PERIOD.
@sdtangler LOL...look at a periodic table then come back!!! Ch is more dense than iron. steel is less dense than iron. adding carbon makes the steel stronger but less dense. Aluminum is less dense than both...by far.
You are putting your keyboard in your mouth here chump.
You must have dosed off at an important time in that one physics class you took. Physics doesn't care which object is moving, an equal and opposite force and all...
tubegov - I understand. It is hard for a sheeple to step aboard, now that the truth train is going 80 mph. (the revelation that media fakery = no planes)
However, the truth IS the truth.
Jewish-owned media, and jew WTC leaser silverstein were criminally complicit in fabricating the lie which killed 3,000+ innocent Americans, and then was used for the excuse for an ensuing holocaust which has killed millions more SO FAR.
Aluminum CAN cut through steel in the right conditions. If you shood a ball of aluminum at a steel target fast enough it will penitrate it. There are other ways to get aluminum to cut steel too but we wont go there.
the crash test was conducted below the stall speed of the connie (otherwise it would have been flying). That means that the connie was going under 100mph on impact.
A 767 cruieses at 530 mph and stalls at between 128 and 205.05 depending on takeoff weight and model.
since Ek=1/2(m*v^2) we can determine that the 767 transmitted a lot more energy to the WTC than a connie ever could
ok, first of all, a 767 is much bigger and heavier than this Lockheed Constellation
Lockheed Constillation specs
Wingspan 126 ft 2 in (38.47 m)
Length: 116 ft 2 in (35.42 m)
Max takeoff weight: 137,500 lb (62,370kg)
Boeing 767
Length 159 ft 2 in
Wingspan 156 ft 1in
Maximum takeoff weight: 315,000 - 450,000 lb
Not to mention that the 767 is faster, and stronger. Please keep in mind that at slow speeds straw doesnt penetrate a tree at all, but at high speeds it can penetrate the surface.
no way can you push a aluminum pop can through a steel plate.
but i think the wings were reinforced, that could explain the nearly impossible. the only other version is the NOPLANERS, but even truthers hate NOPLANERS.
come on, jeez its hard enough getting normal people on to the subject. why further complicate everything with NOPLANERS. i mean old larry silverspoon must be laughing his ass off.
sorry fellow thruthers, but this is tooo twooofy for me.
are you giving me credit? or are you saying, that by ridiculing fellow truthers, i kill the movement.
"you hate us for our knowledge of crash physics, and our freedom to point out the media hoaxes."
NO NO NO, i didnt say that. i even see your point. BUT how can this be of ANY help. a bit more substance would do good. but it's lousy vids. SORRY ppl. and whatever emerson said,
... even to lie for truth to be revealed is just.
...you'll always be in my heart, plane or no plane.
Tornado Question: The static pressure of the still air inside the structures is substantially higher than that of the high speed air outside. This pressure differential is frequently enough to "blow the roof off". Solid objects don't experience this effect, of course. Porous objects are most interesting. Most don't realize, but they also have an internal static air pressure, and also expand in high winds. Thus, you get the famous straw-through-the-telephone phenomena.
Not a apples to apples comparision. But if you shot that blade at 600mph it would cut through what you wanted it too. Try it. Throw a bullet at some one-then shoot it out of a gun-Try it. I'll visit you in prison-I promise
Every since tornado aftermath footage-odd-normally weak things such a wooden branches blow through walls of homes-cars doors. etc.-Kinetic energy-mass, speed, force.
No planes..after that all ya got is excuses excuses excuses!
DecassyJake 3 days ago
even the journal of 911 studies calls you a fool, ae 911, every one except judy space beams woods and john hollow earth lear
do you also believe in fake moon landings, hollow earth, flat earth and deny the holocaust?
Denierbud11 2 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 i have relatives who were executed by nazis in poland, and im not here to argue about the moon or anything else, if planes are so strong they why dont they start using laser guided Boeings as bunker busters?
poznanski666 2 weeks ago
@poznanski666
so you have no physics papers to support you, every university professor in the world is part of the conspiracy of silence
Denierbud11 2 weeks ago
newtons laws for impact depth...Projectile: Full metal projectiles should be made of a material with a very high density, like uranium (19.1 g/cm³) or lead (11.3 g/cm³). According to Newton's approximation, a full metal projectile made of uranium will pierce through roughly 2.5 times its own length of steel armor. the columns were as strong as steel armor, so your saying aluminum is stronger than uranium?
poznanski666 2 weeks ago
@poznanski666
no the columns were not as strong as steel armor -- who the hells tells you this stupid shit? do you just make it up? I can't believe you are that stupid that you think the steel exterior of the trade centers, which were covered with an aluminum clad facing, are as strong as armor
good lord are you stupid -- seriously stupid, bye a clue cookie or something
Denierbud11 2 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 how about you bring one piece of science to this argument, 1 law, or even anything? youre just like everyone else once their beat they just sit theyre saying youre stupid, or you beleive this, but yes .5 in -2.5in thick steel is what used to make tanks and any other armor. and if you could explain how building 7 fell in the fashion but was not hit by a plane
poznanski666 2 weeks ago
@poznanski666
I did bring science, the Perdue Physics department --- feel free to find a similar authority
the steel used for the WTC is not the type used in armor for tanks
building 7 did not fall in a similar fashion, unless by similar you mean it fell
the towers collapsed from the top down, with debri landing several hundred yards away - WTC 7 did not fall in that fasion
Denierbud11 2 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 all you did was copy and paste a video that didn't contain a single formula, a law of physics or anything, you fail to see that a plane which is a lot less dense then the towers, a steel truck moving at 20mph is enough to go in and out of an airplane, but your saying a twin tower at 600mph cannot?
