The new Pentagon video

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
"Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote in
ups.com:

Dean
What is the difference in size and payload between the F4 and Flight 77?

You need to go back to high school and sit in on the physics
class on kinetic energy. This time, pay attention instead of
wanking off over the cheerleader sitting in front of you.

Damn. If I were rich, I would pay for a re-enactment of the
Pentagon and Twin Towers crashes into re-creations of both
structures using remote controlled aircraft. It would be
worth the millions of dollars just to hear all you conspiracy
whacks sit in silence with nary a retort.

That wouldn't shut them up; they'd say it was part of the conspiracy.

"Ignorance is bliss!!"

Brian
High School classes and aircraft crash investigations? Wanking off?
Surely you jest? My post asked some questions. Do YOU have the
answers?
I HAVE NEVER been to an aircraft crash site, especially a jet aircraft,
that didn't leave big pieces of wreckage. The pieces that I saw in the
video were not impressive and hand held. The wreckage I am accustomed
to needed to be picked up by tow trucks and put on flat beds. Airspeeds
at time of impact varied but the only one I can think of off hand that
was really FAST is the space shuttle which was going how fast?
What is your contribution to making this country better? Talk is cheap.

Skywise wrote in
:

"Ol Shy & Bashful" wrote in
ups.com:

Dean
What is the difference in size and payload between the F4 and Flight
77?

You need to go back to high school and sit in on the physics
class on kinetic energy. This time, pay attention instead of
wanking off over the cheerleader sitting in front of you.

Damn. If I were rich, I would pay for a re-enactment of the
Pentagon and Twin Towers crashes into re-creations of both

In the absence of copious amounts of money, would the following help?

http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/....Pentagon.html

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/pentagon.htm

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/pape...gonVIS2003.mpg

--
A. Sinan Unur
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

Doesn't matter. A pound of aluminum in and F-4 weighs the same as a
pound of aluminum in a 757. Energy = 1/2mV^2 At over 400 knots,
there is a lot of energy in every pound of aluminum.

It is not necessary to melt the aluminum either to make the airplane
indistinguishable. Ablation is a process in which the aluminum is
pulverized by impact with a solid object. It is essentially ground up.
If you look at the video of the F-4, you will see that he aluminum is
literally being ground up by the impact with the concrete barrier. The
Pentagon is a very substantial stone building, and the 757 still
managed to punch through several of its rings. I am not surprised that
there are not many distinguishable pieces left. Also remember that
there was a post crash fire, and aluminum does burn when it gets hot
enough.

Same thing with flight 93. It went straight into the ground at high
speed. This is unlike the U.S. Air 737 that crashed on approach due to
a rudder hard over. The airspeed at impact was much higher for these
intentional crashes than for the unintentional crashes due to starting
the dive from a much higher alitude, and going straight in in a clean
vs. dirty drag configuration...

Am I just casting my pearls here, or does this make sense to you?

Dean

wrote in news:1147886939.141698.306060
@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

This airplane hit a solid stone building at very high speed. The
aluminum in the airframe was obliterated. Have you never seen the
video of the F4 phantom slamming into the concrete barrier to test the
containment vessel of a nuclear power plant? The F4 literally
vaporizes. Nothing left but the wingtips that miss the outside edge of
the concrete...

Jay Honeck has this video on his website. Watch it and you will
understand what happened to Flight 77.

http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/

http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/...sh%20Tests.mpg

--
A. Sinan Unur
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

"Ol Shy & Bashful" writes:

Having been onsite for quite a number of airplane crashes, numerous
military aircraft, jets and piston, single and multi engine, the thing
that struck me was the lack of aircraft wreckage and the bodies of
occupants.
Curious that the hole was round and showed no evidence of the wings or
engines impacting the building. Large pieces of engines have been on
every crash site I ever photographed as part of an accident
investigation team.
I know the conspiracy buffs want to go someplace with it. I'd like to
know what in hell happened to all the aircraft parts and pieces? Even
the space shuittle left a lot of wreckage and bodies that were
identified from how big an explosion and how high?

