nevillechamberian1 is a cover up fool by the sound of things. His water balloon would break before it reached 300 mph. My thick skull is stronger than the water balloon. He keeps saying he fire water balloon at 300mph, let me prove his water balloon can reach 300 mph without breaking up. This demonstrates how much an idiot he truely is. He knows nothing about physics. Sure weight can be harder to stop but a weaker material gets destroyed by the stronger material. Also surface area is missed too.
No, the test per your limited posts, is that your skull should be able to withstand a water balloon at any velocity, since your skull is obviously more dense than water.
Do you have the balls to submit to the test???
You either obviously don't understand the physics involved, or you are just another Twofer adherent that believes that their understanding of science is sacrosanct.
Why does this guy only do part of the maths and not the whole equation. They only talk of weight and speed and energy, What about materials, density and newtons law. What about the bombs on the plane that hit the empire state building. Aluminim isn't as strong as steel. So the damages happen to the plane and not the buildings so much.In truth this weight energy bullshit doesn't show anything but make it sound good to someone without much knowledge. Your car crahes and it crumple absorbing energy
Google the 1945 B-25 crash into the Empire State Bldg. First off, it didn't have bombs on it. Second, it weighed 1/10th of a 767 and was traveling at a slower speed. Third, it put an 18 ft (6 m) hole in the ESB and one engine flew out the other side, while another one dropped down an elevator shaft. Fourth, the ESB's concrete/steel/masonry can handle more impact damage than the WTC.
A Technical study commenting about the WTC Tower's ability to resist kinetic energy release from a collapse, even though it supported static loads for over 35 years:
"The structural resistance is found to be an order of magnitude less than necessary for survival, even though the most optimistic simplifying assumptions are introduced."
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis
This quote explains it briefly, but truthers are immune to fact and reason:
"So why did a total collapse occur? The cause was the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating lowered the yield strength and caused viscoplastic (creep) buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the tower and of the columns in the building core."
@nevillechamberlain1 I have been educated, Check out "David Chandler at Visalia Friends Meeting ". I learnt a lot about the towers or at least physics on here. I idon't believe half of what I hear but this guy proves things with experiments. I think its not about weight but types of materials used in building. For example, aluminium will just crumple against concreate. Look at the video of a 500 mph jet plane into concreate wall. This is why I argue for the truth. More to physics than we think.
Actually, BlisterHiker's analysis is true physics, and a fair analysis of the relative impact energies.
In any analyzed collision, the kinetic energy of an impacting object is always considered, as Blisterhiker presented. Try looking at the ballistics of various firearms.
Your understanding of physics is obviously limited. A 150 ton (140,000 kg) water balloon traveling at over 400 mph would also have caused significant high rise damage.
@nevillechamberlain1 Actually, everything has a factor in final result. This is my exact point that your ignoreing on purpose or you don't know what your talking about.. I'm not saying that weight can't have an effect. i'm saying that the weaker structure will get destroyed. Also shape has an effect too. Please stop talking shit to the vulnerable. There is far more calculations to get true answers. The 500 mph heavy plane don't make it through concreate on youtube vid. stop ignoreing newtons law
Actually, I'm not ignoring your point. Structures are rated for pressure (force/area) limits. If these are exceeded, the structure will fail, whether it be water or steel impacting it.
You obviously don't understand basic physics. You then attempt to call upon Newtonian physics to support your viewpoint, even though any Newtonian physics analysis shoots your under-educated thesis down like a dead duck.
Get an education, and/or bring a lawsuit supported by physics.
@nevillechamberlain1 Yes and when the structure hitting it is weaker than the structure its flying into, it means the flying structure breaks up first. Newtons Law. Go and watch "david chandler and learn some truth". The building above on the towers should have destroyed itself. Are you paid to try and convince idiots. Seeing is Believing, I see people becoming educated with video evidence of destruction. Maybe some of plane was stronger. We still need proper investigation by experts (non liars)
Again dipshit, you don't understand how construction materials have various limits including pressure ratings before they fail or are penetrated.
Again, if you want to subject your intellectually deficient skull to a 1/2 lb or less water balloon flying at you head at 250+ mph, we can test YOUR Physics THEORIES.
Are you willing to sign multiple waivers, so that we can test your IGNORANT Physics Beliefs upon your skull???
@nevillechamberlain1 Truth is too much for you to handle. Can you please tell me if a water balloon is capable of doing 300 mph, or would the turbulant air cause it to break up. If I were you I would give up as, there is far more intelligent people than you. David Chandler would woop your arse. Now please show me a normal water balloon that can do 300 mph without breaking with 300 mph wind. Your so beaten at your own game. Do yourself a favour, watch david Chandlers videos and fault what he says
LOL. You are the one that assumes the violation of Newtonian Physics for your political and religious goals, even though you can NEVER support it!
A water ballons flight is not the issue, only the fact that one measured to be traveling at 250+ mph could kill you.
You sign the necessary waivers to allow your head to be within 10+ ft of my water balloon launcher, and then we can measure both your brains and and balls.
@nevillechamberlain1 Don't include fucking words like religioin to physics you sad nitwit. I have no religion, so don't talk shit. Don't state religions of people, Try and argue with David Chandler, he will make you look stupid. You still not relised the education lesson I was trying to teach you. The balloon will break before it reaches the speed due to physics. ps paintballs do 200 mph and i've been hit up close. If they were stronger materiel then id worry. This gets funnier and funier, bye
I have already described the scenario, and now you apparently want to WIMP off into obscurity.
"ps paintballs do 200 mph and i've been hit up close."
No, paintballs are limited to under 300 mph. Try getting hit in your head with 40+ paintballs simultaneously impacting your apparently limited intellectual skull.
If you sign the necessary waivers, you could make your day and end up in Paradise with multiple virgins.