poznanski666 2 weeks ago
@poznanski666
your analog of a building flying into a plane is wrong on so many levels
I cited the Perdue similuation, which is backed up by physics -- the analysis and supporting data is available, the original video publication even gives contacts at the university -- feel free to use google
I'm off to watch the Steelers trounce Tebow
Denierbud11 2 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. its easy to follow someone else but drawing your own conclusions is something greater, why should i contact a university when the man who created physics was self taught?
poznanski666 2 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 many physicists and even 9/11 commissioners dont buy the story, i myself after studying physics in school and on my own can draw conclusions on many levels, and i will ask you again how is purdue correct when using newtons formula for impact, can pierce twice its length? "According to Newton's approximation, a full metal projectile made of uranium will pierce through roughly 2.5 times its own length of steel armor." courtesy of mr newton.
poznanski666 2 weeks ago
@poznanski666
name one physicist that thinks the the plane would not have penetrated the steel
name one
Denierbud11 2 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 dimitri khalezov former commissioned officer of the soviet nuclear intelligence program
poznanski666 2 weeks ago
@poznanski666
so you think it was a nuclear weapon that destroyed the towers?
good lord, you need medication
think about this, how many thousands were working the site? many individuals survived and were rescued alive
how'd the ones in the basements and stairwells survive the nuclear blast?
Denierbud11 2 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 i dont need to argue this anymore but blood cancer multiple myloma and other conditions only caused by radiation exposure killed 900 ground zero workers
poznanski666 2 weeks ago
@poznanski666
you have absolutely no proof of that allegation
Denierbud11 2 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 i live 8 miles from ground zero and i have a friend who worked the cleanup and theres hundreds of links il send you one
poznanski666 2 weeks ago
@poznanski666
send me one credible source that states 900 ground zero workers have cancer that could only have been caused by radiation exposure
Denierbud11 2 weeks ago
@Denierbud11
twoofers lose again
Denierbud11 2 weeks ago
@poznanski666
ant the article you cite even says its more likely his cancer is caused from BENZENE!
like what you find in jet fuel
I did not claim people were not sick -- I claim they are NOT sick from what you claim is a cancer that can ONLY be caused by radiation]
again, you fail miserably to support your claims
I just sent you a list of about 50 peer reviewed papers supporting the collapse mechanism if the WTC
good luck refuting those
Denierbud11 2 weeks ago
@Denierbud11
Some studies have also suggested links to acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) in children and to chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and other blood-related cancers, such as multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, in adults." However, the evidence is not as strong for these cancers " you would have to be breathing in benzene for years to get cancer there were people who had symptoms of radiation sickness within weeks
poznanski666 2 weeks ago
@poznanski666
and you know this how? you have no proof, and there is no proof in the article that radiaion is the only cause -- the patient believes its benzene, but you know the twoof
what a laugh
and that is one, 899 to go, oh, he's still alive, you claimed 900 dead, so you still have 900 dead to go
good luck
Denierbud11 2 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 that post was copied straight from a benzene website benzene is in cigarettes and you dont see people dropping dead after 10-15 years of smoking you my friend your pathetic you dont bring up any science
poznanski666 2 weeks ago
@poznanski666
do you have a smoking history on that single person? did he or a spouse or a parent or whoever may be important in his life may have smoked?
all you have is a single article with one person who may have a cancer that may have been caused by a number of causes
Denierbud11 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love how the narrator says "The basic wing structure remains intact" and you follow with "SEE A TELEPHONE PHONE BLEW IT UP LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL"
MikehMike01 1 month ago
Comment removed
MikehMike01 1 month ago
where you getting 14" from anyway?that steel wasnt 14" at that height,as it it erected higher it gets thinner,you are sorely misinformed.you ever heard of math?if so you might want to get out your calculator.you have no video to compare this with because that was 1st time it happened.WTC was 4 inches thick at bottom at that height it was more like 1 inch.dumbass
solidblack013 8 months ago
@solidblack013 dumbass? i love it. ok, lets conciede(falsly) that the beams were an inch thick at that height. people think of an inch thick beam as being small... its and inch, then space, then another inch on the back side.. but thats just the face... on both edged it is solid steel more than a half foot thick... i think its you that should do some calculating and research before you go spouting nonsense... also... aluminum supposed did this through at least three layers of beams so shut it
mfrank165 4 months ago
@solidblack013 dumbass? i love it. ok, lets conciede(falsly) that the beams were an inch thick at that height. people think of an inch thick beam as being small... its and inch, then space, then another inch on the back side.. but thats just the face... on both edged it is solid steel more than a half foot thick... i think its you that should do some calculating and research before you go spouting nonsense... also... aluminum supposed did this through at least three layers of beams so shut it
mfrank165 4 months ago
@mfrank165 they were 2.5 inches thick not even armor piercing artillery shell can pierce that
poznanski666 2 months ago
@poznanski666
the outer facade is aluminum, not steel - the steel is 1/2" or so at that height
Denierbud11 1 month ago
@Denierbud11 im aware of that but .25 in steel or 2.5ins thick i still personally think the inner columns would not have taken any damage and the building did not collapse in a pancake fashio
poznanski666 1 month ago
@poznanski666
have you looked at any of the animations produced by university studies?
