ApolloHoax.net
Off Topic => Other Conspiracy Theories => Topic started by: allancw on October 21, 2013, 11:14:37 AM
-
I've made accusations re why some of you are here. You might ask why I am here.
While researching a story about why my best friend from childhood was killed in Vietnam, I came to the conclusion that a root cause was the JFK assassination. So I looked into that. Aside from the Spotlight Jury Trial (google it), wherein the verdict was (formally) that the CIA killed our president, the evidence of a far-reaching conspiracy that continues to this day (the media cover up) is overwhelming. But, for me, the single most significant piece of evidence was the fabrication of the Zapruder film. Do your own research if you're curious, but you can start here:
Getting to the heart of it: I did the same (more, actually) sort of research on 9/11 and got similar results. In fact, the single most significant piece of evidence was likewise visual. I'll show you that one frame from the Hezarkhani 'amateur' footage of the 2nd strike tells us a lot about the event and who was behind it. Here's the raw footage:
Go about 30 seconds in. That plane is moving fast, isn't it?
I could not attach a high res photo to this post so I made a quick video (and attached a low res jped). Please don't go off on the poor image quality. A good res image of the freeze frame in my video makes my point even more obvious. Here's the video:
Again: The freeze frame in the video is the image I also attached to this post.
Video cameras have a shutter speed of 1/60 of a second. The plane is traveling at about 540 mph (measurements internal to the footage). This means that during the 1/60 sec. the camera registered the image, the 'plane' had to have moved 13.2 feet. (Simple arithmetic.) The engine on a 767 happens to be about 13 feet so you can use that as reference.
You're all pretty intelligent, right? Trust the laws of physics, right? Critical thinkers? Trust your eyes, right?
If the image is genuine there should be - no, HAS to be - motion blur equal to the length of one of those engines, i.e., about 13 feet (yes, along the axis of flight).
There is no motion blur at all in the attached image (or the freeze frame in the video). Or are my eyes deceiving me? (I suspect that as your only 'answer'.)
For the same reason Costella gives for the fabrication of the Zapruder film, this famous footage from 9/11 is a fabrication. The implications re who was behind the 9/11 attacks are significant, in my view.
I figure I'm in the right place to get debunked, if debunking is possible. How about it, science-guys?
Off subject, you say? No, it isn't. Proof of a pattern of visual fabrications by... call it the Deep State... goes right to the heart of the Apollo hoax. Doesn't it?
But my real point is that what goes on here is far from harmless. To say 'shame on you' to those of you who know very well what you're doing would be ridiculous, but I will say that the same power structure who killed JFK and perpetrated 9/11 (which resulted in millions dead, all told) is behind the Apollo hoax and its continuing cover up.
Those of you who are here for 'innocent' reasons, i.e., do believe in the Apollo missions (yes, I exaggerated in accusing you all of being shills), might take a long, close look at JFK and 9/11, and rethink the views expressed here.
OK, I expect a barrage. Fine. But so far, not one answer to the Bean video question: was the LM heated or air conditioned or, somehow, both? I made the mistake of giving you excuses to attack irrelevancies, which those few who replied did. (Actually, I'm doing it again!)
The question: What does the lack of motion blur in the attached frame indicate? Answer that before you go off on irrelevancies. We'll see how science/critical thinking fares on this one...
-
And this has what to do with Apollo?
-
I've made accusations re why some of you are here. You might ask why I am here....
Wall o' Text.
You are here because you have either an ignorance of truth or apathy towards truth. Which one? Franky, I don't know and I don't care.
I figure I'm in the right place to get debunked, if debunking is possible. How about it, science-guys?
Please take your conspiracy rants to the proper place in the forum.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?board=7.0
-
I said,
Off subject, you say? No, it isn't. Proof of a pattern of visual fabrications by... call it the Deep State... goes right to the heart of the Apollo hoax. Doesn't it?
Don't agree? Fine, but deal with it.
I thought you all were critical thinkers. Isn't there even one of you who will...
No, too much to ask for.
-
\call it the Deep State... goes right to the heart of the Apollo hoax. Doesn't it?
No, it doesn't. It's just a failed attempt at guilt by association, following a failed attempt to flounce, following a failed attempt to navigate the historical record of Apollo.
Don't agree? Fine, but deal with it.
I'm dealing with it by not buying into an obviously illogical rant. Even if someone were to grant you, for the sake of argument, that 9/11 was an inside job or whatever, that doesn't in any prove that Apollo had been faked 30 years previously. You consider them connected by the presumption that some Evil Powers That Be are responsible for both. You don't seem to recognize a circular argument.
I thought you all were critical thinkers. Isn't there even one of you who will...
We are critical thinkers, and as such we instantly recognize sad attempts to change the subject. Posting 9/11 nonsense to an Apollo forum is just another desperate ploy for an illusory victory. When your off-topic rants are expectedly and naturally ignored or rebuked, you will try to make it sound as if no one wants to engage you. Then you will claim victory.
You are far too predictable.
-
Even if your proved 9/11 to be the work of the US government, what exactly does that prove regarding Apollo?
I don't think anyone on this board claims the US government has not done some horrendous things, but it would be circumstantial evidence at best. It would be like trying to prove a convicted murderer committed a different murder by only giving evidence for the first. It would be reason to be suspicious of them, but it doesn't prove they did it. For that, you need to actually provide evidence of the crime at hand. Or, to use a less emotionally intense example, we could stop any schmuk on the street and they will have lied at least once in their lives. Does that mean we should assume every word that comes out of their mouths as fraud without providing for any evidence at all?
How is that critical thinking?
On a related note, how come WikiLeaks never found evidence of the moon landing being fake?
Of all the embarrassing secrets uncovered, not a shred of material regarding the moon landings being a hoax?
-
As I expected, none of you will rise to the intellectual challenge of the motion-blur anomaly. Fine, but 9/11 is surely related to the moon hoax in exactly the way you say it wasn't. that someone has committed a heinous crime surely is relevant if he is suspected of another. would be relevant in court, should be here.
-
As I expected, none of you will rise to the intellectual challenge of the motion-blur anomaly.
Your attempt at being insulting is ineffectual.
Fine, but 9/11 is surely related to the moon hoax...
Only in that they are both lies perpetuated by ignorant people.
-
As I expected, none of you will rise to the intellectual challenge of the motion-blur anomaly.
Because you posted it in the wrong section.
As predicted, you lobbed a red herring and are now trying to parlay it into reluctance to engage you. As does practically every conspiracy troll who relies on silly high school debate tricks instead of education and reason. If you hadn't been so eager to poison the well, you'd notice there is an "Other Conspiracy Theories" section to this forum. Trying to present 9/11 theories here, as opposed to there, and telling us we're afraid to engage is you is the height of absurdity, ignorance, and desperation.
Fine, but 9/11 is surely related to the moon hoax in exactly the way you say it wasn't.
No. The two are not related just because you say they are. Nor are we unaccustomed to conspiracy theorists who cannot prevail on topic desperately trying to change the subject one another one they think they can have better luck on.
that someone has committed a heinous crime surely is relevant if he is suspected of another. would be relevant in court, should be here.
Wrong on three points.
First: this isn't a court of law; it's a discussion forum for a particular historical question. Historical validity and legal defensibility are not the same thing, nor are legal rules of evidence versus the historical method.
Second: there actually is a limit under American criminal law for trying to argue that a person is guilty in one instance because he was guilty in a past instance. Past behavior is not per se evidence that a person has committed a subsequent crime.
Third: you haven't proven guilt in the previous instance. Your logic is sadly based not on the premise of prior guilt, but on accusations of prior guilt. You don't get to say someone is suspicious just because you incessantly accuse him of something.
Acquaint yourself with the certainty that the regulars on this forum are well attuned to all the modes of conspiracy-related fallacy and will catch you every time you try illogical shenanigans like this. You will not prevail using sophomoric debate tactics.
-
As I expected, none of you will rise to the intellectual challenge of the motion-blur anomaly.
No challenge, it's very simple. You ignore the geometry of the direction of motion of the aircraft relative to the camera view direction.
As with your Apollo arguments, you do not have the necessary technical background to appreciate the situation.