@nevillechamberlain1 Dude have you still not worked out what i'm actually saying to you. I'll simplify it once and for all. You put limited information on here, in other words, lots of physics calculations are just being ignored. Only a idiot will think in just terms of weight. Dude ill wear a steel crash helmet, your paintballs and waterballons haven't got a chance, ps illegally paintballs become known as firearms if too fast, also they go out of control. Why do you make untrue claims about me
If you are confident enough to stake you life on your physics "beliefs", we could construct an experiment where we launch a mere 1/2 lb water balloon at your head at 300 mph and see if you live through it. It is only water.
Geese can bring down a jet if they hit the engines. These jet engines have high alloy steel and titanium components, but a few geese can cause a modern jet engine to fail dramatically, per US Airways 1549 in January, 2009.
@nevillechamberlain1 i'm confident, you can try that, it won't reach 300 mph, it will break way before it reaches 300 mph., that is how stupid you are. This is my point, you totally ignore than try to direct people to a reference about singularity which has nothing to do with a proper experiment. My point is, which materials are stronger. You allways say weight speed, All these things need PROPER INVESTIGATIONS and we had none on 911. People have proven on videos the physics were not possible.
Again, you provide a straight forward "physics" analysis that those with some background can repeat themselves to confirm. It is a good video period!
You may already have Professor Greening's study on momentum and energy transfer of the WTC 1&2 progressive collapse, but if not:
Google: ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE by Professor Greening
It is a similar analysis to yours' here, but applied to the collapse.
I was in the Empire state building on the observatory deck and i saw the new freedom tower being built. I was looking at the same view as the 9/11 picture!
1. None of the towers were pulverized. Look at pictures of debris field. It was full of twisted steel beams and large pieces of concrete.
2. You don't even understand what the subject is. I never claimed the airplanes destroyed the buildings. I simply compared amount of damage their impacts did, which is related to their kinetic energy and amount of fuel.
3. The energy that destroyed the buildings is called potential energy. It was released when buildings were collapsing.
400, 500, 600 mph. 3,500, 10,000, 23,000 gallons of fuel. Progressive collapse, fire induced collapse. Built to withstand jetliner, no one could have expected jetliner collision. He said, she said. Act of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, war crimes. Terrorists in caves, terrorists in mansions. 30fps vs 25fps. This video, that video. Speculation, assumption, guess work.
So you agree on some of the MIT analysis but disagree on some parts as well. Pdf 1 that I sent you supports your video, but they also admit that they had to make calculated guesses. Both pdfs varied slightly on plane speed. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, you keep making that assumption. I want to know why after 10 years there's so much unknown. NIST said that they seen a "white paper" showing that wtc could survive a fast moving 707, but it was lost in wtc 7 collapse.
Prof. Kausel's calculation of second plane speed was quite inaccurate, but that does not make him wrong about other issues and certainly does not affect the subject here.
You lied about the speed of first airplane allegedly flying well under 400 mph, and frankly, I'm getting tired of your junk.
If you don't stop posting that bullshit, I will block you. I don't have time to repeat my explanations all over again, and it's not my fault you don't understand much. Plain and simple.
So the planes were loaded with excessive amount of fuel for their trips and only carried 35% full capacity of passengers? Your statistics are more than generous to say the least.
The airplanes weren't full, but also carried cargo and neither you not me know how much of it was loaded because it varies on each flight. The numbers I used are only approximate, meant to show the order of magnitude rather than precise results.
Bottom line: analogy drawn by some so-called truthers between those tragic cases are completely wrong.
@BlisterHiker Then why not add in the 707? Both buildings were designed to take an impact from several aircraft as well as a 707 (which is roughly the size of the 767). Should also add that upon impact the vast majority of jet fuel is consumed (as per fireballs). It's no different than how a molotov cocktail works.
I admit that the first plane scored a devastating hit. It was dead center on the core.
I do not talk about theoretical 707 case here. I compared real cases and showed that analogy drawn between them by so-called truthers is wrong.
Of course, what I say at the end of the video does not result solely from that comparison, but it's a general statement.
WTC towers were designed to withstand impact of 707 size airplane and they did (they did not callapse immediately), but they were not designed to survive all possible later consequences.
I guess most of fuel was consumed by initial explosions, but that played important role in subsequent collapses. Energy of explosions removed fireproofing protection from beams and trusses and damaged and weakened the structure of the building by releasing huge pressure wave on floors and walls.
That's why comparing WTC towers to fire of Windsor Tower in Madrid, for example, is completely wrong.
I do not draw analogy between apples and oranges. Conspiracy Theorists do.
@BlisterHiker Then the safe assumption is that every building ever created is a disaster waiting to happen. My questions is: Why do we spend billions on rocket/missile development when we've got a pretty cheap and reliable source (retired aircraft). We have GlobalHawk to pilot.
It's pretty strange how if someone questions something, they're automatically labeled a conspiracy theorist. Isn't that what founded America? Questioning British government?
Don't call it "safe assumption". Call it ignorant assumption, or rather stupid assumption. I have not seen such a stupid comment as yours in some time, even from so-called truthers.
Thinking your way, we are all disaster waiting to happen because nobody's perfect.
You don't question everything just because you understand a little, and that's where you stand.
You're lying. I have explained my point very well. The subject of this video is an analogy drawn by some 9/11 so-called truthers between completely different cases of collisions of airplanes with the buildings. You seem incapable of understanding even that one thing.
Next, you continue with your "wisdom" by bringing off-topic speculations and baseless claims regarding safety of all high rise buildings, which are not even worth any further discussion. Again, bye.
You're lying. I have explained my point very well. The subject of this video is an analogy drawn by some 9/11 so-called truthers between completely different cases of collisions of airplanes with the buildings. You seem incapable of understanding even that one thing.
Next, you continue with your "wisdom" by bringing off-topic speculations and baseless claims regarding safety of all high rise buildings, which are not even worth any further discussion. Again, bye.
You're lying. I have explained my point very well. The subject of this video is an analogy drawn by some 9/11 so-called truthers between completely different cases of collisions of airplanes with the buildings. You seem incapable of understanding even that one thing.
