See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 Illusions, Special Effects, and Other Magic Tricks
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/1 ... ects-and-other-magic-tricks-2/
Published: Oct 13, 2012
Author: Jack White (with Jim Fetzer)
Post Date: 2012-10-13 15:44:20 by wudidiz
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 1514
Comments: 24
9/11 Illusions, Special Effects, and Other Magic Tricks
9/11 Illusions, Special Effects, and Other Magic Tricks
by Jack White (with Jim Fetzer)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
#1. To: wudidiz (#0)
This article lost all credibility when it went with the "no plane" propaganda" put out by the govt. Thierry Meyssan has admitted he was paid by the US govt to publish the no plane garbage. To make it appear legal, the govt paid for the publication and purchased $3 million worth of his bogus propaganda 9/11: The Big Lie books. This is why Rumsfeld conveniently accidentally said something about a missile hitting the Pentagon then quickly corrected himself. This disinformation has been used by the govt to help discredit any investigation into obvious discrepancies with the govt's 9/11 version and findings.
Again, as I said on the other thread, what did you expect that plane to do, bounce off the WTC South Tower as if it were made of rubber, or shatter as if it were made of glass? It was a large high velocity mass of about 250,000 pounds, hitting a mesh of relatively thin steel columns spaced far enough apart where the majority of the plane encountered no exterior resistance upon penetration. It carried a huge amount of momentum and exerted a massive amount of force upon the exterior columns of the WTC tower. That, and it all happened in a split second. So what you show in your collection of screen shots is NOT evidence that there was no plane there. Besides, it was captured on MANY different cameras, both from private individuals AND news agencies. So unless all of the news crews, camera crews, production staff, and witnesses on the scene, including the survivors, were in on this huge conspiracy to produce fraudulent video, air it in real time in relation to real world events, and plotted to kill 3000 Americans, including themselves in some cases, all to benefit PNAC and the news moguls, well, I think fairies wearing boots kicking down the towers have about as much of a chance as your story of being true.
It carried a huge amount of momentum and exerted a massive amount of force upon the exterior columns of the WTC tower. That, and it all happened in a split second. Mass X velocity = Kinetic Energy /time = Power With the plane going 500 mph, or whatever, the time element of the energy transfer to the building would have been a second or less, that's a lot of Power.
In regards to force, it's m * v = F, were m is mass in kilograms, v is velocity in meters per second, and F is force in newtons. In terms of kinetic energy, it's 1/2m * v2 = E, where E is energy in joules. From the following webpage, the amount of work done of an impact would be as follows; This fact is referred to as the Work-Energy Principle and is often a very useful tool in mechanics problem solving. It is derivable from conservation of energy and the application of the relationships for work and energy, so it is not independent of the conservation laws. It is in fact a specific application of conservation of energy. However, there are so many mechanical problems which are solved efficiently by applying this principle that it merits separate attention as a working principle. For a straight-line collision, the net work done is equal to the average force of impact times the distance traveled during the impact. With the weight of the aircraft, combined with its velocity, there would be a huge amount of kinetic energy available to do work. Power is actually amount of work done per second. Since work is determined by the initial kinetic energy - the final kinetic energy, the difference between the two objects velocity is the available power to destroy the stationary object, as well as the moving object. What comes into play is momentum, and the concept of conservation of momentum. And then there are the theories of collisions, which include elastic and inelastic collisions. It is those areas which explain scientifically how a large fast moving object will interact with a stationary object. I don't know if it's worth posting right now, but perhaps I'll put something together next week.
Save your time and brain cells. If people want/need to believe that 19 muslims did 9.11, let'em. A physics lesson won't help.
A physics lesson won't help. I guess you're right. They'll believe what they want to believe, no matter what.
That may be true, but to not try to inform them when you know the truth would be kind of like aiding and abetting the enemy by not speaking out about their crimes.
Thing is, even if I proved how much force the plane would have applied to the tower upon impact, and what the laws of momentum and collisions would show in terms of effects, they'd either not understand it, would simply ignore it, or call it disinfo. So when dealing with people such as "no planers", you have to keep it simple.
You have proved nothing... You ignore the law of action and reaction. The buildings were no cue balls that absorb and transfer momentum. They did not go anywhere. As an object busted in so to would the matter of the object blast out. ... You know nothing of crash physics.... Edit to remove junk.
#20. To: titorite (#19)
You obviously never went to school for physics. There is ALWAYS conservation of momentum, no matter how hard you stomp your feet. However, there are TWO types of collisions, elastic and inelastic. An elastic collision is where objects such as "cue balls" bounce off each other and retain their kinetic energy, ie. the total kinetic energy after the collision is the same as that before the collision, in an ideal situation. Inelastic collisions are those where the total kinetic energy is less after the collision, as part of the total kinetic energy is transfered to some other form of energy. Thus, a plane smashing into exterior columns would be an inelastic collision, with the energy being dissipated into the work done by shearing the column. I doubt you'll get it, but those are the facts.