-
For the same reason Costella gives for the fabrication of the Zapruder film, this famous footage from 9/11 is a fabrication. The implications re who was behind the 9/11 attacks are significant, in my view.
In my view, no-planers make normal 911 conspiracy theorists look like geniuses. It is the pinnacle of ignorance and sheer arrogance to conclude something so preposterous as being the more likely event, rather than your understanding of it being at fault.
The question: What does the lack of motion blur in the attached frame indicate? Answer that before you go off on irrelevancies. We'll see how science/critical thinking fares on this one...
Shutter speed is not the same as frames per second. Plus the plane is not sideways on and is travelling mainly away from the camera. Here's a video of supposedly another fake plane:
-
Just because a camera films at 60 frames per second doesn't mean it takes 1/60 of a second to capture the frame. Do 1 frame per second security cameras take an entire second to capture each frame?
-
I've made accusations re why some of you are here. You might ask why I am here.
While researching a story about why my best friend from childhood was killed in Vietnam, I came to the conclusion that a root cause was the JFK assassination.
I personally would tend to agree with that provisionally; if JFK had lived, I don't believe our involvement in SE Asia would have ever reached the level it did.
The question: What does the lack of motion blur in the attached frame indicate? Answer that before you go off on irrelevancies. We'll see how science/critical thinking fares on this one...
First, see how many videos of airliners taken from that distance with similar equipment you can find which show blurred frames. "Thought experiments" are all well and good, but the "should be blurred" proposition fails without some empirical evidence.
And what about the hundreds (thousands?) of people who were there and saw it happen live? How is it that their accounts match the video evidence within the limits of human memory?
Oh, and Costella? As in John P. Costella? Ranks right up there with Jack White as a photographic analyst.
-
I personally would tend to agree with that provisionally; if JFK had lived, I don't believe our involvement in SE Asia would have ever reached the level it did.
Interestingly, that's almost certainly wrong. Had Kennedy lived that day, he would have given a speech that included a statement reinforcing the fact that he believed the US needed to intervene in Vietnam. RFK said until he died that he believed that his brother believed the US needed to prevent the Communist takeover of Vietnam.
-
Had Kennedy lived that day, he would have given a speech that included a statement reinforcing the fact that he believed the US needed to intervene in Vietnam.
To be sure, JFK was as cold a cold warrior as they come, Oliver Stone's mythmaking notwithstanding. Remember his OK of the Bay of Pigs invasion? Or that he beat Nixon in 1960 partly by proclaiming a "missile gap" that didn't exist? He also came close to getting us all killed during the Cuban Missile Crisis just so he could beat his chest on national TV.
But even if he had won re-election in 1964 we simply have no way to know how he would have reacted when the nightly TV news brought the carnage of Vietnam into everyone's living rooms and the coffins really started flowing back home.
-
...And what about the hundreds (thousands?) of people who were there and saw it happen live? How is it that their accounts match the video evidence within the limits of human memory?
I agree. How exactly could thousands of ordinary New Yorkers have seen a plane that wasn't there?
-
...And what about the hundreds (thousands?) of people who were there and saw it happen live? How is it that their accounts match the video evidence within the limits of human memory?
I agree. How exactly could thousands of ordinary New Yorkers have seen a plane that wasn't there?
My sister is one of those who saw the second plane hit live. I'll take her word for it over some conspiracy shmuck.
-
Hence "almost certainly." In a way, it would have been even harder for him to back down than LBJ. And what people don't realize is that a lot of Civil Rights legislation wouldn't have happened without the assassination, because LBJ--that wily old Texan--was able to say, "We must pass this legislation to honour our fallen leader!" Except Kennedy hadn't really cared all that much about it. He used it to make political hay, but he didn't care as much as Bobby, who at the time didn't seem to care as much as LBJ.
Actually, I've begun to think that Bobby was the more interesting of the two. Jack was trying to fulfill their father's need to have an Irish President. Joe, Jr., had died, so it was Jack's job. When Jack died, I think Bobby underwent a lot of political changes, and I think he came out the other side a better person. I think he went from seeing the Civil Rights Movement as a tool to actually believing in it, for example. But we'll never know about Bobby, either, because an alumnus of my middle school stopped his Presidency before it got started. Of course, we'll also never know if he would have won.
-
Alan, I have to join the chorus of people who don't believe you have any formal training as a photographer. I've done videography professionally for many years now, and, even being self taught, one of the very first things I learned was the difference between frame rate and shutter speed. Even volunteer workers who have never held a camera before learn that on their first day with me. To mistake the two is an incredibly elementary error, not to mention your apparent ignorance of other factors such as the cameras movement relative to the object, the direction of the object's movement, and everything else that has now been pointed out to you.
-
I personally would tend to agree with that provisionally; if JFK had lived, I don't believe our involvement in SE Asia would have ever reached the level it did.
Interestingly, that's almost certainly wrong. Had Kennedy lived that day, he would have given a speech that included a statement reinforcing the fact that he believed the US needed to intervene in Vietnam. RFK said until he died that he believed that his brother believed the US needed to prevent the Communist takeover of Vietnam.
Possibly. But we must also take note that JFK had already issued an Executive Order in October which began withdrawing our "Advisors" from South VN. It may well be that the political climate there had become so chaotic that he was beginning to recognize that organized resistance to the Communist takeover was hopeless. All we can know for sure is that actual combat troops and the real ramp-up came after LBJ took over.
-
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vietnam.htm
He was not planning to pull out.
-
Sometimes conspiracy theorists bring up when a B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building without causing significant structural damage. Not only was a B-25 bomber significantly slower than a 767, not only was it significantly smaller, but, correct me if I am wrong, but the Empire State Building was rather massively over-engineered, being, I believe, the first skyscraper of that kind of height.
-
Sometimes conspiracy theorists bring up when a B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building without causing significant structural damage. Not only was a B-25 bomber significantly slower than a 767, not only was it significantly smaller, but, correct me if I am wrong, but the Empire State Building was rather massively over-engineered, being, I believe, the first skyscraper of that kind of height.
Boeing 767-223ER (North Tower)
Max T/O weight 395,000 lb
Cruise speed: 470 kts
Boeing 767-222 (South tower)
Max T/O weight 315,000 lb
Cruise speed: 470 kts
North American B-25 Mitchell Bomber
Max T/O weight 35,000lb
Cruise Speed 237 kts
Yep. The 767 travels at twice the speed of a Mitchell bomber, and weighs between 9 and 11 times as much; variant dependant.
I'd say that is very significant!
-
Boeing 767-223ER (North Tower)
Max T/O weight 395,000 lb
Cruise speed: 470 kts
Energy: 5.24 GJ
Boeing 767-222 (South tower)
Max T/O weight 315,000 lb
Cruise speed: 470 kts
Energy: 4.18 GJ
North American B-25 Mitchell Bomber
Max T/O weight 35,000lb
Cruise Speed 237 kts
Energy: 0.118 GJ
I believe the actual speeds and weights for AA11 and UA175 are known more precisely, but they don't change the qualitative results.
-
Boeing 767-223ER (North Tower)
Max T/O weight 395,000 lb
Cruise speed: 470 kts
Energy: 5.24 GJ
Boeing 767-222 (South tower)
Max T/O weight 315,000 lb
Cruise speed: 470 kts
Energy: 4.18 GJ
North American B-25 Mitchell Bomber
Max T/O weight 35,000lb
Cruise Speed 237 kts
Energy: 0.118 GJ
I believe the actual speeds and weights for AA11 and UA175 are known more precisely, but they don't change the qualitative results.
Thanks.
To me, that looks about the same as the difference between dropping a red brick on your toes, and dropping a concrete breeze/cinder block.
Your toes will know the difference, trust me!.
-
Actual figures, from NTSB radar study:
UA 175 (south tower): 510 kts
UA 11 (north tower): 430 kts
Both planes were lightly loaded and had burned off some fuel taking off from Boston and flying to New York. I am looking for estimates of their weights but they'll certainly be less than the maximum T/O weights.
-
UA175: 950 km/t + about 38.000 liters of fuel. Not fully loaded.