Next, you continue with your "wisdom" by bringing off-topic speculations and baseless claims regarding safety of all high rise buildings, which are not even worth any further discussion. Again, bye.
@BlisterHiker Again, the building was built to sustain a direct impact from a 707. A Boeing 707 is roughly the same size as a 767. Apparently you overlooked that and decided to focus on name-calling and belittling. MIT shows that plane 1 was travelling well under 400mph. Plane 2 was travelling at 500mph. Of course you hide behind 'approximately" yet demean someone else's approximation. You are set in stone on your belief and it wouldn't matter if an insurmountable evidence proved you wrong.
I received your PMs and links to PDFs with analysis made by prof. Eduardo Kausel and I have several questions and comments about that.
1. You said first plane was traveling well under 400 mph... You lied or simply didn't know what you were talking about. Prof. Kausel calculated it was 429 mph, which is not that far from official 466 mph.
2. With all due respect for prof. Kausel, his calculation of speed of the second plane impact (503 mph) is quite inaccurate.
@BlisterHiker Again, the building was built to sustain a direct impact from a 707. A Boeing 707 is roughly the same size as a 767. Apparently you overlooked that and decided to focus on name-calling and belittling. MIT shows that plane 1 was travelling well under 400mph. Plane 2 was travelling at 500mph. Of course you hide behind 'approximately" yet demean someone else's approximation. You are set in stone on your belief and it wouldn't matter if an insurmountable evidence proved you wrong.
Looking at high quality video clip of second plane impact (2nd-hit_WNYW_FOX5_DrEbbetts.avi), which I also used in my "9/11 - United 175 CGI Plane Theory Debunked" video (watch?v=lIGynEZ35Jg), it is clear that before impact, the airplane covered the distance of 2.6 fuselage length in 16 frames which means 0.53 s. 767-200 fuselage length is 48.5 m, which means speed of approx. 528 mph, not 503 mph.
The video clip I used comes from 911conspiracy . tv / 2nd_hit . html.
3. Again, the subject of this video is wrong analogy drawn by some "truthers" between completely different cases of collisions of airplanes with buildings. The energy released during collisions with WTC 1 and 2 (kinetic and fuel explosions/fires) were 1 order of magnitude higher than in case of Iranian C-130 crash, and 2 orders of magnitude (!) higher than in case of B-25 collision with the Empire State Building.
4. Prof. Kausel does not support Conspiracy Theories.
5. Speeds of the airplanes are approximate, but with even 10% less then official numbers, it does not change the situation at all. If you don't understand it, then I don't think I can help you any further.
6. Don't tell me "insurmountable evidence" wouldn't matter to me, because it's the opposite. Contrary to you, I judge events by available evidence and there is not even one piece of solid, scientifically confirmed evidence confirming 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.
the b-25 bomber is a prop plane which uses more gasoline type fuel, whereas a 767 is a jet engined plane which uses more kerosine like fuel and is more volatile.
Before coming up with an analogy like this, as if you've been watching too much FoX News,I suggest you get some more facts.For instance with the previous impacts you didn't have 3 building collapse, 2 of them withing 30minutes.NEVER before has a building collapsed because of fire damage, not before 2001 or after.Grow the fuck up...seriously stop believing everything the media tells you.And by the way WTC was the first of its kind a with the tube -entirely steel framed structure, do your homework
What are you talking about? I did not come up with that analogy. Conspiracy Theorists did! That's why I'm showing some of the most fundamental differences between those cases.
Don't lie about fire damage as the reason for WTC collapses. WTC 1 and 2 were hit by the airliners, and WTC 7's south side was damaged by huge debris impact from WTC 1. Fire was the trigger of collapses, but not the only reason.
Don't give blind faith to Conspiracy Theorists. Visit debunking911 . com.
@BlisterHiker LOL...don`t lie about fie damage? I`m trying to make u understand that never before has a building collapsed because of fire damage to the structure. How do u explain that a steel structure is melting within 30min...you have no logic in this. AND THE HUGE DEBRIS impact makes no fucking sense, again u didn`t do ur homework. Check anywhere u want the location of the WTC and u will understand that there was WTC building 3 standing between 1&7. so how come 7 collapsed but 3 is intact?
You are either an ignorant who didn't learn basic facts about 9/11 or simply a common liar.
None of the buildings collapsed on 9/11 due to fire only.
WTC 1 and 2 were hit and severely damaged by large airplanes. WTC 7 was hit by large debris falling from WTC 1 which damaged its south side.
Not even one piece of proof for controlled demolition was found at the WTC site and during Forensic Recovery and Debris Screening operation, where thousands of people worked. >
And one more thing; there are 100`s of volunteer scientists that show up on youtube and present logical explanation, unfortunately for u; they support the conspiracy theory but with COMMON SENSE!!! CHECK out MIT 9/11 or original footage from that day with witnesses reports about several explosions and u can even see it and reporters that talk about controlled demolition before the gov was able to write the news for them; WAKE UP dude.
Quit that bs about 100's of scientists on YT. So called "truth" movement is mostly supported by people who are not qualified structural engineers! Compare that to American Society of Civil Engineers with 123,000 members, American Institute of Architects with 80,000 members, or American Society of Mechanical Engineers with 120,000 members who have no problems with official analysis done by NIST. Are they all part of a conspiracy? Yeah, right...
MITEnineer Jeff King as well as chief engineer Leslie Robertson in charge for WTC have explenations that only lead to controlled demolition as many others.Just watch it and be tolerant to other opinions.Didn`t mean to question your intelligence but ur faith. And the evidence that was available after CDI(Controlled Demolition Inc),which was in charge for the debris removal, shipped the rest overseas to be recycled;There is documentation about this, you just have to read it;
6. 15,000 people worked during debris screening operation plus thousands at WTC site, many independent volunteers.