Uh huh. From Elastic and Inelastic Collisions A perfectly elastic collision is defined as one in which there is no loss of kinetic energy in the collision. An inelastic collision is one in which part of the kinetic energy is changed to some other form of energy in the collision. Any macroscopic collision between objects will convert some of the kinetic energy into internal energy and other forms of energy, so no large scale impacts are perfectly elastic. Momentum is conserved in inelastic collisions, but one cannot track the kinetic energy through the collision since some of it is converted to other forms of energy. Collisions in ideal gases approach perfectly elastic collisions, as do scattering interactions of sub-atomic particles which are deflected by the electromagnetic force. Some large-scale interactions like the slingshot type gravitational interactions between satellites and planets are perfectly elastic. Collisions between hard spheres may be nearly elastic, so it is useful to calculate the limiting case of an elastic collision. The assumption of conservation of momentum as well as the conservation of kinetic energy makes possible the calculation of the final velocities in two-body collisions. An elastic collision is defined as one in which both conservation of momentum and conservation of kinetic energy are observed. This implies that there is no dissipative force acting during the collision and that all of the kinetic energy of the objects before the collision is still in the form of kinetic energy afterward. For macroscopic objects which come into contact in a collision, there is always some dissipation and they are never perfectly elastic. Collisions between hard steel balls as in the swinging balls apparatus are nearly elastic. "Collisions" in which the objects do not touch each other, such as Rutherford scattering or the slingshot orbit of a satellite off a planet, are elastic collisions. In atomic or nuclear scattering, the collisions are typically elastic because the repulsive Coulomb force keeps the particles out of contact with each other. Collisions in ideal gases are very nearly elastic, and this fact is used in the development of the expressions for gas pressure in a container.
In the special case where two objects stick together when they collide, the fraction of the kinetic energy which is lost in the collision is determined by the combination of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. One of the practical results of this expression is that a large object striking a very small object at rest will lose very little of its kinetic energy. If your car strikes an insect, it is unfortunate for the insect but will not appreciably slow your car. On the other hand, if a small object collides inelastically with a large one, it will lose most of its kinetic energy.
What do you think collisions are? Are you really that dense?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: bush_is_a_moonie, *No Planers* (#1)
#4. To: wudidiz (#2)
#6. To: FormerLurker (#4)
It was a large high velocity mass of about 250,000 pounds, hitting a mesh of relatively thin steel columns spaced far enough apart where the majority of the plane encountered no exterior resistance upon penetration.
#9. To: tom007 (#6)
(Edited)
Mass X velocity = Kinetic Energy /time = Power
Work-Energy Principle
The change in the kinetic energy of an object is equal to the net work done on the object.
Average impact force x distance traveled = change in kinetic energy
If a moving object is stopped by a collision, extending the stopping distance will reduce the average impact force. Car crash example
Seatbelt use
Auto stopping distance
Large truck-small truck collision
Two trucks, equal momentum
Impact force of falling object
#10. To: FormerLurker (#9)
#15. To: Lod (#10)
If people want/need to believe that 19 muslims did 9.11, let'em.
#16. To: FormerLurker (#15)
I guess you're right. They'll believe what they want to believe, no matter what.
#18. To: RickyJ, Lod (#16)
That may be true, but to not try to inform them when you know the truth would be kind of like aiding and abetting the enemy by not speaking out about their crimes.
#19. To: FormerLurker (#18)
(Edited)
Thing is, even if I proved how much force the plane would have applied to the tower upon impact, and what the laws of momentum and collisions would show in terms of effects, they'd either not understand it, would simply ignore it, or call it disinfo.
Replies to Comment # 19. The buildings were no cue balls that absorb and transfer momentum
#21. To: titorite (#19)
... You know nothing of crash physics....
Elastic and Inelastic Collisions
Index
Collision concepts HyperPhysics***** Mechanics R Nave Go Back
Elastic Collisions
Elastic collisions, target at rest Standard examples, elastic collisions Index
Collision concepts HyperPhysics***** Mechanics R Nave Go Back
Swinging Balls
A popular demonstration of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy features several polished steel balls hung in a straight line in contact with each other. If one is pulled back and allowed to strike the line, one ball flies out the other end. If two balls are sent in, two come out, and so forth. 
Swinging balls movie Index
Collision concepts
Elastic collisions HyperPhysics***** Mechanics R Nave Go Back
#22. To: titorite (#19)
Inelastic Collisions
Perfectly elastic collisions are those in which no kinetic energy is lost in the collision. Macroscopic collisions are generally inelastic and do not conserve kinetic energy, though of course the total energy is conserved as required by the general principle of conservation of energy. The extreme inelastic collision is one in which the colliding objects stick together after the collision, and this case may be analyzed in general terms:
Calculation
Derivation of kinetic energy loss expressions
Examples of inelastic collisions
Index
Collision concepts HyperPhysics***** Mechanics R Nave Go Back K.E. Lost in Inelastic Collision
Calculation
Velocity after the collision
Examples of inelastic collisions
Index
Collision concepts HyperPhysics***** Mechanics R Nave Go Back
#23. To: titorite (#19)
... You know nothing of crash physics....
End Trace Mode for Comment # 19.