Denierbud11 3 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 you got a link
poznanski666 3 weeks ago
@poznanski666
watch?v=3UvPWny_PBc
Denierbud11 3 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 i have watched this and its a complete mockery to physics for steel to pierce steel it has to be tipped with depleted uranium or tungsten, the whole plane would have disintegrated upon impact and would not have entered the tower
poznanski666 3 weeks ago
@poznanski666
so you know more then the experts at Perdue -- in your world, the building would be plane proof and the plane would have disintigrated, yet when a smaller and slower WWII bomber hit the empire state building, not only did the plane enter, but an engine even exited -- another engine went down a elevator shaft
but what the hell, you are a twoofer, you know better
Denierbud11 3 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 i can guarentee you no aluminum fuselage can penetrate concrete or steel, that is a fact, the engines are heavy and have steel components thats how they penetrate steel, the rest of the plane is no heavy than carbon fiber or titanium, you must not know a lot about crash physics, newtons 3rd law of physics states every action has an equal reaction .5 in thick steel beams moving at 500mph would shred apart any aluminum, you cannot argue this, the steel was designed to take a plane
poznanski666 3 weeks ago
@poznanski666
I can guarentee you that you are wrong
a B-25 penetrated the empire state building, with a hell of a lot less kinetic energy than what we saw on 9/11
but again, you know the twoof
its not like ice could cut steel right?
Denierbud11 3 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor. Still, a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building. After the flames were extinguished and the remains of the victims removed, the rest of the wreckage was removed through the building.
poznanski666 3 weeks ago
@poznanski666
"Still, a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building"
in the building is the operable part
"i can guarentee you no aluminum fuselage can penetrate concrete or steel,"
you words were lies - why did you lie? if an aluminum B-25 can penetrate the Empire State Building, an aluminum Boeing can penetrate the WTC
Denierbud11 3 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 youll failing to understand that an aluminum plane does not have the momentum to cut steel, it cannot focus all its energy into a small point no larger than .5in and simply 600mph is not fast in penetrating speed, a small bullet tipped with depleted uranium is more likely to cut a tower column than an airliner
poznanski666 3 weeks ago
@poznanski666
and you are wrong, as proven by the Perdue university physics department and every other simulation ever performed
if you are correct, please provide a reference to any peer reviewed professional publication to support you === any where in the world over 10 years
Denierbud11 2 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 key words "simulation" dosent mean its true there was a time when everyone in the world believed the earth was flat but that dosent make it true, it only takes 5% of a country to start a revolution so i clearly dont need idiots like you to believe me, only newtons laws of impact penetration, which say one must have more mass to penetrate one other and must be moving at supersonic not subsonic speeds
poznanski666 2 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 once again 3rd law of physics take a twin tower and send it at a stationary 767 weighed 350,000 pds and a twin tower weighing 500,000 tons the plane would not stand a chance.. pure physics is a simple concept if it werent true then how come then use tungsten or depleted uranium to make armor piercing rounds, why dont they use aluminum if it can penetrate steel, which is stronger than armor?
poznanski666 3 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 Stiffness refers to how much a material bends when a load is applied, Aluminum’s modulus is about 10 million psi, Steel’s modulus is about 3 times that: 30 million psi.
Strength refers to the maximum load that a material can be subjected to without yielding.
. For steels, it varies from about 28.5 to 30 million psi; for aluminum it ranges from 9.9 to 10.3 million psi
your beat right there
poznanski666 3 weeks ago
@Denierbud11 a 707 which by speeds of mph and weight has more kinetic energy than a 767....
poznanski666 3 weeks ago
That "woman" was Edna Cintron.
ghana25 11 months ago
I LIKE THIS
There was no passenger jet wings on the Pentagon lawn .
WHY NOT ???
BECAUSE WE WERE LIED TO
PYTHAGORAS101 1 year ago
that plane can't go 500 miles per hour on a horizontal plane at sea level you moron. ONly at high altitude where the air is thin can it reach that speed. Call any pilot of commercial airline and they'll laugh at the 500 mph story. It would face too much wind and thick atmosphere resistance. only on a vertical could it reach that speed. vibrating apart nearly on the way down. on a horizontal the motor mounts would shear off for sure if you got over 450. IDIOT!!! you kid has a moron for dad
sssssjjjj1 1 year ago
Nice video, I dunno how you could possibly make it any more clearer than this.
GnosticNinja 1 year ago
I'm not sure which is more annoying Moon hoaxers with their claims of radiation (which implies that all current missions in space are fake, and the entire world is in on the same conspiracy), or the 9/11 truthers with there shaky grasp of physics and material sciences, and the worst: their heavily edited videos of the events of that day.
manaman70 1 year ago
@manaman70 no it doesn't. The modern missions are within the Van Allen belts.
There is a Nasa page stating they can't go to Mars until they negate the radiation issue. 3 years out there will kill.
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
Aluminum will absolutely cut through steel. You bunch of turkeys need to learn some basic laws of physics.
Have you ever heard of shaped charges...? How can a few *ounces* of copper penetrate six inches of hardened steel on a tank...? Move those few ounces of copper at several thousand mph and it rips through steel like butter. Aluminum moving at 500mph has *no problem* tearing through steel.
Honestly, take a physics class. You guys are embarrassing.
sdtangler 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
First off...The columns were not 14'(feet?) thick.
They were 14"(inches) wide, hollow, and made with 1/4 inch thick steel.
2nd..What happened to the 12" thick poles in the video? They snapped in half! Although most columns just broke at their weakest point (the bolts that held them together). Some were cut due to the speed of the jet travelling in excess of 400mph.
3rd...The towers WERE designed to absorb the impact of any large aircraft.
