The recent NYC plane crash vs. 9/11... - Page 3

Mr Gorsky · #61 (**permalink**) 16-October-2006, 11:54 AM

The theory behind moving buildings has been around since 1983 ... here is a link to a documentary about an early prototype.

Remote control came later.

mugaliens · #62 (**permalink**) 16-October-2006, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEOWatcher

It's interesting to see how some peoples perceptions differ. But when I started reading the early stories, it's the reporters who print various quotes that make me wonder if the reporter even understands what may have happened.
Two that I read yesterday in particular made me think they were just filling space, no matter how unimportant the comment was. (somewhat paraphrased)
1) "It made a loud noise"
2) "It was like a plane flew into someone's living room"

Yes, I suppose it WAS like a plane flew into someone's living room. What a fanstastically brilliant reporter to have figured that out! That and the loud noise, which, if I'm not totally mistaken, almost never happens when a metal vehicle travelling 100 kts crashes into the side of a brick and steel building.

Spooky.

Sigma_Orionis · #63 (**permalink**) 16-October-2006, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by worzel

I've done extensive research with the most realistic flight simulator available (in Game) and can confirm that after flying 50 Boeing 747's into the twin towers they still stood, just like this recently hit building did. Makes you think.

That despite all the bloatware in Microsoft Products they still have NOT included a FEA engine in Microsoft's Filght Simulator X

jaydeehess · #64 (**permalink**) 17-October-2006, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SactoGuy88

I think it's obvious that the damage caused by that plane to the apartment building was pretty small except for the blown-out walls.

We're talking a very small plane here, folks. In fact, the only thing that got lodged on the 40th floor was the engine and propeller, with the rest of the plane crashing down onto the streets below.

Depending on the model it was capable of going 150-180 MPH, weighed about 3000 pounds max and carried 300 pounds of fuel max.

So it was capable of 40%(being conservative) the speed of a 767, weighed approx 0.7% as much and carried approx 1% as much fuel.

So, its momentum would be 0.4 X 0.007 = 0.0028 or 0.28% that of a 767.
It's kinetic energy would be (0.4^2) X 0.07 = 0.00112 or 0.01% of a 767

Shall we post that on "Loose Change"?

Musashi · #65 (**permalink**) 17-October-2006, 04:38 AM

It would just get deleted.

Nicolas · #66 (**permalink**) 17-October-2006, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Depending on the model it was capable of going 150-180 MPH, weighed about 3000 pounds max and carried 300 pounds of fuel max.

So it was capable of 40%(being conservative) the speed of a 767, weighed approx 0.7% as much and carried approx 1% as much fuel.

So, its momentum would be 0.4 X 0.007 = 0.0028 or 0.28% that of a 767.
It's kinetic energy would be (0.4^2) X 0.07 = 0.00112 or 0.01% of a 767

Shall we post that on "Loose Change"?

Your low figures prove that the raging fire [ = actual LS member phrasing] seen in the building is not compatible with the Cirrus 20 theory.

LS forums are down at the moment, I suppose due to some moderator mayhem that started there last night. I didn't understand the reason, but apparently many people overthere weren't happy. I'm curious when and how the boards will repoen.

bonkey · #67 (**permalink**) 17-October-2006, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Depending on the model it was capable of going 150-180 MPH, weighed about 3000 pounds max and carried 300 pounds of fuel max.

So it was capable of 40%(being conservative) the speed of a 767, weighed approx 0.7% as much and carried approx 1% as much fuel.

So, its momentum would be 0.4 X 0.007 = 0.0028 or 0.28% that of a 767.
It's kinetic energy would be (0.4^2) X 0.07 = 0.00112 or 0.01% of a 767

That second equation should be x 0.007 (like the first one), and .00112 should be rounded to .1%, not .01%.

Laguna2 · #68 (**permalink**) 17-October-2006, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkey

That second equation should be x 0.007 (like the first one), and .00112 should be rounded to .1%, not .01%.

0.00112 rounds to 0.1?

Nicolas · #69 (**permalink**) 17-October-2006, 12:33 PM

..percent

Laguna2 · #70 (**permalink**) 17-October-2006, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicolas

..percent

Ahh, missed the missing percent sign.
I read that too fast.

jaydeehess · #71 (**permalink**) 17-October-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laguna2

Ahh, missed the missing percent sign.
I read that too fast.

, and I typed too fast.

The above was the typical type of error that kept my algebra marks lower than they should have been,,,, oh so many years ago.

I registered at 911blogger.com Is that the Loose Change forum reffered to above?

edited to add...............
I see that I am incorrect and that the forum in question is
s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?

which at the time of this edit is still down.

Nicolas · #72 (**permalink**) 17-October-2006, 03:26 PM

indeed. I always make that mistake. Brain needs to be rewired.

jaydeehess · #73 (**permalink**) 20-October-2006, 07:53 PM

Hmmm, LC forum is back up. I registered there and logged in Ok but cannot post. I see other posts labeled as having occured today by others.

Is there a waiting period before one can make a first post?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode