Physics is 100% repeatable, by definition.

[Mat H Physics]

Teenagers, 150 years ago, knew cannonballs bounced of ironclad ships.  Zero pilots aimed for the battle ships wooden decks, unless they had a live torpedo.  Yet no one has provided a contradiction to the following observation.

Aluminum in free space will not penetrate a larger piece of rigid structural grade building steel at subsonic speed (STP@SL).

There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true. The other is to refuse to accept what is true.~ Soren Kierkegaard

The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.~ W. Dyer

Prof of concept can be seen in history, as a B-25 Mitchell struck the Empire State building July 28th, 1945. The facade of the ESB is granite, and masonry has negligible tensile strength(<1Ksi). Tensile strength is what keeps a material from being pulled apart (penetrated, such as Kevlar vest) and structural building steel will withstand over 88Ksi (THE strongest tensile strength building material used in quantity, even today). The aircraft punched a 18ft x 20ft hole in the facade, yet the wing span is over 67 feet. Many publication try to avoid discussing the air frame, as it fell to a lower roof terrace and the street level. Victims inside stated “The building swung like a pendulum for thirty seconds... we had trouble keeping our feet under us, as we ran for cover.”

To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one's thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one's mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.~ Ayn Rand

The crisis of today is the joke of tomorrow.~ H. G. Wells

Having shot a steel car rim with a handgun (44mag), this is a clear example of how penetration is not possible. The bullet is 10x the density of water and travels well above the speed of sound (about 1600ft/sec). But we are expected to believe an aluminum projectile that floats on water (Sully's airliner in the Hudson river, indicating .2 mass density compared to water) and can only travel about 500ft/sec, is able to perpetuate over 126 feet through steel without stopping. This is absurd, as it would only takes a constant force of 50G to stop any projectile moving 500ft/sec, in 63 feet. Formula 1 cars have recorded survived impacts from 85-140+G, crumpling the car body less than 2ft, in 200mph crashes.

As the kinematic equation shows, 1/2 Mass(Velocity squared), the velocity is exponential compared to mass, a linear function. From the standpoint of metallurgy, the shear modules of aluminum is 25 Gpa, where as basic steel is 70 Gpa. Even the construction technique of using sheet metal to fabricate planes, lends itself to the dissipation of energy through crumpling. Examples can be seen in uni-body construction of cars to meet impact safety requirements, a practice started before 1980.

In conclusion, the carppetbagger's hoax that commercial airliners hit the WTC, can easily be disproved by observation of physics and metallurgy. Even basic math shows the energy needed would be one thousand times greater than a commercial airliner could generate, that's three orders of magnitude. Not physically possible!

[Will Torbald]

Empirically speaking, it happened. Observation always trumps theory.

[shirgall]

In addition, the collision acted somewhat like a kinetic energy penetrator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator

 

I've posted repeatedly about the extremely high kinetic energy (millions of joules) of such a large plane travelling at over 500mph.

[A4E]

Empirically speaking, it happened. Observation always trumps theory.

Would you agree that flying saucers are real? A lot of people have observed and have video of flying saucers.

[shirgall]

Would you agree that flying saucers are real? A lot of people have observed and have video of flying saucers.

 

One could verify 9/11 happened with millions of observers (including my sister that lives in Brooklyn), including videographic and forensic evidence... either the event itself, or the aftermath.

[pretzelogik]

In addition, the collision acted somewhat like a kinetic energy penetrator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator

 

I've posted repeatedly about the extremely high kinetic energy (millions of joules) of such a large plane travelling at over 500mph.

Millions of joules that didn't cause the buildings to sway even a fraction of an inch from the impact, the vibration of which neglected to  shatter hundreds of adjacent windows.  Joules that allowed aluminum wings to slice through multiple floors of four inch poured concrete like knives through hot butter.

 

Nothing to see here folks, move along.

[Mat H Physics]

In addition, the collision acted somewhat like a kinetic energy penetrator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator

 

I've posted repeatedly about the extremely high kinetic energy (millions of joules) of such a large plane travelling at over 500mph.

