Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
15 Aug 19
09:36
Joined:
Date Joined:
20 Sep 11
1. Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” An aluminium plane hitting a thick steel beam will have the same effect as steel beam being swung at the same speed and hitting the plane. It makes no difference which one is moving as to the effect on the plane and the beam. In both cases the thick steel beam will do damage to the plane and the beam will emerge relatively undamaged. The faster the speed at the point of impact, the more damage that will be done to the plane. Try punching a steel girder. No matter how fast your hand is traveling, you will not be able to break through it; you will eventually break your hand. It matters not if the girder is swung at your hand or you swing your hand at the girder; assuming the impact is at the same speed, the injury to your hand would be the same.
Let’s apply Newton’s Third Law to Flight 175. In the 9/11 story, Flight 175 strikes the South Tower at 450 m.p.h. Now imagine that the South Tower moved at 450 m.p.h. and struck a stationary Flight 175. We would not expect that Flight 175 would be undamaged. We would not expect that it would simply disappear into the South Tower. Any video that shows an aluminium airplane with a fibreglass nose cone gliding through a steel and concrete building violates Newton’s Laws of Motion.
The massive core columns of the World Trade Center were anchored to bedrock. Thirty one of the columns were 36-by-16-inch box shaped columns made of two-inch thick solid steel at the foundation. Sixteen of the columns measured 52 inches by 22 inches triple thick steel boxes that were 5 inches thick at two ends matched perpendicularly with one 6 ½-inch and two 6-inch thick slabs of steel.
The box columns reduced in size and thickness at the upper floors, but were still substantial steel columns for which an aircraft of any size would not pose any serious threat. The minimum thickness was 2.25 inches for the columns between the impact zone for the alleged plane that supposedly hit Tower 2 (South Tower) between the 77th and 85th floors.
The wings would break off immediately upon contact and the plane would explode. It would not enter the tower and then explode. The plane would simply be obliterated to pieces by the steel box columns and steel and concrete floor trusses before it got anywhere near the inside of the tower.
Newton’s First Law of Motion: “A body remains at rest or in motion with a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force.” The plane did not slow down as it made contact with the tower. How can the plane fly at the same speed through the steel/concrete face of the tower as it did through the air? This is impossible. The “plane” also violates Newton’s First Law.
So over to you MEXICO. LETS HAVE YOUR REWRITTEN LAWS OF PHYSICS so i can forward them to NASA and they can rewrite the history books ( Again )
Let’s apply Newton’s Third Law to Flight 175. In the 9/11 story, Flight 175 strikes the South Tower at 450 m.p.h. Now imagine that the South Tower moved at 450 m.p.h. and struck a stationary Flight 175. We would not expect that Flight 175 would be undamaged. We would not expect that it would simply disappear into the South Tower. Any video that shows an aluminium airplane with a fibreglass nose cone gliding through a steel and concrete building violates Newton’s Laws of Motion.
The massive core columns of the World Trade Center were anchored to bedrock. Thirty one of the columns were 36-by-16-inch box shaped columns made of two-inch thick solid steel at the foundation. Sixteen of the columns measured 52 inches by 22 inches triple thick steel boxes that were 5 inches thick at two ends matched perpendicularly with one 6 ½-inch and two 6-inch thick slabs of steel.
The box columns reduced in size and thickness at the upper floors, but were still substantial steel columns for which an aircraft of any size would not pose any serious threat. The minimum thickness was 2.25 inches for the columns between the impact zone for the alleged plane that supposedly hit Tower 2 (South Tower) between the 77th and 85th floors.
The wings would break off immediately upon contact and the plane would explode. It would not enter the tower and then explode. The plane would simply be obliterated to pieces by the steel box columns and steel and concrete floor trusses before it got anywhere near the inside of the tower.
Newton’s First Law of Motion: “A body remains at rest or in motion with a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force.” The plane did not slow down as it made contact with the tower. How can the plane fly at the same speed through the steel/concrete face of the tower as it did through the air? This is impossible. The “plane” also violates Newton’s First Law.
So over to you MEXICO. LETS HAVE YOUR REWRITTEN LAWS OF PHYSICS so i can forward them to NASA and they can rewrite the history books ( Again )
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 299
|
By:
You've posted this nonsense before as well. You were asked a VERY simple question.
If I fall on one ton block of cement from 5ft, I don't get hurt. If a one ton block of cement falls on me, I get hurt. You were asked to explain this in light of Newton's third law. You disappeared for a week. Please don't disappear again or yawn it. |
|
By:
That's not the same detraveller.
You're using gravity which changes everything. Gravity isn't included for obvious reasons. |
|
By:
Its been three weeks dt since he was asked:
Charlie • July 25, 2019 4:01 PM BST "It matters not if the girder is swung at your hand or you swing your hand at the girder; assuming the impact is at the same speed, the injury to your hand would be the same." As our new resident physics expert please explain this to me. Place a 10 ton block of steel on the ground. Climb a ladder and drop from 10' onto the block. You'll accelerate due to gravity. Now you stand on the ground and get a crane to hoist the 10 ton block above you and then drop it on you. It will accelerate at the same speed. It would seem to me that the block dropping on you would do a lot more damage to you than when you dropped on the block even though both speeds were the same. Why is that? |
|
By:
Gravity isn't included for obvious reasons.
 |
|
By:
He also thinks the Chinese 1984 credit points nightmare for humanity is good
W.A.C. he is |
|
By:
|
|
By:
JWH Gets his phsyics from a conspiracy book written by scientifically illiterate whackjobs.