7. No evidence for any kind of controlled demolition (explosive or thermal) was ever found!
8. Molten metal in debris was a result of exothermic reactions between hot iron, steam and substances found in drywall in presence of carbon dioxide acting as catalyst.
9. If you don't stop lying, I will block you. I have little tolerance for such behavior.
usually an airliner will be damaged very bad, when it flys too fast! this is the reason, why every new airliner has an acoustic overspeed warning. and when you ignore it, you will crash!
Depends on how too fast. Every airliner has its safety margins and if there are no unexpected problems with the structure, they are capable of surviving significant overloads.
Again, hijackers did not care about safety. There is no conspiracy here, just simple facts that every pilot and engineer knows.
I have explained that "silhouette" issue several times on other videos already. I told you about the explosion and smoke that obscured the impact zone for couple of seconds, I told you about limited resolution of the video.
I am not going to tolerate those delusions here. This video addresses totally different issue.
You are blocked, and I will be doing the same to all other "invisible planes" or "Aliens did 9/11" lunatics who don't understand what the subject here is.
What is completely beyond understanding, is that sometimes even people who seem qualified, like Richard Gage, for example, who is an architect and prominent member of 9/11 so-called Truth movement, don't understand scaling as well!
I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw him "modeling" WTC tower with cardboard boxes...
How can anyone believe such people...
Don't we know the same patterns from Moon hoax circles?...
What about the the third building that didnt get hit by a plane at all, and fell like the twin towers did at free fall speed?Everyone seems to forget about building 7. The first time in history that three buildings collased from fire .
Nice work. As I understand it, the Empire State Bldg. had an immensely strong steel spine running up the center, a "brute force" approach to design; lots of material used to get the required strength. In contrast WTC, was a sort of hollow shell - hollow steel box members ran up around the perimeter - minimizing the amount of material required while maximizing strength obtained and interior space.
The drawback was that damage to the exterior compromised the structure a lot faster.
Exactly. WTC towers had that delicate feel. Not to take any structural strength from them, but in a way, they seemed almost too vulnerable from inside.
When you enter the Empire State Building, its sturdiness strikes you immediately. Heavy walls and ceilings, in places it feels almost like a bunker.
nevillechamberian1 is a cover up fool by the sound of things. His water balloon would break before it reached 300 mph. My thick skull is stronger than the water balloon. He keeps saying he fire water balloon at 300mph, let me prove his water balloon can reach 300 mph without breaking up. This demonstrates how much an idiot he truely is. He knows nothing about physics. Sure weight can be harder to stop but a weaker material gets destroyed by the stronger material. Also surface area is missed too.
benjyboba 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@benjyboba
benjyboba Dude,
No, the test per your limited posts, is that your skull should be able to withstand a water balloon at any velocity, since your skull is obviously more dense than water.
Do you have the balls to submit to the test???
You either obviously don't understand the physics involved, or you are just another Twofer adherent that believes that their understanding of science is sacrosanct.
Get an education, dude.
nevillechamberlain1 2 months ago
Why does this guy only do part of the maths and not the whole equation. They only talk of weight and speed and energy, What about materials, density and newtons law. What about the bombs on the plane that hit the empire state building. Aluminim isn't as strong as steel. So the damages happen to the plane and not the buildings so much.In truth this weight energy bullshit doesn't show anything but make it sound good to someone without much knowledge. Your car crahes and it crumple absorbing energy
benjyboba 2 months ago
@benjyboba
Google the 1945 B-25 crash into the Empire State Bldg. First off, it didn't have bombs on it. Second, it weighed 1/10th of a 767 and was traveling at a slower speed. Third, it put an 18 ft (6 m) hole in the ESB and one engine flew out the other side, while another one dropped down an elevator shaft. Fourth, the ESB's concrete/steel/masonry can handle more impact damage than the WTC.
Get an education.
nevillechamberlain1 2 months ago
A Technical study commenting about the WTC Tower's ability to resist kinetic energy release from a collapse, even though it supported static loads for over 35 years:
"The structural resistance is found to be an order of magnitude less than necessary for survival, even though the most optimistic simplifying assumptions are introduced."
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis
Bazant & Zhou 2001
nevillechamberlain1 2 months ago 3
@nevillechamberlain1
Very interesting paper. Thanks!
This quote explains it briefly, but truthers are immune to fact and reason:
"So why did a total collapse occur? The cause was the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating lowered the yield strength and caused viscoplastic (creep) buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the tower and of the columns in the building core."
BlisterHiker 2 months ago
@BlisterHiker
I'm not surprised that you picked up on many more issues in those papers than myself.
Nice job, again!
nevillechamberlain1 2 months ago
@nevillechamberlain1 I have been educated, Check out "David Chandler at Visalia Friends Meeting ". I learnt a lot about the towers or at least physics on here. I idon't believe half of what I hear but this guy proves things with experiments. I think its not about weight but types of materials used in building. For example, aluminium will just crumple against concreate. Look at the video of a 500 mph jet plane into concreate wall. This is why I argue for the truth. More to physics than we think.
benjyboba 2 months ago
@benjyboba
Actually, BlisterHiker's analysis is true physics, and a fair analysis of the relative impact energies.
In any analyzed collision, the kinetic energy of an impacting object is always considered, as Blisterhiker presented. Try looking at the ballistics of various firearms.
Your understanding of physics is obviously limited. A 150 ton (140,000 kg) water balloon traveling at over 400 mph would also have caused significant high rise damage.
nevillechamberlain1 2 months ago
@nevillechamberlain1 Actually, everything has a factor in final result. This is my exact point that your ignoreing on purpose or you don't know what your talking about.. I'm not saying that weight can't have an effect. i'm saying that the weaker structure will get destroyed. Also shape has an effect too. Please stop talking shit to the vulnerable. There is far more calculations to get true answers. The 500 mph heavy plane don't make it through concreate on youtube vid. stop ignoreing newtons law
benjyboba 2 months ago
@benjyboba
Actually, I'm not ignoring your point. Structures are rated for pressure (force/area) limits. If these are exceeded, the structure will fail, whether it be water or steel impacting it.