Lastly.. The song in this video is annoying.
gimme2utah1 1 year ago
Comment removed
gimme2utah1 1 year ago
Very good job!
Your points are amazingly correct. My favorite is the speed of sound question.
It would not been cinematic enough to wait those natural seconds with the sound blast - he had this in mind for sure!
I am already wondering why people didn't run out of the theatres when they saw King Kong doing it's climbing on WTC ...screaming.and shouting "there is a big monkey on the towers".
Since it was believable....
Thanks for your work!
molekulaTV 1 year ago
To anyone who doesn't think a 400,000 pd. jet travelling in excess of 400mph can't penetrate a wall of steel columns that are just bolted together...Google "USS Hinsdale" and take a look at the photo of what happened to that ship after a Kamakazi pilot flew his 7000 pd. plane at approx. 300mph into the steel plated side of it.
gimme2utah1 1 year ago
Comment removed
footjob56 1 year ago
Without commenting on the rest of the questionable events of 9-11, this video proves nothing. That crashing plane was not flying anywhere near 500+mph. If the planes that hit the towers were going 180mph or so, you might have a point. The speed and combined weight of the plane/fuel can't just be ignored.
DaveTheTurd 1 year ago
@DaveTheTurd
Speed has nothing to do with it, only Newton's 3rd law and the properties of the materials involved. Steel>Aluminum. Watch this steel bar traveling 500mph cut through a steel passenger car like butter, what do you think would happen to an aluminum plane? watch?v=A0xQTCsDQ8E
HKmaroLS1 1 year ago
@DaveTheTurd yes it can
SmokinTime420 1 year ago
God Bless you Prophecy.
s88fifo 1 year ago
the jumpers were faked pics. almost all imagery was controlled. why no plane vorticies in the smoke??? the whole thing was a fake. victims and planes. yes the buildings were brought down with explosions. and if a wooden pole can cut a wing in half... why does it cut through steel beams like butter.. cause its fake people! use your brains, or die!
Zurnmusic 1 year ago
@Zurnmusic
chill pls. i know wtc was bs, but those ppl jumped
coz of the smoke. the smoke came from the cuttercharges.
the beams were cut before collapse. the explosions pulverises
the floors and blows the thousands of welded bolt in every floor.
God will judge these criminals.
s88fifo 1 year ago
1) Thez wooden poles were also destroyed.
2) The plane was not at full speed.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
I agree. BTW recently there was a computer simulation done. And it looked a lot like real video.
Voy2378 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
would it make a diffrence ?
btw, you cant fly 500mph at groundlevel.
impossible, dont belive me, ask a pilot.
s88fifo 1 year ago
@s88fifo
It was not at ground level, it was not very far from the ground, but still far enough from the ground to allow the flight.
It was only at the fiinal plase that the plane got close to the ground.
The problem is the same for a missile.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
the plane hit the groundfloor. and the plane nose wich is
made out of fiberglass, went threw 2 buildings.
watch this pls and then get back to me.
"911 WTC impossible speeds confirmed"
a beoing of the type hitting the wtc and pentagon cant dive
and keep the same speed. its impossible to make that
turn. this aint a MIG or a F16.
Dont belive an expert in aerodynamics? ask a pilot.
he will laugh at you.
s88fifo 1 year ago
Okay as Devils Advocate, at first i thought the wing COULD have been broken by the impact on the ground but you can clearly see the OUTER pole cuts through the wing like butter. Interesting.
Also: in WTC 1 and 2 the planes are so strong they cut through steel, but at the Pentagon, they are so weak they dissapear completely?? yeah right.
regger099 1 year ago
@regger099 At the Pentagon the plane both disappears AND punches a hole through three rings, while at Shanksville the plane was so sharp it slid right underground and the ground closed over it!!!!
kkkaldav 1 year ago
Wow, take a physics class. The speeds these planes were flying at would easily cut through steel. There was an enormous amount of force being applied when the planes wings met the steel beams. Linear momentum, inertia, deformation times, and sheer force all played a crucial roll in this tragedy. If aluminum can't cut through steel, then soft lead bullets fired at high velocity should never punch holes through steel either, right?
megalithii 1 year ago
@megalithii Please consider this from Jonathan D. Salant; AP, 9-18-2001, Seattle Times archived online as it says:
"At their base near Atlantic City, N.J., the marshals practice in two retired airliners. The marshals shoot special hollow-point, aluminum bullets that kill without penetrating the skin of airplanes."
Aluminum bullet goes faster than a jet, yet won't overpenetrate aluminum aircraft.
Lead is 4.2x denser and malleable, aluminum is brittle, tends to break apart on impact.
1236bigcat 1 year ago
well played!!!
skwid12 1 year ago
indy cars hit walls at 250 mph and turn to scrap and the concrete walls are still there, aluminium through 14 inch steel? NOT !!!!!!! David Rockerfeller is pissed at whoever wrote this script for him because they really fucked up on this one !!!!!
thesecondcaller 1 year ago
@thesecondcaller GREAT EXAMPLE!!!! Point made, and understood. The laws of physics just dont fail on ONE certain day!!!!
MSSTEE2009 1 year ago
sorry, for the multiple post, character limit:
the pressure washer demonstrates a crucial point: At high speeds, seemingly soft materials are able to cut through much harder materials. At high enough pressure, water can cut steel. So why is it impossible for an aluminum wing to go through a steel beam?
This post is dedicated to all the critical thinkers out there. Don't believe the lies.
philerrup 2 years ago
@philerrup As far as I know that it a common misconception about high water pressure cutters, the water is filled with grit of some kind.
