|
Post by frenat on Aug 3, 2008 7:16:37 GMT -4
Why would they receive permanent hearing damage from somethine 1000 feet or more away? Oh that's right, because some website told you they should and you never bothered to think for yourself about it. Any evidence for realistic looking holograms on such a large scale? If they could have projected a hologram why not set up a few speakers? Your "arguments" keep getting sillier.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Aug 3, 2008 8:00:28 GMT -4
CBB, have you looked at other occasions of planes crashing into buildings? If you think that a plane cannot penetrate a structure of concrete and steel, then explain the crash of a B-25 into the Empire State Building.And before you rant about THAT impact, the plane was at relatively low speed, in a fog, when it hit. The two planes that hit the WTCs were going 440 mph and 540 mph, respectively. If you still think a plane cannot penetrate concrete and steel structures, then look at this. And this/You really take the cake with this statement: Perhaps you are unaware of the US national defense system's function. It was meant for massive attacks, from OUTSIDE coming INTO the the US. Mainly, it was to spot bombers and/or missiles coming at the US. It was NOT set up for hijackers of planes. You also seem to forget that in the cockpit of those planes, were human beings. You seem to forget that a human being can be cut by a box cutter. Say across the neck. Not really a survivable situation. You do the math from there.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Aug 3, 2008 10:23:45 GMT -4
If you still think a plane cannot penetrate concrete and steel structures, then look at this. And this/OK, I know it's a very different building, but compare the way the building collapsed from top to bottom and the resulting debris pile much smaller than the building.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 3, 2008 11:27:16 GMT -4
Many people know these days that the idea of a guy from a cave in Afghanistan conspiring with 19 boxcutter-wielding Muslims, outwitting our entire multi-trillion dollar defense system, lies on insanity. The one thing cbbrooklyn has said that has some merit to it - Osama Bin Laden and his 19 hijackers are certainly people I would describe as insane. And it was the insanity of their plan that allowed it to succeed. We hadn't built defense plans to protect against the kind of insanity that would justify using passenger planes as bombs.
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 3, 2008 11:45:59 GMT -4
First, to clear something up, there is zero evidence than thousands of New Yorkers saw planes hit the towers. Well, here's quite a few eyewitness statements for starters. As for no noise, read the quotes: As we were at the box, a plane passes us overhead real low. You could hear it; you could feel it.The second plane came in. It was the biggest noise I ever heard in my life.What about these? Some witnesses reported explosions, bombs and missiles. A few examples: National Review has this quote: “I saw it," he says, "It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb — uh, a missile. This could be World War III." www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock052402.aspThe BBC reports: I distinctly remember somebody saying: “A missile just hit the trade center, I saw a missile hit.” news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/02/september_11/where_were_you_when/html/1.stmAccording to a CNN transcript, a reporter said: a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west. An eyewitness also states: I had no idea it was a plane. I just saw the entire top part of the World Trade Center explode. So I turned on the TV when I heard they said it was a plane. It was really strange. transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.htmlThis eyewitness specifically says NO plane, just a bomb: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns3pA
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 3, 2008 11:48:31 GMT -4
CBB, your "common sense" arguments are inadequate because there is no pool of common sense available for the situation of an aircraft hitting a building. What you need is an engineering simulation, feeding the circumstances into the sort of computer program used to analyse structural interactions and seeing what is predicted. Here is an example: www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2006/060911.Sozen.WTC.htmlNote that if there were any validity in your "steel hard, aluminium soft" arguments, then no-one would have to worry about tornadoes, because air is much softer than a house. Sorry, Purdue violates standard high school level physics. Newton's Laws cannot be violated, unless you're watching a sci-fi movie, playing a video game, or witnessing a hologram.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 3, 2008 12:36:55 GMT -4
[ Sorry, Purdue violates standard high school level physics. Newton's Laws cannot be violated, unless you're watching a sci-fi movie, playing a video game, or witnessing a hologram. I have seen that representation. What part of physics is violated? You cannot explain hurricanes yet you can explain complex crashes such as this? I should get an answer then.
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 3, 2008 12:56:10 GMT -4
Why would they receive permanent hearing damage from somethine 1000 feet or more away? Oh that's right, because some website told you they should and you never bothered to think for yourself about it. Any evidence for realistic looking holograms on such a large scale? If they could have projected a hologram why not set up a few speakers? Your "arguments" keep getting sillier. A jet plane takeoff at 300 feet altitude is 10 times louder than a rock concert: www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99405.htmEvidence for realistic looking holograms? Not directly. But there is a Washington Post article from 1999 titled "When seeing and hearing isn't believing" which mentions the military's hologram PSYOPS project.