You obviously don't understand basic physics. You then attempt to call upon Newtonian physics to support your viewpoint, even though any Newtonian physics analysis shoots your under-educated thesis down like a dead duck.
Get an education, and/or bring a lawsuit supported by physics.
nevillechamberlain1 2 months ago
@nevillechamberlain1 Yes and when the structure hitting it is weaker than the structure its flying into, it means the flying structure breaks up first. Newtons Law. Go and watch "david chandler and learn some truth". The building above on the towers should have destroyed itself. Are you paid to try and convince idiots. Seeing is Believing, I see people becoming educated with video evidence of destruction. Maybe some of plane was stronger. We still need proper investigation by experts (non liars)
benjyboba 2 months ago
@benjyboba
Again dipshit, you don't understand how construction materials have various limits including pressure ratings before they fail or are penetrated.
Again, if you want to subject your intellectually deficient skull to a 1/2 lb or less water balloon flying at you head at 250+ mph, we can test YOUR Physics THEORIES.
Are you willing to sign multiple waivers, so that we can test your IGNORANT Physics Beliefs upon your skull???
Let me know, if you have a set.
nevillechamberlain1 2 months ago
@nevillechamberlain1 Truth is too much for you to handle. Can you please tell me if a water balloon is capable of doing 300 mph, or would the turbulant air cause it to break up. If I were you I would give up as, there is far more intelligent people than you. David Chandler would woop your arse. Now please show me a normal water balloon that can do 300 mph without breaking with 300 mph wind. Your so beaten at your own game. Do yourself a favour, watch david Chandlers videos and fault what he says
benjyboba 2 months ago
@benjyboba "Truth is too much for you to handle.
LOL. You are the one that assumes the violation of Newtonian Physics for your political and religious goals, even though you can NEVER support it!
A water ballons flight is not the issue, only the fact that one measured to be traveling at 250+ mph could kill you.
You sign the necessary waivers to allow your head to be within 10+ ft of my water balloon launcher, and then we can measure both your brains and and balls.
nevillechamberlain1 2 months ago 4
@nevillechamberlain1 Don't include fucking words like religioin to physics you sad nitwit. I have no religion, so don't talk shit. Don't state religions of people, Try and argue with David Chandler, he will make you look stupid. You still not relised the education lesson I was trying to teach you. The balloon will break before it reaches the speed due to physics. ps paintballs do 200 mph and i've been hit up close. If they were stronger materiel then id worry. This gets funnier and funier, bye
benjyboba 2 months ago
@benjyboba
I have already described the scenario, and now you apparently want to WIMP off into obscurity.
"ps paintballs do 200 mph and i've been hit up close."
No, paintballs are limited to under 300 mph. Try getting hit in your head with 40+ paintballs simultaneously impacting your apparently limited intellectual skull.
If you sign the necessary waivers, you could make your day and end up in Paradise with multiple virgins.
nevillechamberlain1 2 months ago
@nevillechamberlain1 Dude have you still not worked out what i'm actually saying to you. I'll simplify it once and for all. You put limited information on here, in other words, lots of physics calculations are just being ignored. Only a idiot will think in just terms of weight. Dude ill wear a steel crash helmet, your paintballs and waterballons haven't got a chance, ps illegally paintballs become known as firearms if too fast, also they go out of control. Why do you make untrue claims about me
benjyboba 2 months ago
Comment removed
nevillechamberlain1 2 months ago
@benjyboba
If you are confident enough to stake you life on your physics "beliefs", we could construct an experiment where we launch a mere 1/2 lb water balloon at your head at 300 mph and see if you live through it. It is only water.
Geese can bring down a jet if they hit the engines. These jet engines have high alloy steel and titanium components, but a few geese can cause a modern jet engine to fail dramatically, per US Airways 1549 in January, 2009.
Get an education!
nevillechamberlain1 2 months ago
@nevillechamberlain1 i'm confident, you can try that, it won't reach 300 mph, it will break way before it reaches 300 mph., that is how stupid you are. This is my point, you totally ignore than try to direct people to a reference about singularity which has nothing to do with a proper experiment. My point is, which materials are stronger. You allways say weight speed, All these things need PROPER INVESTIGATIONS and we had none on 911. People have proven on videos the physics were not possible.
benjyboba 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BlisterHiker
I noticed in my haste, I misspelled "wear". LOL
Again, you provide a straight forward "physics" analysis that those with some background can repeat themselves to confirm. It is a good video period!
You may already have Professor Greening's study on momentum and energy transfer of the WTC 1&2 progressive collapse, but if not:
Google: ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE by Professor Greening
It is a similar analysis to yours' here, but applied to the collapse.
nevillechamberlain1 2 months ago
@BlisterHiker You may already have these studies, but I thought I'd add them just in case you didn't.
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis
Bazant & Zhou 2001
Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions
Bazant & Verdure 2006
What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?
Bažant et al 2008
Thank you for your efforts to analytically inform people!
nevillechamberlain1 2 months ago
I was in the Empire state building on the observatory deck and i saw the new freedom tower being built. I was looking at the same view as the 9/11 picture!
yummyr23ocky 3 months ago
The twin towers were pulverized. Regardless of plane size and
kinetic related calculations, a plane crash doesn't pulverize a building.
Taotaomauna 5 months ago
@Taotaomauna
1. None of the towers were pulverized. Look at pictures of debris field. It was full of twisted steel beams and large pieces of concrete.
2. You don't even understand what the subject is. I never claimed the airplanes destroyed the buildings. I simply compared amount of damage their impacts did, which is related to their kinetic energy and amount of fuel.
3. The energy that destroyed the buildings is called potential energy. It was released when buildings were collapsing.
>
BlisterHiker 5 months ago
@Taotaomauna >
4. You also didn't understand my statement at the end was of general nature.
You are an excellent example of low intellectual capacity of Conspiracy Theorists.