Not my area of expertise, but one thing that strikes me is that many
accidents happen attempting to land, with the pilot flying the plane
relatively slowly (depending on conditions, any damage, etc.), whereas
the Pentagon strike was apparently done at close to cruise speed.
Much faster, I think. Which means much more energy available, which
means things broken into considerably smaller pieces. I can easily
believe it wouldn't look like a normal crash-while-attempting-to-land
accident site.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
Having been onsite for quite a number of airplane crashes, numerous
military aircraft, jets and piston, single and multi engine, the thing
that struck me was the lack of aircraft wreckage and the bodies of
occupants.
Curious that the hole was round and showed no evidence of the wings or
engines impacting the building. Large pieces of engines have been on
every crash site I ever photographed as part of an accident
investigation team.
I know the conspiracy buffs want to go someplace with it. I'd like to
know what in hell happened to all the aircraft parts and pieces? Even
the space shuittle left a lot of wreckage and bodies that were
identified from how big an explosion and how high?

Don't be stupid. The conspiracy web sites are very selective in the
pictures that they show. There are plenty of pictures of airplane parts
if you look for them.

The same for damaged grass.

The conspiracy buffs are also very good at taking reporters' comments
out of context.

As I said, most of these conspiracy buffs are a bunch of holocaust
deniers and other enemies of the United States. In a just world they
would be tried and hanged as the terrorists and traitors that they are.

cjcampbell wrote:

As I said, most of these conspiracy buffs are a bunch of holocaust deniers and other enemies of the United States. In a just world they would be tried and hanged as the terrorists and traitors that they are.


I differ with you somewhat here. The scenario you describe is
dangerously similar not to a just but an intolerant world. We should do
everything we can to preserve freedom of everything, speech included,
so stifling a dissenting voice is no solution. The best way to beat
such people down is with objective, irrefutable evidence although I
agree it'd involve the precious time of many.

Ramapriya

wrote in news:1147928450.364812.197730
@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

cjcampbell wrote:

As I said, most of these conspiracy buffs are a bunch of holocaust
deniers and other enemies of the United States. In a just world they would
be tried and hanged as the terrorists and traitors that they are.


I differ with you somewhat here. The scenario you describe is
dangerously similar not to a just but an intolerant world. We should do
everything we can to preserve freedom of everything, speech included,
so stifling a dissenting voice is no solution. The best way to beat
such people down is with objective, irrefutable evidence although I
agree it'd involve the precious time of many.

Ramapriya

The only problem is that these folks are "true believers". There
is nothing you can give them as evidence that would dissuade them
from their "truth". They could be claiming the sky is fuscia and
even if you tape their eyelids open and force them to look at a
brilliant blue sky, they will find some way to say it's part of
the conspiracy and dismiss the evidence.

It's the whole science/pseudoscience problem. An interesting aspect
is that not only does the scientist know that the psuedoscientist
is wrong, but they even understand *WHY* the pseudoscientist thinks
the wrong things that they do!!!

Something I find amusing is these folks are always telling us to
"open our minds". Our minds are open. Their's are the closed ones.
They can't see that they are wrong, much less why. We can see both.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
wrote in news:1147928450.364812.197730
@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

cjcampbell wrote:

As I said, most of these conspiracy buffs are a bunch of holocaust
deniers and other enemies of the United States. In a just world they
would be tried and hanged as the terrorists and traitors that they are.

I differ with you somewhat here. The scenario you describe is
dangerously similar not to a just but an intolerant world. We should do
everything we can to preserve freedom of everything, speech included,
so stifling a dissenting voice is no solution. The best way to beat
such people down is with objective, irrefutable evidence although I
agree it'd involve the precious time of many.

The only problem is that these folks are "true believers". There
is nothing you can give them as evidence that would dissuade them
from their "truth".

CJ is a true believer too, albeit in a different bizarre mythology than that
of the conspiracy theorists. But unlike the conspiracy theorists, CJ
literally wants to kill people for espousing nonsense that's in competition
with his own.

CJ rationalizes his bloodlust by asserting that his would-be victims
themselves harbor such homicidal desires (they're "terrorists"). But he
makes that claim without a shred of evidence, because true believers don't
need any.

--Gary