I doubt we will hear from you again, as you give me the option of hanging you by your own words.

"High muzzle velocity is achieved by using a projectile with a low mass and large base area in the gun barrel. Firing a small size projectile wrapped in a lightweight outer shell"

That means the projectile is traveling twice the speed of sound, or in energy terms of the Kinematic equation, 16x more energy due to velocity alone.  Then there is the mass density part of the equation, where tungsten is twenty time the density of water and Sully's airliner in the Hudson river indicates a mass density of point two.  That is a one hundred fold increase, or two orders of magnitude.  Put these to factors together and we are looking at 1600x more energy, and we haven't even addressed frontal area by any means.  The fact the AP round comes to a finite point means a factor of infinity.

So when are you going to show an example of your vampire, werewolf, pet unicorn?  The things you ref are way outside the conditions of a jumbo jet hitting a skyscraper.  You keep saying momentum as if the towers had none, for each pound of a 767-200, each tower weighed in at over one and a half tons.  Or are you a card carrying member of the Flat Earth Society?  At lest they cite 'evidence' to support their case, which I have yet to see you do in some relevant fashion.

Here is what your 'video evidence' left behind:

 

@Will Torbald  So now we are to believe David Copperfield moved the Statue of Liberty off it pedestal, b/c you saw it on TV??  Newtonian laws of physics passed theory stage five centuries ago, provide a repeatable example that backs the hayseed's hypothesis.  The only one bring up subjective material is you, I've given you the correct, repeatable, observation.

 

I've been waiting eight months for 'the host' to take my skype, yet it appears he is no going to enter a debate he can't win.  He prefers to take on 'flat Earth theory', fish in a barrel.  Someone get jvincent (https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39855-physic-conflicts-the-911-goverment-fairytale/page-3) on the phone, I want to put him in his proper place.  The easiest way to violate the laws of physics is to put it on TV, where reality is suspended.

 

Arguments I refuse to address.

Use of natural materials, as natural materials do not have the property of ionic bonding.  The very property that give metals their high tensile strength.

Kerosene is explosive, when by international shipping standards it's considered a non-flammable.  Fuel air explosive require a high energy burster charge, in addition they are ineffective in enclosed areas:

When the B-25 struck the Empire St building in 45', the witnesses on the street agreed, including military officers, "It sounded like a can being crushed...then five seconds later, an explosion."  That was Av gas, which is just as flammable as gasoline, there is no practical way jet fuel can achieve such a temp to 'spontaneously combust' as the TV propaganda implies:

And for those who think it was a diesel effect, the fuel only ignites when exposed to high temp/compressed air:

 

Reply if you have empirical evidence to support you claim.

[shirgall]

The kinetic energy of the plane opened the hole, the payload of the fuel tanks entered the building, the obliteration of the plane and the wall and the spreading of the fuel through very open space was plenty for igniting it. Why is this so difficult?

 

This cargo plane smacking into the ground has the same color:

[AccuTron]

Re video 1:  

(+) I really don't see how that nose could've made it thru the building and still be shaped like an airliner at all.  Also the point is made, if it did come out, where's the exit hole big enough?  I just did a quick search and oddly didn't find photos of building exit wounds.  They must be there, so if anyone could help with that...

(-) Composite pasting of airliners still doesn't provide the answer to where the heck did two airliners and a bunch of passengers get to.  I did find some still images of the plane(s) approaching the buildings.

 

Video 2:

Could jet fuel be ignited by electrical sparking from many power wires being hit?  (I see by shirgall's video this is moot.)

[EclecticIdealist]

Re video 1:  

(+) I really don't see how that nose could've made it thru the building and still be shaped like an airliner at all.  Also the point is made, if it did come out, where's the exit hole big enough?  I just did a quick search and oddly didn't find photos of building exit wounds.  They must be there, so if anyone could help with that...

(-) Composite pasting of airliners still doesn't provide the answer to where the heck did two airliners and a bunch of passengers get to.  I did find some still images of the plane(s) approaching the buildings.

 

Video 2:

Could jet fuel be ignited by electrical sparking from many power wires being hit?