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 3, 2008 13:06:49 GMT -4
CBB, have you looked at other occasions of planes crashing into buildings? If you think that a plane cannot penetrate a structure of concrete and steel, then explain the crash of a B-25 into the Empire State Building.And before you rant about THAT impact, the plane was at relatively low speed, in a fog, when it hit. The two planes that hit the WTCs were going 440 mph and 540 mph, respectively. If you still think a plane cannot penetrate concrete and steel structures, then look at this. And this/You really take the cake with this statement: Perhaps you are unaware of the US national defense system's function. It was meant for massive attacks, from OUTSIDE coming INTO the the US. Mainly, it was to spot bombers and/or missiles coming at the US. It was NOT set up for hijackers of planes. You also seem to forget that in the cockpit of those planes, were human beings. You seem to forget that a human being can be cut by a box cutter. Say across the neck. Not really a survivable situation. You do the math from there. I never said an aluminum plane couldn't penetrate a building. I did say that the softer material would receive more damage. When an aluminum plane crashes, it crumples, twists and bends. I read about a friend of one of pilots in one of the supposedly hijacked planes. He said that his friend was a big military guy and would NEVER give his plane to anyone. And his neck was not cut, he was tied up and brought to the back and sat next to a flight attendant, according to the "official report" that is.
|
|
|
Post by cbbrooklyn on Aug 3, 2008 13:09:11 GMT -4
[ Sorry, Purdue violates standard high school level physics. Newton's Laws cannot be violated, unless you're watching a sci-fi movie, playing a video game, or witnessing a hologram. I have seen that representation. What part of physics is violated? You cannot explain hurricanes yet you can explain complex crashes such as this? I should get an answer then. Newton's Laws are not complex. Neither are the 9/11 "crashes".
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 3, 2008 13:17:29 GMT -4
If I may, jet plane of what type and in what state of flight? Take off? OK what engines and reheat on? Or maybe a gentle take off. Some sites list rock concerts as high as a jet take off but where would you be standing to measure the jet in comparison to observing it from the ground? Then I would ask how sound propagates from the listeners position. I have been to a few rock concerts and quite a few air shows. I used to be in the air cadets and attended summer camps, we spent a lot of time air side. Brize Norton had us camped next to the run way when they were training some Concorde crews on bumps and circuits. In my opinion the Tri Star was noisier. And guess hwat, I can still hear. ETA to add, obviously the sound propagating to the listener not from the listener.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 3, 2008 13:20:46 GMT -4
I have seen that representation. What part of physics is violated? You cannot explain hurricanes yet you can explain complex crashes such as this? I should get an answer then. Newton's Laws are not complex. Neither are the 9/11 "crashes". Not complex. OK. In simple terms then, plane crashes into a building. The way I understand it, the kinetic energy carried the plane through the outer fabric of the building and continued, although deforming, and damaged the interior. In a nut shell really.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Aug 3, 2008 13:52:30 GMT -4
At lower speeds, yes. But give a relatively "soft" object enough speed, and it will go into a relatively more sturdy structure. Or have you never seen photos of straw piercing a tree before?
At what speeds are you talking about? Did you not look at the link I provided for the crash of Flight El Al 1832?
Nice ancedote. Note that I didn't say that a person's neck WAS cut, but that they were under threat by such with the weapons by the hijackers. You seem unfamilar with training in the pre-9/11 days. The assumption was that terrorists only want attention, not a lot of people dead. So, to complay with the demands was normal procedure.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Aug 3, 2008 13:53:53 GMT -4
Well, here's quite a few eyewitness statements for starters. As for no noise, read the quotes: As we were at the box, a plane passes us overhead real low. You could hear it; you could feel it.The second plane came in. It was the biggest noise I ever heard in my life.What about these? Some witnesses reported explosions, bombs and missiles. A few examples: National Review has this quote: “I saw it," he says, "It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb — uh, a missile. This could be World War III." www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock052402.aspThe BBC reports: I distinctly remember somebody saying: “A missile just hit the trade center, I saw a missile hit.” news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/02/september_11/where_were_you_when/html/1.stmAccording to a CNN transcript, a reporter said: a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west. An eyewitness also states: I had no idea it was a plane. I just saw the entire top part of the World Trade Center explode. So I turned on the TV when I heard they said it was a plane. It was really strange. transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.htmlThis eyewitness specifically says NO plane, just a bomb: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns3pAUseless anecdotes. They don't mean a thing in light of the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Aug 3, 2008 14:00:45 GMT -4
Why would they receive permanent hearing damage from somethine 1000 feet or more away? Oh that's right, because some website told you they should and you never bothered to think for yourself about it. Any evidence for realistic looking holograms on such a large scale? If they could have projected a hologram why not set up a few speakers? Your "arguments" keep getting sillier. A jet plane takeoff at 300 feet altitude is 10 times louder than a rock concert: www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99405.htmEvidence for realistic looking holograms? Not directly. But there is a Washington Post article from 1999 titled "When seeing and hearing isn't believing" which mentions the military's hologram PSYOPS project. You're reaching. I said more than a thousand feet. Do you even realize how much sound will attenuate from 300 to 1000 feet? The closest would have been 1000 feet and then only for a split second. Rock concerts are damaging to your hearing mainly because it is at a CONSTANT level. So then the answer you're looking for on evidence for relistic holograms on a large scale is NO. Go ahead, you can say it. It won't kill you. And you avoided the question about why if they could project a large hologram they couldn't set up a few speakers. Oh and of course your own source (which you couldn't even be bothered to link to) says they would need large projectors and even larger mirrors. None of that was to be found on 911. Thanks for the humour though.
|
|