It's top of the reading lists for Physics students at all (made up by youtube whackjob) universities. Right up there with "The Faraday Cage, it's principles in Tin Foil Hat Design" by I.L. Umin-Atty. |
|
By:
 |
|
By:
Actually that magnet idea is more scientifically sound than the 9/11 crap.
|
|
By:
Here's another one then. For this you don't even need to wait for another car.
 |
|
By:
Detraveller you shouldn't post that. That's a free energy device, they get invented from time to time and they, the lizard elite run by the oil companies, kill everyone who proposes one and covers it up. It's well known amongst the those that know better than the sheeple.
Don't answer your door to anyone in a black suit or who looks like a lizard. |
|
By:
I am the one who knocks
|
|
By:
So a conspiritard posts about Newton's Laws but can't answer a simple question and does a runner again. Pathetic.
|
|
By:
Seems to have found a hiding place.
|
|
By:
Has the OP tried match.com?
|
|
By:
Probably sailed off into the setting sun with a dewy-eyed Drippin.
|
|
By:
SO we'll never get the answer about this interesting physics?
|
|
By:
Detraveller, the 9/11 physics experts have now released accurate secret designs showing the propulsion mechanism used to fly the planes into the towers:
http://trollscience.com/image/f/full/8dff6ab64e09451e30476175170f9ec0.jpg |
|
By:
O look everyone,theres someone who still believes the official lies,the ono and only Not Checking,but then he would as he is just another no mark troll
 |
|
By:
How does this thing take off? Looks sound to keep the plane in the air but taking off???
|
|
By:
Terry you can either shut up or answer the physics question asked on this thread.
No one's interested in your judgement of other people. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
HAS THE BBC MENTIONED GLOBAL WARMING YET TODAY AS I BLEEDIN FREEZING?
|
|
By:
nother irrelevant post by the conspiracy troll while his partner in crime seems to have indeed found a cozy hiding place.
|
|
By:
Is it BLEEDIN COLD where you are no mark?
|
|
By:
Interesting appearance of the phrase "no marks" given it's what appears on the science exam paper of the tin foil attired.
|
|
By:
He calls me the no mark troll i think. But I don't even know why.
|
|
By:
John
You have posted this before and refused to answer the most simple questions ((from a month ago or from this week) Now what is the kinetic energy of a 200kg steel beam traveling at 100ms and what is the kinetic energy of a 300,000 plane also travelling at 100m/s John- there are so many places you can learn about Newton's laws of motion yet you choose to get your information from a right wing conspiracy website. Clearly common sense & logic (& mathematics or Physics ) are not your strong points. John why do you refuse to answer simple questions regarding Newton's laws of motion- a 14 year old would be expected to know the kinetic energy- why do you struggle? |
|
By:
Mexico the guy posts his opinions (right or wrong) now for someone to mock or should I say (sheep mentality) shows the lack of intelligence,does it not ?
|
|
By:
John
WTF are you on about the plane would explode "instantly " It did explode pretty quickly &the building "stopped " the plane pretty quickly. The plane accelerated from 100m/s to zero in under 100 meters. Are you really saying that Newton's laws prevent a 300,000kg plane travelling at over 100m/s from breaking a few glass windows ? John - you claim you have set Physics questions- would you a least have the decency to use SI units rather that the measurements of the uneducated conspiracy theorists. Why do you run away and hide rather than explaining your theory by answering simple Physics questions? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
IMO it does not show a lack of intelligence to explain why a lie is a lie Conditor.
Unless your opinion Conditor is that Physics, Newton's laws, energy, force, mass, distance are just a matter of opinion? Shows a lack of intelligence if someone believes that , does it not Conditor? Maybe Cond - you could help John out by explaining what the kinetic energy is of those two objects are? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
There is an open question on this thread conditor. You could answer it for us if you think us questioning is foolish.
|
|
By:
What are you talking about mexico ? The world is a lie is it not ,..figures ,maths ,money ..it’s bullshit to control morons, the guy has an opinion, don’t mock its wrong
|
|
By:
Conditor
If somebody posts a mocking smiley in reply to somebody's opinion, rather than engaging in the thread and helping by answering simple questions... Would that show a lack of intelligence? |
|
By:
And that my friend is a good answer..
|
|
By:
c it is not wrong to mock somebody who climbs Newton's laws are a lie but refuses to provide answers to the most simple questions to explain why the laws are wrong.
Einstein though Newton's laws were not accurate enough & had the decency to explain why & "correct " them It shows a lack of intelligence to just say "Physics is a lie", does it not? |
|
By:
JWH is constantly calling other people on this forum stupid etc, before posting copy/paste stuff that shows he doesn't understand the very thing's he saying other people don't understand mixed in with ridiculous conspiracy rubbish. It's tedious trolling imho but you have to reply sometimes.
|