Jet Fuel that it atomized burns very well.  With the impact of the cargo jet with the ground, the fuel tanks were hyper compressed until they burst in a very quick manner, this would cause tremendous heat (from the initial high-speed compression of the fuel in the tanks) followed by atomization of the fuel as the highly compressed fuel is suddenly released into the air. allowing it to spontaneously combust... as the initial atomized fuel was burned off, the remaining fire served to keep the remaining fuel hot enough to continue atomizing the fuel allowing it to burn.

 

Could the buildings have been destroyed by pre-planted explosives or some other weapon other than airliners as the skeptical musician suggests? I believe he makes a compelling case, enough to create reasonable doubt over the official story, but not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his theory is what actually occurred and that airliners did not in fact hit the buildings as the official findings indicate.

[shirgall]

Could jet fuel be ignited by electrical sparking from many power wires being hit?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoignition_temperaturelists that Diesel and Jet-A1 ignite at 210C at normal pressure. Increase the pressure, or increase the temperature by smacking into something at hundreds of miles per hour and it should lower this threshold.

[Mat H Physics]

@AccuTron No, kerosene is used to put out fires in cotton bails, common practice.  The diversion put forth by bacon is a military aircraft, and all his diversions are trying to pigeon hole a commercial airliner as a military weapon.  Notice in the video, the ignition starts form the tail of the aircraft, the cargo area.  Military aircraft commonly carry bombs.  As for the passengers, good subjective question, but I'm dealing with objective facts, unlike bacon's pet unicorn.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoignition_temperaturelists that Diesel and Jet-A1 ignite at 210C at normal pressure. Increase the pressure, or increase the temperature by smacking into something at hundreds of miles per hour and it should lower this threshold.

You engage in disinformation through the logical fallacy of putting the cart before the horse, how was that hole formed.  Show an example of how 4mm sheet aluminum cuts 10mm structural grade steel box columns.  You continue to claim vampires exist b/c you saw them on TV.  Then you try to avoid the gaping hole in your logic by assuming things that never occurred.  Once a subsonic projectile impacts a larger target, it's velocity immediately drops.  Basic Newtonian physics, your claimed 'video evidence' doesn't account for.

Your wiki ref assumes all the fuel is at 210C, how do you propose that much energy was transferred into tens of thousands of gallons of fuel?  The increase in pressure was addressed in the diesel video, once pressure is released temps drop below atm, basic adiabatic cooling.

You clearly have a weak education when it comes to physics.  It's easier to disprove your claims than that of a flat Earther.  Keep dodging the observation, and I will keep a light on your true IQ.

[pretzelogik]

The video footage of the 9/11 hoax was created in advance and aired as "live".

 

Any and all takers who wish to contest this fact please visit the link referenced below and offer your best explanations for the impossible to reconcile conflicts in the imagery that was presented as "live" but can only be rationally explained as digital compositing, layering and editing:

 

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=961

 

The entire 9/11 media narrative has been so thoroughly debunked in thousands of posts at Clues Forum that any claim to knowledge about 9/11 that does not address that body of research is akin to claiming knowledge about Charles M. Schulz while being totally unfamiliar with Charlie Brown.

[A4E]

I was highly suspicious yesterday, but now I am much more certain that Mat H Physics is here to create resentment towards 9 11 scepticism. His contrived demeaning language is a giveaway. And these kind of accounts that play on emotion and slander, are plentiful on youtube, and always come with a silly name. It can be a code they use to identify each other. Or it could be the same person.

 

Also his statement "I doubt we will ever hear from you again" was made to provoke, but it tells me that if it was a genuine person who have discussed anything with people on internet, he would not be able to make that statement without lying outright to himself.

[Mat H Physics]

A4E, Yep, when you can't refute the facts, attack the messenger, classic.  Yes, my language can be demeaning, it's due to my contempt for the poorly educated/willfully ignorant.  When people catch the drift, that I don't put up with stupidity, they tend to scamper.  Would you care to enlighten us to your personal insight, do you have a real world example to share?  Because I do:

In this example, we see that the projectile has to exceed twice the speed of sound to induce a shear failure in the the sheet metal.  Yet when the higher weight, lower velocity 22 LR strikes, the metal deforms or bends.  The bending process takes exponentially more energy than a shear failure, any stamping die fabricator can verify this fact (I trained as one).  This is the same principal as the cracking of ceramic plate armor to disperse the energy.