A softer material cannot cut a harder one, hardness is defined by the ability of one material to scratch another. A softer material can force through a harder but the mechanism is different
Not sure how it relates to answering the question here, but it is something odd. At the very least this does not comport very well with the story told about flight 77.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
darkwing a hard material cuts softer because it can resist more pressure. However, if the hard material does take damage. That's the reason knives and other cutting tools need periodic sharpening. When the soft material hits the harder one at high speed, the soft material will still take the brunt of the damage, but can cause a surprising amount of damage to the "stronger" material. BTW, there are pure water steel cutters, though adding grit makes them more effective. Food for thought
philerrup 1 year ago
Looking at the pictures of the building it pretty obvious that sheer forces were a work rather than cutting per se.
That doesn't make it any less odd though especially when you compare it to the damage pattern seen at the Pentagon.
It is a hard thing to make sense of because of the lack of a proper thorough physical investigation.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
for water to cut steel philerup,,,,,,,,,the pressure is so intense and so focused on a single point of the steel ffor such a long period of time,,,,,,,,,the reason these planes could not do this is because aluminum cannot be harnessed and used in such a vast array of ways like water,,,,,,,,the aluminum plane cannot even go the speeds they say it was going,,,,,,,,at 750 feet altitude a plane could only reach approximately 300 mph,,,,,and it is spread out over such a great distance,,no match
bigbopper993 1 year ago
bopper, you answered your own question. pressure intense enough to go through the steel. The plane would exert 80,000 psi on the side of the building if it hit it. Is that enough to go through the wall? I think so. If you don't, please provide some math to prove it. I did the math, but don't have the space to show it here. character limit
philerrup 1 year ago
one thought, is judy collins getting any royalties for the use of her song?
Anyway, the point that aluminum can't cut steel: to the maker of the video. I propose this.
Go to a local hardware store (you probably hate Home Despot)
Rent a pressure washer. Fire it up, dial the pressure to max, and point if at your eye. Then fire away. I mean, it's water, right? Water can't cut you, so go ahead. Please post a videol.
philerrup 2 years ago
a judy collins song? showing a test with a plane weighing less than half as much, going 1/4 as fast? Very nostalgic, but not very useful. Apples and oranges, folks. Might as well show car crash tests, or a demo with paper airplanes. Oh well, believe what you want. It's a free country.
philerrup 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
let cecil the monster with a tiny dick rape you!!!!!
CeciITheSeaMonster 2 years ago
i think the planes were real. magic is real! science is fake! physics is fake! my mommy told me that paper is stronger then steel! i may be stupid, but stupid is what stupid does! im 30 years old and im still a virgin. i should go buy a fat black hooker. but i have warts on my cock.
theLordIovesusaIl 2 years ago
go fuck ceciltheseamonster up the ass... oh i forgot, thats you!
chibangin007 2 years ago
wow what a loser. get a life dumbass.
chibangin007 2 years ago
someone please fuck me up the ass! btw, i do have herpes.
CoIoradoMikeySSSS 2 years ago
i sucked bin ladens cock while george bush ass raped me. they both came in my mouth. they gave me 2 dollars and they forced me to go on youtube to lie abot 9/11. i love sucking dick.
CoIoradoMikeySSSS 2 years ago
my daddy raped me when i was 6. my mom makes me eate her pussy and my sister made me cum in her. i love being a hillbilly.
CoIoradoMikeySSSS 2 years ago
hey OO7, i busted my load in your mom.
chibangin007 2 years ago
fuckin fraud. go kill yourself you dirty redneck loser.
chibangin007 2 years ago
dude shut the fuck up you fuckin shill.
chibangin007 2 years ago
This song is the USA equivalent to the Chinese water torture.
yiblon 2 years ago
joan baez almost 50 years ago? it is an odd juxtaposition, but then so is this vid with this channel...
spotbelly 2 years ago
kool video, but the music sucks. god thats depressing.
chibangin007 2 years ago
chibanginOO7 u are disgusting. Why do u make these faggoty comments here?
theLordIovesusaII 2 years ago
the planes that hit the towers werent real at all. btw, a boeing 767 cannot fly at 500mph at ONLY 700ft. the only way it can reach over 500mph is if its at over 30,000 feet! people are so stupid to believe that 2 planes hit the towers. that shit was sooo fake. btw, theres under 40 footages. where are the thousands?
chibangin007 2 years ago
Continued from previous...
If the object is fixed the kinetic energy that has been imparted to the second (fixed) object will cause it to try to move regardless. If the collision had sufficient energy (i.e. the object was moving at high enough speed) the second object with break and move.
So there is my explanation. I'd like to hear your research, its only fair given that you accuse me of being ignorant yet present no facts to back up your own argument and ignore those which contradict it.
mistahjim 2 years ago
the notation for inches is " not ' ... thats feet.
newfndglory311 2 years ago
And for your information
EvilUSAandthe911Lie aluminum can cut through steel. In fact a feather could cut through steel if it's accelerated to a high enough velocity. From everyday experience we don't see aluminum cutting through steel. But we also know that something which is massless (an electron for instance) can be superheated (accelerated) to cut through solid Diamond. It's a question of force and momentum. We're talking about macroscaled things here. An accelerating 767 is forceful.