BlisterHiker 5 months ago
Argument of video uploader reflective of sheeple mentality.
An idiot !
Taotaomauna 5 months ago
@Taotaomauna
Actually, your response is one of pure insults, since you cannot dispute the analysis done by @blisterhiker.
Is that because you have no technical training, you are a YT troll or both???
nevillechamberlain1 2 months ago
Comment removed
mayhemnmischief 5 months ago
Comment removed
mayhemnmischief 5 months ago
Comment removed
mayhemnmischief 5 months ago
Comment removed
mayhemnmischief 5 months ago
400, 500, 600 mph. 3,500, 10,000, 23,000 gallons of fuel. Progressive collapse, fire induced collapse. Built to withstand jetliner, no one could have expected jetliner collision. He said, she said. Act of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, war crimes. Terrorists in caves, terrorists in mansions. 30fps vs 25fps. This video, that video. Speculation, assumption, guess work.
Feel free to block me.
mayhemnmischief 5 months ago
So you agree on some of the MIT analysis but disagree on some parts as well. Pdf 1 that I sent you supports your video, but they also admit that they had to make calculated guesses. Both pdfs varied slightly on plane speed. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, you keep making that assumption. I want to know why after 10 years there's so much unknown. NIST said that they seen a "white paper" showing that wtc could survive a fast moving 707, but it was lost in wtc 7 collapse.
mayhemnmischief 5 months ago
@mayhemnmischief
Prof. Kausel's calculation of second plane speed was quite inaccurate, but that does not make him wrong about other issues and certainly does not affect the subject here.
You lied about the speed of first airplane allegedly flying well under 400 mph, and frankly, I'm getting tired of your junk.
If you don't stop posting that bullshit, I will block you. I don't have time to repeat my explanations all over again, and it's not my fault you don't understand much. Plain and simple.
BlisterHiker 5 months ago
@BlisterHiker
I have referred to the analysis that you present on this video on other channels. Great job again!
As a mentor told me awhile back, don't let the bastards where you down.
nevillechamberlain1 2 months ago
@nevillechamberlain1
Thanks! It's always good to see people like you around in a place dominated, at least in sheer numbers, by conspiracy believers and ignorants.
BlisterHiker 2 months ago
Comment removed
nevillechamberlain1 2 months ago
So the planes were loaded with excessive amount of fuel for their trips and only carried 35% full capacity of passengers? Your statistics are more than generous to say the least.
mayhemnmischief 5 months ago
@mayhemnmischief
The airplanes weren't full, but also carried cargo and neither you not me know how much of it was loaded because it varies on each flight. The numbers I used are only approximate, meant to show the order of magnitude rather than precise results.
Bottom line: analogy drawn by some so-called truthers between those tragic cases are completely wrong.
BlisterHiker 5 months ago
@BlisterHiker Then why not add in the 707? Both buildings were designed to take an impact from several aircraft as well as a 707 (which is roughly the size of the 767). Should also add that upon impact the vast majority of jet fuel is consumed (as per fireballs). It's no different than how a molotov cocktail works.
I admit that the first plane scored a devastating hit. It was dead center on the core.
2nd plane was glancing at best.
mayhemnmischief 5 months ago
@mayhemnmischief
I do not talk about theoretical 707 case here. I compared real cases and showed that analogy drawn between them by so-called truthers is wrong.
Of course, what I say at the end of the video does not result solely from that comparison, but it's a general statement.
WTC towers were designed to withstand impact of 707 size airplane and they did (they did not callapse immediately), but they were not designed to survive all possible later consequences.
>
BlisterHiker 5 months ago
@mayhemnmischief >
I guess most of fuel was consumed by initial explosions, but that played important role in subsequent collapses. Energy of explosions removed fireproofing protection from beams and trusses and damaged and weakened the structure of the building by releasing huge pressure wave on floors and walls.
That's why comparing WTC towers to fire of Windsor Tower in Madrid, for example, is completely wrong.
I do not draw analogy between apples and oranges. Conspiracy Theorists do.
BlisterHiker 5 months ago
@BlisterHiker Then the safe assumption is that every building ever created is a disaster waiting to happen. My questions is: Why do we spend billions on rocket/missile development when we've got a pretty cheap and reliable source (retired aircraft). We have GlobalHawk to pilot.
It's pretty strange how if someone questions something, they're automatically labeled a conspiracy theorist. Isn't that what founded America? Questioning British government?
mayhemnmischief 5 months ago
"Then the safe assumption is that every building ever created is a disaster waiting to happen."
@mayhemnmischief
Don't call it "safe assumption". Call it ignorant assumption, or rather stupid assumption. I have not seen such a stupid comment as yours in some time, even from so-called truthers.
Thinking your way, we are all disaster waiting to happen because nobody's perfect.
You don't question everything just because you understand a little, and that's where you stand.
Bye.
BlisterHiker 5 months ago
@BlisterHiker Exactly, you can't argue your side, so you resort to belittle. Typical.
mayhemnmischief 5 months ago
@mayhemnmischief
You're lying. I have explained my point very well. The subject of this video is an analogy drawn by some 9/11 so-called truthers between completely different cases of collisions of airplanes with the buildings. You seem incapable of understanding even that one thing.
Next, you continue with your "wisdom" by bringing off-topic speculations and baseless claims regarding safety of all high rise buildings, which are not even worth any further discussion. Again, bye.
BlisterHiker 5 months ago
@mayhemnmischief
You're lying. I have explained my point very well. The subject of this video is an analogy drawn by some 9/11 so-called truthers between completely different cases of collisions of airplanes with the buildings. You seem incapable of understanding even that one thing.
Next, you continue with your "wisdom" by bringing off-topic speculations and baseless claims regarding safety of all high rise buildings, which are not even worth any further discussion. Again, bye.