The maximum flame front velocity for commercial jet fuel is 109 ft/sec, it doesn't even take a pro golfer to hit a ball that fast.  In other words, it's simply a rapidly expanding ball of hot gas, that will not effect steel of any construction grade.

While the 1st amendment is in place to protect our natural right to speak freely, from any form of government, some individuals don't respect these natural rights.  These tend to be socialist, as they have a real problem trying to impose their will on others.  I feel the need to define a word that is not directed at any one individual.

Hayseed's hypothesis:  The continued belief that airliners hit the twin towers.

When no planers call Alex Jones, he hangs up and defends the hayseed's hypothesis with the statement "Of course airliners hit the world trade center!"

I would love to explain how the towers were taken down.  Though this would require a comprehension of basic chemistry, and some knowledge of advanced physics.  Look up the chemical composition of bed rock granite, compare it to the precursors and by product of thermite.  This clip is a text book example of molecular dissociation, research it yourself, I'm not here to hold hands.

PS  I'm willing to throw $100 to FDR, if Stephan M. will discuss this subject with me, and publish the discussion.  ie it can't be thrown down the memory hole.

[A4E]

16 hours ago, Mat H Physics said:

A4E

Woah! I appreciate you taking the time to get out of your cryptosleep casket to reply.

16 hours ago, Mat H Physics said:

Yep, when you can't refute the facts, attack the messenger, classic. 

No I'm attacking you because you are not being decent to people here. And showing pretty clear signs of instigating resentment towards people like me who value truth / physics / logic but try to be decent and nice to people.

Might you be so kind as to explain your silly username?

16 hours ago, Mat H Physics said:

Would you care to enlighten us to your personal insight

I firmly believe that physics had the day off on 9 11. Or maybe physics called in sick to the universe. Which means that a lot of star systems in our galaxy might have gone a bit whack during that day.

 

16 hours ago, Mat H Physics said:

When no planers

I would be one of those.

16 hours ago, Mat H Physics said:

PS  I'm willing to throw $100 to FDR, if Stephan M. will discuss this subject with me, and publish the discussion.  ie it can't be thrown down the memory hole.

Pretty sure you can just schedule some appointment with Stefan through the correct contacts on this website. And they will talk with you and put it on youtube. But please don't, because you will just help make the rest of us look like aholes. But I know that you will not call in, because you know that you will have to be a decent person with him, or he will just end the talk. Also Stefan has talked about some of his scepticism of 9 11 in a very old podcast. I don't know how much of that is left in him, but its something to keep in mind.

What you achieve by being like this is pretty much nothing else than resentment and disgust from the people you give the impression you want to inform. And those decent people not accepting the first story that was pushed down peoples throats after 1 hour on that day, will have a less friendly environment to talk in. Those things and your silly name is a hallmark of instigators wanting to flame the discussion so that less and less people actually take it seriously. That can also explain why you came back after more than 1 year, just to refresh the attempt at instigation, hoping that I've gone away or something. I know that instigators have been successful around on internet regarding 9 11, that is why I am warning this forum about that.

[Jsbrads]

The overall density of the craft doesn't matter. The mass of the craft does. F=ma & E=1/2mV2

It is true, aluminum foil placed flat on the table will not hurt a table, but (1) this isn't aluminum foil, it is aerospace aluminum alloy*, (2) the entire aircraft isn't formed of a thin molded sheet metal, that is just the skin (3) and when it cuts it is usually doing it edge on. (4) The structural elements are not designed for a point impact side load and can easily buckle without tearing. (5) WTC had thin pillars at its exterior and a thick core (which is the opposite of how most commercial buildings of a dozen stories are designed).

(6) During a collision there is a lot of heat, and under the right conditions, a fire, once started, can be very hard to put out. Note: all the fuel wasn't at ignition temperature at the moment of collision.