DavidAlanRogers 2 years ago
you obviously are making shit up. mythbusters had trouble getting straw to pierce wood at well over a hundred miles per hour, how the fuck is a feather (weaker than straw) going to pierce steel (stronger than wood). provide one shred of proof to your supposed fact. dickweed.
newfndglory311 2 years ago
Sorry but he's not 'making shit up', he's quoting the laws of physics. See his earlier comment regarding the mathematics involved. Also, you can't compare a 1950s aircraft like the Constellation seen here with a modern 767. Finally, please don't insult people with whom you disagree, it doesn't make you look clever or hard.
mistahjim 2 years ago
Comment removed
newfndglory311 2 years ago
where in the laws of physics does it state that feathers can cut through steel. the reality is youre far too ignorant to even speculate on this issue. do some real research and quit selling lies for the corporate war profiteering fucks.
newfndglory311 2 years ago
I apologise if I gave the impression I was speculating. I'll put it simply. When objects collide there is a transfer of energy. The kinetic energy of the moving object is transferred to the object with which it collides. If this object is free standing and not fixed it will move away at a velocity determined by the 2 objects relative masses and the direction of the collision.
mistahjim 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
9/11 is real! my 2 year old niece that i raped was on the plane. she was born in 2004. but she died like the rest. ass fucked. do you want you cock sucked?
CeciITheSeaMonster 2 years ago
Physics. A feather COULD pierce steel at high enough velocities. It's inertia would not be inhibited by the counter force of the steel, given a velocity vector with great enough magnitude. I concede that it could not occur on earth (because of frictional forces and combustible oxygen) but I'm merely making the point that extreme conditions produce extreme results.
If you have a problem with Newtonian mechanics I suggest you consult a book, and not television. 100 mph is not sufficient. .5c is.
DavidAlanRogers 2 years ago
The exterior was not 14 feet of steel
Denierbud11 2 years ago
One word refutation: momentum.
P = MV
The first plane is taking off... Going no more than 50-60 miles per hour. The force generated is dependent on the moment exerted per unit time. [MV]/T = F Ergo, a take off has little momentum, applied for little time... It does not have enough force to split the pole.
Now, take a plane traveling at 500 MPH... w/ cargo and passengers (more mass)... ACCELERATING into the crash. You'll have ATLEAST 20x the force....
Can the conspiracy theories... idiots.
DavidAlanRogers 2 years ago
Not only is DavidAlan right, but if anything this video undermines the case of the poster. Yes, the telephone pole messed up the wing (the sky is also blue, fyi), but the plane also messed up the pole (the sun is bright, incase you haven't checked). The question is momentum. Stop with the spooky conspiracy bullshit and go read a physics book and work the damn numbers yourself. Further, this is extremely apples and oranges, but I'd say if anything it undermines the conspiracy nutbar's case.
moniman2 2 years ago
so what cut that steel?
if it was a missile it wouldn't have cut it right?
danoli3 2 years ago
Great video!
If aluminum CAN cut through steel - like the mentally ill deniers claim - then fucking PROVE IT!
PROVE IT, or shut the fuck up!
How fucking crazy do these deniers lies have to get? I mean seriously.
EvilUSAandthe911Lie 3 years ago 8
@EvilUSAandthe911Lie
It's very easy to answer this question: Water can cut steel, it's used in industry to cut steel, and what's softer than water.
Aluminium can cut steel in some conditions, although it's softer than steel.
Kinetic power is a formidable energy which can make miracles.
,
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
what you are refering to is a completely diffrent story.
the steel frame that the boeing hit was 14 inches thick.
a plane nose is made out of fiberglass, and it penetraded the
bulding like a knife threw butter.
s88fifo 1 year ago
@s88fifo
No, it didn't penetrate that way.
There was a deformation of aluminium, but the very important kinetic energy of the plahe allowed it to cut through the steel; without this kinetic energy, effectively the aluminium wouldn't have cut through the steel.
You can't take the comparison of a knife cutting through butter, because the knife doesn't have the speed of a plane.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
and what speed is that ?
s88fifo 1 year ago
@s88fifo
With kinetic energy, even a pumpkin can break through a metallic door:
watch?v=didpjwBgFqY&feature=player_embedded
You must not reason uniquely in terms of difference of hardness of material.
This is only good in static comparison.
Kinetic energy completely changes the conditions, and gives to the softer material properties which allow it to get through harder material, which it couldn't without this kinetic energy.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
800 KM/H CRASH TEST. PLANE AGAINST WALL
pla watch.
s88fifo 1 year ago
@s88fifo
You didn't give me a link.
Give me a link if you want me to watch.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@s88fifo
OK: What I have seen is that the wall has been disintegrated.
The plane has been very severely damaged, but I have never contested that the planes have been very severely damaged.
Furthermore the buildings were not a plain wall, but iron bars with air between them, that makes completely different conditions.
Show me a crash test of a plane at very high speed and with iron bars separated like they were on the WTC.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
"Show me a crash test of a plane at very high speed and with iron bars separated like they were on the Wtc."
How about a 12inch wooden pole?
4:11.
s88fifo 1 year ago
@s88fifo
In the middle age, swords, knives and axes could not pierce the iron armours of the knights, but the crossbow's arrows could, and they were not made with a harder steel; th's their velocity which was making the whole difference.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
the point of an arrow is pretty sharp and hard,
the plane nose is made out of fiberglass and the
aluminium wings hitting
the wtc is not in comparison with a arrow point made of
iron hitting a metal armour.
s88fifo 1 year ago
@s88fifo
There is a plane that crashed into the empire state building, and it made a big hole.
It didn't do it the same, because the empire state building has a plain wall, not iron bars with air between them like the WTC.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor,
you forgot to mention it was a b-25 bomber.
s88fifo 1 year ago
@s88fifo
And then?