BlisterHiker 5 months ago
@mayhemnmischief
You're lying. I have explained my point very well. The subject of this video is an analogy drawn by some 9/11 so-called truthers between completely different cases of collisions of airplanes with the buildings. You seem incapable of understanding even that one thing.
Next, you continue with your "wisdom" by bringing off-topic speculations and baseless claims regarding safety of all high rise buildings, which are not even worth any further discussion. Again, bye.
BlisterHiker 5 months ago
@BlisterHiker Again, the building was built to sustain a direct impact from a 707. A Boeing 707 is roughly the same size as a 767. Apparently you overlooked that and decided to focus on name-calling and belittling. MIT shows that plane 1 was travelling well under 400mph. Plane 2 was travelling at 500mph. Of course you hide behind 'approximately" yet demean someone else's approximation. You are set in stone on your belief and it wouldn't matter if an insurmountable evidence proved you wrong.
mayhemnmischief 5 months ago
@mayhemnmischief
I received your PMs and links to PDFs with analysis made by prof. Eduardo Kausel and I have several questions and comments about that.
1. You said first plane was traveling well under 400 mph... You lied or simply didn't know what you were talking about. Prof. Kausel calculated it was 429 mph, which is not that far from official 466 mph.
2. With all due respect for prof. Kausel, his calculation of speed of the second plane impact (503 mph) is quite inaccurate.
> cont
BlisterHiker 5 months ago
@BlisterHiker Again, the building was built to sustain a direct impact from a 707. A Boeing 707 is roughly the same size as a 767. Apparently you overlooked that and decided to focus on name-calling and belittling. MIT shows that plane 1 was travelling well under 400mph. Plane 2 was travelling at 500mph. Of course you hide behind 'approximately" yet demean someone else's approximation. You are set in stone on your belief and it wouldn't matter if an insurmountable evidence proved you wrong.
mayhemnmischief 5 months ago
"MIT shows that plane 1 was travelling well under 400mph. Plane 2 was travelling at 500mph"
@mayhemnmischief
Really?
Show publication made by MIT which says that. Author(s), title, date published and (if possible), link please.
BlisterHiker 5 months ago
@mayhemnmischief >2
Looking at high quality video clip of second plane impact (2nd-hit_WNYW_FOX5_DrEbbetts.avi), which I also used in my "9/11 - United 175 CGI Plane Theory Debunked" video (watch?v=lIGynEZ35Jg), it is clear that before impact, the airplane covered the distance of 2.6 fuselage length in 16 frames which means 0.53 s. 767-200 fuselage length is 48.5 m, which means speed of approx. 528 mph, not 503 mph.
The video clip I used comes from 911conspiracy . tv / 2nd_hit . html.
>
BlisterHiker 5 months ago
@mayhemnmischief >3
3. Again, the subject of this video is wrong analogy drawn by some "truthers" between completely different cases of collisions of airplanes with buildings. The energy released during collisions with WTC 1 and 2 (kinetic and fuel explosions/fires) were 1 order of magnitude higher than in case of Iranian C-130 crash, and 2 orders of magnitude (!) higher than in case of B-25 collision with the Empire State Building.
4. Prof. Kausel does not support Conspiracy Theories.
>
BlisterHiker 5 months ago
@mayhemnmischief >4
5. Speeds of the airplanes are approximate, but with even 10% less then official numbers, it does not change the situation at all. If you don't understand it, then I don't think I can help you any further.
6. Don't tell me "insurmountable evidence" wouldn't matter to me, because it's the opposite. Contrary to you, I judge events by available evidence and there is not even one piece of solid, scientifically confirmed evidence confirming 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.
BlisterHiker 5 months ago
the b-25 bomber is a prop plane which uses more gasoline type fuel, whereas a 767 is a jet engined plane which uses more kerosine like fuel and is more volatile.
Dillon1108 5 months ago
Before coming up with an analogy like this, as if you've been watching too much FoX News,I suggest you get some more facts.For instance with the previous impacts you didn't have 3 building collapse, 2 of them withing 30minutes.NEVER before has a building collapsed because of fire damage, not before 2001 or after.Grow the fuck up...seriously stop believing everything the media tells you.And by the way WTC was the first of its kind a with the tube -entirely steel framed structure, do your homework
GuyIncognitoable 7 months ago
@GuyIncognitoable
What are you talking about? I did not come up with that analogy. Conspiracy Theorists did! That's why I'm showing some of the most fundamental differences between those cases.
Don't lie about fire damage as the reason for WTC collapses. WTC 1 and 2 were hit by the airliners, and WTC 7's south side was damaged by huge debris impact from WTC 1. Fire was the trigger of collapses, but not the only reason.
Don't give blind faith to Conspiracy Theorists. Visit debunking911 . com.
BlisterHiker 7 months ago
@BlisterHiker LOL...don`t lie about fie damage? I`m trying to make u understand that never before has a building collapsed because of fire damage to the structure. How do u explain that a steel structure is melting within 30min...you have no logic in this. AND THE HUGE DEBRIS impact makes no fucking sense, again u didn`t do ur homework. Check anywhere u want the location of the WTC and u will understand that there was WTC building 3 standing between 1&7. so how come 7 collapsed but 3 is intact?
GuyIncognitoable 6 months ago
@GuyIncognitoable
You are either an ignorant who didn't learn basic facts about 9/11 or simply a common liar.
None of the buildings collapsed on 9/11 due to fire only.
WTC 1 and 2 were hit and severely damaged by large airplanes. WTC 7 was hit by large debris falling from WTC 1 which damaged its south side.
Not even one piece of proof for controlled demolition was found at the WTC site and during Forensic Recovery and Debris Screening operation, where thousands of people worked. >
BlisterHiker 6 months ago
And one more thing; there are 100`s of volunteer scientists that show up on youtube and present logical explanation, unfortunately for u; they support the conspiracy theory but with COMMON SENSE!!! CHECK out MIT 9/11 or original footage from that day with witnesses reports about several explosions and u can even see it and reporters that talk about controlled demolition before the gov was able to write the news for them; WAKE UP dude.