AA11: 758 km/t + about 38.000 liters of fuel. It was not fully loaded with passengers and cargo either.
Which leads me to a question: The physical ability for the plane to move so fast at such an altitude - is there information about this? Obviously it could, but would the plane be damaged by it?
-
Even if it would be damaged by the standards of aviation (as in, needing some repairs before it's let into the air again), I don't think the terrorists cared too much about the plane's flightworthy status after they were done with it.
Also, thank you everyone for going into such exhaustive detail.
It really is a treat.
-
UA175: 950 km/t + about 38.000 liters of fuel. Not fully loaded.
AA11: 758 km/t + about 38.000 liters of fuel. It was not fully loaded with passengers and cargo either.
Jet A-1 weighs about 0.8 kg/litre (or it was the last time I refuelled a A4K Skyhawk) so 38,000 L of Jet A-1 is about 68,000 lb
That is about the weight of TWO fully loaded, fuelled and armed B-25 bombers!!
-
Which leads me to a question: The physical ability for the plane to move so fast at such an altitude - is there information about this? Obviously it could, but would the plane be damaged by it?
Events like the SilkAir crash show that an airliner can significantly exceed its rated "never exceed" speed before it starts to break apart. However, I expect UA175 in particular would have been permanently bent out of shape if it had survived.
-
I like to compare it to a
Japanese China Airlines Flight 006 Boeing 747, which plunged from cruise altitude to 3500 feet before being recovered. It had much of it's tail control surfaces ripped off, due to near-supersonic or supersonic airflow.
I don't know if that is the way to calculate the dynamic pressure, but would (airpressure) x (speed)^2 be a reliable indicator to the forces experienced by the planes?
-
Strictly, dynamic pressure is half the air density times the speed squared. A common alternative way of expressing this is "equivalent airspeed", which is the speed at sea level that would give the same dynamic pressure as the higher actual speed in the reduced density air at altitude.
-
Sometimes conspiracy theorists bring up when a B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building without causing significant structural damage. Not only was a B-25 bomber significantly slower than a 767, not only was it significantly smaller, but, correct me if I am wrong, but the Empire State Building was rather massively over-engineered, being, I believe, the first skyscraper of that kind of height.
I'm not sure if you would call it over-engineered, but the construction was of a totally different type. The building's "skeleton" was a grid of steel columns spaced about 6 meters apart, cross connected by girders at each floor. Of course, this made for an extremely strong structure, but the downside was that any office (or whatever) space had, obviously, columns every six meters in any direction...
The height of a building constructed with this technique was limited by the fact that the taller the building, the closer together the supporting columns on the lower floors had to be (because the were holding up more weight). Not an engineer, o'course, but I suspect it would take a hellacious impact to inflict serious structural damage, and even then, the lower floors would probably hold together.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vietnam.htm
He was not planning to pull out.
Look up NSAM #263 (National Security Action Memorandum), issued 11 October 1963. JFK ordered the quiet withdrawal of 1000 military personnel by the end of 1963, and approved the recommendation of Robert McNamara and Gen. Maxwell Taylor that "A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time."
I agree with you that JFK very much wanted South Viet Nam to remain non-communist. I personally am skeptical that the McNamara-Taylor recommendation would have been successful, but even RFK (in the interview you referenced) stopped short of saying that we would have sent combat troops in. He even states "Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster."
The question is certainly open to debate, but we'll never know what JFK would actually have done. Just IMHO, though, I don't believe he would have ended up sending hundreds of thousands of troops there, losing something on the order of 60,000 US lives in the process.
-
Strictly, dynamic pressure is half the air density times the speed squared. A common alternative way of expressing this is "equivalent airspeed", which is the speed at sea level that would give the same dynamic pressure as the higher actual speed in the reduced density air at altitude.
AKA KIAS?
Not bad, really - was only missing the 1/2 factor from my not-relevant-educated guess.
-
AKA KIAS?
Close.
Indicated airspeed is what the airspeed instrument is showing. To convert to equivalent airspeed you need to take account of any errors in the instrument and, if you're going fast enough, you also need a compressibility correction.