It's velocity which gives the energy.
The boeing was a plane full of people with wings full of fuel.
When it hit the WTC, it hit it with a formidable kinetic energy which gave it the power to break through the steel bars.
There was air between the steel bars, so parts of the plane could go though without resistance; the parts which met the iron bars struck them with so much violence that it was enough to cut through them even though steel is a priori harder than aluminium.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
watch this before you start levitating.
"911 WTC impossible speeds confirmed"
and dont tell me it dived at 500mph and made
a uturn. or ill strangle you.
just listen to what he has to say and stfu pls.
s88fifo 1 year ago
@s88fifo
Oh well, a question asked in a certain fashion!
The truth is that there is plenty of unknown data.
We don't know at which altitude the planes were flying before the crash.
They were probably flying higher and went down at the last moment (which gave them still more speed).
This video proves nothing, it's not objective, it's directed to try to prove the no-plane theory.
What's confirmed is that the 9/11 truthers wil bend every data to make it fir with their belief.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
"They were probably flying higher and went down at the
last moment (which gave them still more speed"
wtf, you must be workin for nasa.
s88fifo 1 year ago
@s88fifo
If truthers had some interest to prove that a bomber didn't hit the empire state building, they would make everything they can to try to prove it, with flawed demonstrations, and directed testimonies.
They would even probably find window cleaners who said they saw nothing!
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
planting evidence is something the gov do.
like an engine that didnt even come form a boeing, or a
passport from a terrorist.
get real dude.
s88fifo 1 year ago
@s88fifo
And don't believe I reject all conspiracies just because they are conspiracies.
I'm even a moon hoax believer, but I reject the theory of the inside job.
That doesn't mean that I think that Bush and his staff were honest, because I'm convinced they lied about Iraq, that they photoshopped WMD on an IRAQ stallite map, and made a forged letter Saddam would have sent to the Niger president to get uranium that in fact he never sent.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
s88fifo 1 year ago
@s88fifo
Sorry, but I definitively don't believe in the inside job.
There's a big difference between dishonest and criminal.
And I can't make that step which goes from dishonest to criminal to believe that Bush and his staff orchestrated the events of 9/11.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
s88fifo 1 year ago
@s88fifo
The conspiracists say clearly that Bush and his staff did orchestrate the 9/11 events.
They outright accuse them of having murdered thousands of American citizens.
It's an accusation which is more than serious and which would require a very serious investigation; yet there are many lies among the conspiracists, many unchecked facts, many unprovern assertions.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
Well, since the collapse of the towers is obvisously
a controlled demolition they put the gov as responsible.
BUT, you are right that it takes an investigation, thats
what the architects and engineers whant, a new investigation.
ALSO, the gov were very fast to accuse the talibans and the
gov of Iraq for 9/11, without any proof, wich caused 100s of
tousands deaths in the middle east and the central asian region.
Dont they have the right to live?
s88fifo 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
Bin Lasden isnt even on the whanted list of FBI,
doesnt that make you go hm..?
s88fifo 1 year ago
@s88fifo
Bin Laden is probably dead by now!
hunchbacked 1 year ago
s88fifo 1 year ago
@s88fifo
BTW, the person we see on the wrecked WTC in the video is obviously a photoshop!
Why can I say that?
Because, examine him attentively, he is on his knees, not standing up; that would make him very long legs, disproportionate with the rest of his body.
I'm used to analyzing photos, I can spot every detail.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
i have no opinion about ppl standing by the edge of the
towers.
s88fifo 1 year ago
@EvilUSAandthe911Lie Hmm... well, I suppose all of the videos showing the plane flying into the building is not proof enough? Prove what to you? That what we saw was actually not possible? Dude, seriously... do you think it was CGI or something? The hijacked planes buried themselves into the towers. Thousands of people in NYC watched it with their own eyeballs. So again, prove what, exactly? That what happened didn't really happen?
DaveTheTurd 1 year ago
@DaveTheTurd
I think you should commit suicide right now; because, the longer you go on in your egregious insanity telling monstrously evil lies for a few dollars, the worse the afterlife will be for you. Do yourself a favor and kill yourself this immediately. If you had any self respect you would... but that's a real long shot. LOL!
EvilUSAandthe911Lie 1 year ago
@EvilUSAandthe911Lie So much for getting a coherent response of some sort. Enjoy your drugs.
DaveTheTurd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 QUESTIONS 911 TRUTHERS DON'T WANT YOU TO ASK THEM:
Since the govt. committed 9/11, why arent truthers demanding the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is on trial for his life for a crime truthers claim he did not commit?
If there was no flight 93, please explain how 95% of the plane debris was recovered?
If there was no flight 77, please explain how 130+ witnesses reported seeing a plane?
ctcole77 5 months ago
@EvilUSAandthe911Lie
Aluminum will absolutely cut through steel. You bunch of turkeys need to learn some basic laws of physics.
Have you ever heard of shaped charges...? How can a few *ounces* of copper penetrate six inches of hardened steel on a tank...? Move those few ounces of copper at several thousand mph and it rips through steel like butter. Aluminum moving at 500mph has *no problem* tearing through steel.