GuyIncognitoable 6 months ago
@GuyIncognitoable >2
Quit that bs about 100's of scientists on YT. So called "truth" movement is mostly supported by people who are not qualified structural engineers! Compare that to American Society of Civil Engineers with 123,000 members, American Institute of Architects with 80,000 members, or American Society of Mechanical Engineers with 120,000 members who have no problems with official analysis done by NIST. Are they all part of a conspiracy? Yeah, right...
It is you who should wake up.
BlisterHiker 6 months ago
MITEnineer Jeff King as well as chief engineer Leslie Robertson in charge for WTC have explenations that only lead to controlled demolition as many others.Just watch it and be tolerant to other opinions.Didn`t mean to question your intelligence but ur faith. And the evidence that was available after CDI(Controlled Demolition Inc),which was in charge for the debris removal, shipped the rest overseas to be recycled;There is documentation about this, you just have to read it;
GuyIncognitoable 6 months ago
@GuyIncognitoable >1
1. Jeff King graduated from MIT, but not as structural engineer.
2. Leslie Robertson did not say WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.
3. Most people who support 9/11 so-called truth movement are not qualified engineers.
4. Vast majority of engineering community does not accept 9/11 conspiracy theories.
5. Debris from WTC was not simply shipped out. In addition to careful search at Ground Zero, 1,462,000 tons went through screening at Staten Island! >
BlisterHiker 6 months ago
@GuyIncognitoable >2
6. 15,000 people worked during debris screening operation plus thousands at WTC site, many independent volunteers.
7. No evidence for any kind of controlled demolition (explosive or thermal) was ever found!
8. Molten metal in debris was a result of exothermic reactions between hot iron, steam and substances found in drywall in presence of carbon dioxide acting as catalyst.
9. If you don't stop lying, I will block you. I have little tolerance for such behavior.
BlisterHiker 6 months ago
Carbon monoxide, not dioxide. Just noticed that typo.
BlisterHiker 6 months ago
Comment removed
nevillechamberlain1 6 months ago
@BlisterHiker
Excellent job on this video, BlisterHiker! It is a straight forward analysis, that provides excellent perspective for those with an open mind.
nevillechamberlain1 6 months ago
@nevillechamberlain1
Thanks!
BlisterHiker 6 months ago
Please show me how I can fly with a 767 586 mph in this altitude!
pussicat666666 9 months ago
@pussicat666666
Those planes were not simply flying at those altitudes.
They were descending at fast rate from higher altitudes, and that makes a big difference.
No sane pilot would've pushed a passenger airplane to the limit like those hijackers did, but as you know, they didn't care about safety.
BlisterHiker 9 months ago
@BlisterHiker
usually an airliner will be damaged very bad, when it flys too fast! this is the reason, why every new airliner has an acoustic overspeed warning. and when you ignore it, you will crash!
pussicat666666 9 months ago
"usually an airliner will be damaged very bad, when it flys too fast"
@pussicat666666
Depends on how too fast. Every airliner has its safety margins and if there are no unexpected problems with the structure, they are capable of surviving significant overloads.
Again, hijackers did not care about safety. There is no conspiracy here, just simple facts that every pilot and engineer knows.
BlisterHiker 9 months ago
Did the B52's impact silhouette form SIX SECOND+ after impact like F11's did in the Naudet 9/11 film?
MarkB1ngham 9 months ago
@MarkB1ngham
I have explained that "silhouette" issue several times on other videos already. I told you about the explosion and smoke that obscured the impact zone for couple of seconds, I told you about limited resolution of the video.
I am not going to tolerate those delusions here. This video addresses totally different issue.
You are blocked, and I will be doing the same to all other "invisible planes" or "Aliens did 9/11" lunatics who don't understand what the subject here is.
BlisterHiker 9 months ago
Great work BH. The bar graphs are always helpful so that people can really see the difference.
Then they start with "Yeah but, yeah but, yeah but...."
CTs are also completely ignorant of size/strength/weight ratios. The larger the building, the more likely it is to collapse.
Astrobrant2 9 months ago
@Astrobrant2
What is completely beyond understanding, is that sometimes even people who seem qualified, like Richard Gage, for example, who is an architect and prominent member of 9/11 so-called Truth movement, don't understand scaling as well!
I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw him "modeling" WTC tower with cardboard boxes...
How can anyone believe such people...
Don't we know the same patterns from Moon hoax circles?...
BlisterHiker 9 months ago
What about the the third building that didnt get hit by a plane at all, and fell like the twin towers did at free fall speed?Everyone seems to forget about building 7. The first time in history that three buildings collased from fire .
XxdarksawxX 9 months ago
@XxdarksawxX
What about the third building... huh!
My Goodness, do you "truthers" even understand what term "subject" means?!
This video is on specific subject: irrelevance of analogy drawn by some of you between those plane crashes.
If you want to learn more about WTC 7, I suggest visiting websites which show information based on science instead of conspiracy theory lies.
Some of those websites are listed in description, e.g. debunking911 . com.
Go there, click it and learn.
BlisterHiker 9 months ago
@Astrobrant2
Twoofer in action. Don't miss that one! :-)
watch?v=DFVoencqfZw
BlisterHiker 9 months ago
Nice work. As I understand it, the Empire State Bldg. had an immensely strong steel spine running up the center, a "brute force" approach to design; lots of material used to get the required strength. In contrast WTC, was a sort of hollow shell - hollow steel box members ran up around the perimeter - minimizing the amount of material required while maximizing strength obtained and interior space.
The drawback was that damage to the exterior compromised the structure a lot faster.
occhamite 9 months ago
@occhamite
Exactly. WTC towers had that delicate feel. Not to take any structural strength from them, but in a way, they seemed almost too vulnerable from inside.
When you enter the Empire State Building, its sturdiness strikes you immediately. Heavy walls and ceilings, in places it feels almost like a bunker.
BlisterHiker 9 months ago