(7) The building is designed to sway in the wind. A high impulse collision can make the building sway too.

If it wasn't the jet fuel, what caused all the smoke?

As to Live footage or not, I was there, reality happened in real time. 

*Aerospace aluminum alloy is stronger (and a little heavier) than aluminum. 

[lorry]

Physical science isn't the content of the science, it is the concepts of the content. 

[ofd]

Quote

that Mat H Physics is here to create resentment towards 9 11 scepticism.

As if it needs to be created.

[Goldenages]

It is not necessary to claim that aluminium penetrates steel. The outside of those buildings was mainly glass, and some steel beams every few meters. So I have no doubt that most of the mass of these planes penetrated the buildings and spread the kerosine.

Furthermore, gear, the spar of the wings and the engine blades are made of steel, the best one available, designed to take tons of load. There is no doubt that all this will cause substantial damage to steel beams.

To the last video: I would say what we see is not a steel column vaporizing, but a tumbling steel column that sinks into dust and therefore becomes invisible.

regards

Andi

[Mat H Physics]

A4V " No I'm attacking you because you are not being decent to people here. "

Their is a reason politician and polite have the same root, I'm not a politician.

Jbrads 1) You can use titanium, structural steel, or ANY of the most exotic material you can possibly find. Show how a smaller projectile can cause failure in structural grade steel.  2) We don't use molds to make sheet metal, it's an extrusion process.  3) Any idea why machinist NeveR use aluminum as a cutting tool, it's one of the weakest materials out there, it can't hold up, even on wood.  4) doesn't take long for the sophist to expose himself. I've designed shearing dies, for sheet metal, as this is the lowest force method needed to cause material failure.  The HardesT way, is to 'pull' it apart, what you imply by a buckling failure causes the resistance to become stronger.  Basic trig, it's where high tension lines get the name.  The lower they hang the less stress.  If they were pulled straight, the tensile force would exceed the materials strength.

5) 14"x 14"x .5" thick box columns are not thin, it take Plate thickness steel to fabricate building support columns.  Planes are fabricated from Gauge thickness aluminum, not even 1/4" thick.  Comprehension on the subject is limited to people holding degrees in art, like Harvard grads.

6) Logical fallacy, 'putting the cart before the horse' subjective opinion to justify personal perception, a symptom of Cognitive Dissonance.

7) The design would have made it sway more than the ESB, due to tube in tube design, rather than a cube system.

An actual question??  Kerosene is used to make the same special effects in Hollywood.

You may have been 'there', but I live where the Laws of Physics are Universal and Do Not Change.

On 10/20/2017 at 8:22 PM, Goldenages said:

The outside of those buildings was mainly glass

At the Hoax level, the 16" wide windows separated the box columns.  Accounting for no windows in service levels, glass made up less than 25% of the frontal area.

 

On 10/20/2017 at 8:22 PM, Goldenages said:

Furthermore, gear, the spar of the wings and the engine blades are made of steel, the best one available, designed to take tons of load. There is no doubt that all this will cause substantial damage to steel beams.

Then by all means, use what ever material you want, you still have to produce an example to support you conclusion.  If I produce the evidence, you won't believe it, which I already have.  When are you going to make the attempt to observe evidence, one way or the other?

'Inquiry is detrimental to doubt' AUK

[Mat H Physics]

Why did fire engines/cars, 'catch fire'.

Lenze's law, when an EMP is discharged the 'pulse wave' creates magnetic forces in all metals, but Iron (engine blocks) especially.

Under the dust cloud, the plasma would be attracted to magnetic forces.

Simple physics people, why won't you address the issues?

Bonus Iron in the blood carries oxygen due to magnetic forces(Peter Plichta), crustations use copper a reason they tire easy.

[barn]

Very intriguing thread, indeed.

Hemocyanin,.. oh, yes completely. 'The nobility'  in the animal kingdom, funny.

(though the medieval belief, lack of physical... pale skin-appearance-o2/co2 ratio... stems from another set of observations...unrelated... anyhow)