Honestly, take a physics class. You guys are embarrassing.
sdtangler 1 year ago
@sdtangler I believe you but the planes that hit the wtc wern't moving at 500mph, they would hardly of been seen at that speed, there's video after video of it, they wern't going that fast at all
skyline5011 1 year ago
@skyline5011. Flight 11 was travelling at 490 mph. When it hit, it triggered seismographs all over the Northeast. You can easily see a plane travelling that fast. Have you ever been to an airshow? They'll always fly a (much smaller) jet by the crowd at near the speed of sound, or over 600mph. Flight 175 was estimated to be traveling at 590 mph. 175 dove from 28,000 feet in a short distance - it could easily reach that speed. The speeds of both planes were calculated from videos.
sdtangler 1 year ago
@sdtangler LMAO!!! You dont have the faintest foggiest notion about the bull you speak. vmo(velocity max operating) is 360 kia (knots indicated airspeed) beyond which the aircraft is in grave danger for several reasons. Control is lost as the air deflected off the leading edges of the vert and horiz stabilizer is deflected beyond the range where rudder or elevator have ANY effect. High speed compressor stall will kill engines. To exceed 400 kia the wings are coming off the airplane. PERIOD.
izzysykopth 7 months ago
@sdtangler LOL...look at a periodic table then come back!!! Ch is more dense than iron. steel is less dense than iron. adding carbon makes the steel stronger but less dense. Aluminum is less dense than both...by far.
You are putting your keyboard in your mouth here chump.
You must have dosed off at an important time in that one physics class you took. Physics doesn't care which object is moving, an equal and opposite force and all...
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@NOmeansnoFAN Cu not Ch durrr.fat fingers!
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
tubegov - I understand. It is hard for a sheeple to step aboard, now that the truth train is going 80 mph. (the revelation that media fakery = no planes)
However, the truth IS the truth.
Jewish-owned media, and jew WTC leaser silverstein were criminally complicit in fabricating the lie which killed 3,000+ innocent Americans, and then was used for the excuse for an ensuing holocaust which has killed millions more SO FAR.
They are guilty of crimes against humanity.
So what do YOU suggest?
nameofthepen 3 years ago 9
Aluminum CAN cut through steel in the right conditions. If you shood a ball of aluminum at a steel target fast enough it will penitrate it. There are other ways to get aluminum to cut steel too but we wont go there.
joness105639 3 years ago
the crash test was conducted below the stall speed of the connie (otherwise it would have been flying). That means that the connie was going under 100mph on impact.
A 767 cruieses at 530 mph and stalls at between 128 and 205.05 depending on takeoff weight and model.
since Ek=1/2(m*v^2) we can determine that the 767 transmitted a lot more energy to the WTC than a connie ever could
joness105639 3 years ago
ok, first of all, a 767 is much bigger and heavier than this Lockheed Constellation
Lockheed Constillation specs
Wingspan 126 ft 2 in (38.47 m)
Length: 116 ft 2 in (35.42 m)
Max takeoff weight: 137,500 lb (62,370kg)
Boeing 767
Length 159 ft 2 in
Wingspan 156 ft 1in
Maximum takeoff weight: 315,000 - 450,000 lb
Not to mention that the 767 is faster, and stronger. Please keep in mind that at slow speeds straw doesnt penetrate a tree at all, but at high speeds it can penetrate the surface.
joness105639 3 years ago
no way can you push a aluminum pop can through a steel plate.
but i think the wings were reinforced, that could explain the nearly impossible. the only other version is the NOPLANERS, but even truthers hate NOPLANERS.
tubegovernment 3 years ago
tubegov sez: "...even truthers hate NOPLANERS."
Hah, hah. Not true. Only the shills hate us.
And you hate us for our knowledge of crash physics, and our freedom to point out the media hoaxes. :D
nameofthepen 3 years ago 3
come on, jeez its hard enough getting normal people on to the subject. why further complicate everything with NOPLANERS. i mean old larry silverspoon must be laughing his ass off.
sorry fellow thruthers, but this is tooo twooofy for me.
tubegovernment 3 years ago
tubegov - this sums up my opinion of your "reasons" for wanting to hide the 911 truth better than I could state it myself:
"Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society.
(Ralph Waldo Emerson)
nameofthepen 3 years ago
nameofthepen
are you giving me credit? or are you saying, that by ridiculing fellow truthers, i kill the movement.
"you hate us for our knowledge of crash physics, and our freedom to point out the media hoaxes."
NO NO NO, i didnt say that. i even see your point. BUT how can this be of ANY help. a bit more substance would do good. but it's lousy vids. SORRY ppl. and whatever emerson said,
... even to lie for truth to be revealed is just.
...you'll always be in my heart, plane or no plane.
tubegovernment 3 years ago
Use newton kinetic energy formula.
THe plane was traveling at 600 mph.
The plane did disintegrate as it went into the building.
Do you think is should bounce off?
fulcrum66 3 years ago
Tornado Question: The static pressure of the still air inside the structures is substantially higher than that of the high speed air outside. This pressure differential is frequently enough to "blow the roof off". Solid objects don't experience this effect, of course. Porous objects are most interesting. Most don't realize, but they also have an internal static air pressure, and also expand in high winds. Thus, you get the famous straw-through-the-telephone phenomena.
stone1home 3 years ago
lol. You own video pretty much disproved your conclusion.
Sonovox01 3 years ago
Go buy then, for instance, an aluminum saw blade.
stone1home 3 years ago
Not a apples to apples comparision. But if you shot that blade at 600mph it would cut through what you wanted it too. Try it. Throw a bullet at some one-then shoot it out of a gun-Try it. I'll visit you in prison-I promise
Every since tornado aftermath footage-odd-normally weak things such a wooden branches blow through walls of homes-cars doors. etc.-Kinetic energy-mass, speed, force.
fulcrum66 3 years ago