-
I'm not sure if you would call it over-engineered, but the construction was of a totally different type. The building's "skeleton" was a grid of steel columns spaced about 6 meters apart, cross connected by girders at each floor. Of course, this made for an extremely strong structure, but the downside was that any office (or whatever) space had, obviously, columns every six meters in any direction...
The height of a building constructed with this technique was limited by the fact that the taller the building, the closer together the supporting columns on the lower floors had to be (because the were holding up more weight). Not an engineer, o'course, but I suspect it would take a hellacious impact to inflict serious structural damage, and even then, the lower floors would probably hold together.
Interesting and thank you. How does this compare with how WTC was constructed?
-
WTC 1 and 2 was in essence two hollow tubes, one inside the other. The floors were connected to the inner and outer structure, keeping them evenly spaced and rigid. This ensured wide open floors, with no colums breaking up the space. When the collapse started, the points where the floors were connected to the inner and outer tube, failed quite rapidly, causing a cascading collapse.
Edit: During the collapse, the connection between the outer and inner tube was broken, allowing the outer tube to break up and fall independently. Looking at the videos of the collapse, it is obvious that the falling pieces ejected from the collapse, fall much faster than the actual collapse, rendering the truthers claim of "free fall" null and void. Also, it is clear that parts of the inner tube - the core - stays standing for several seconds after the collapse has ended, also countering the claim that the core was destroyed from the bottom using explosives.
-
Both planes were still well below Mach 1, so what is it that damages an aircraft from flying so fast at low altitudes? Is it the denser air?
-
Both planes were still well below Mach 1, so what is it that damages an aircraft from flying so fast at low altitudes? Is it the denser air?
Dynamic pressure on the airframe and the load for which the airframe is designed. A Cessna 172 starts getting bent over 160 KIAS, which isn't all that fast...
-
How fast is the first pass in this video?
-
Dynamic pressure on the airframe and the load for which the airframe is designed.
Got it. Same thing that stresses rockets near max-Q, except that it doesn't last long as they ascend rapidly into thinner air.
Oh btw, to put those kinetic energy figures into perspective, a "ton tnt", as used with nuclear weapon yields, is defined as a million kilocalories ("food calories"). That's 4.184 GJ, very roughly the kinetic energy of the 767s that hit the WTC.
Added: it's also very roughly the energy in the food consumed by the passengers in a few days.
The fuel carried considerably more energy (as it has to, since it provided all of the plane's kinetic energy in the first place) but the kinetic energy was released almost instantly.
-
WTC 1 and 2 was in essence two hollow tubes, one inside the other. The floors were connected to the inner and outer structure, keeping them evenly spaced and rigid. This ensured wide open floors, with no colums breaking up the space. When the collapse started, the points where the floors were connected to the inner and outer tube, failed quite rapidly, causing a cascading collapse.
Again, I thank you.
-
WTC 1 and 2 was in essence two hollow tubes, one inside the other. The floors were connected to the inner and outer structure, keeping them evenly spaced and rigid. This ensured wide open floors, with no colums breaking up the space. When the collapse started, the points where the floors were connected to the inner and outer tube, failed quite rapidly, causing a cascading collapse.
Edit: During the collapse, the connection between the outer and inner tube was broken, allowing the outer tube to break up and fall independently. Looking at the videos of the collapse, it is obvious that the falling pieces ejected from the collapse, fall much faster than the actual collapse, rendering the truthers claim of "free fall" null and void. Also, it is clear that parts of the inner tube - the core - stays standing for several seconds after the collapse has ended, also countering the claim that the core was destroyed from the bottom using explosives.
Yes, one of Heiwa's claims is, I believe, that dropping a brick onto a pile of pizza boxes is an appropriate model for what happened...
-
Strictly, dynamic pressure is half the air density times the speed squared.
I don't know much about aeronautics, so let me work out the physical meaning of these units. This looks a lot like the classic kinetic energy equation, 1/2 * m * v2, with air density substituted for mass to give units of energy per volume. So dynamic pressure is just the kinetic energy density of the air in joules (J) per cubic meter.
The basic units of J/m3 are the same as the pascal (Pa), the SI unit of pressure. And multiplying that pressure by an area (like the effective cross section of an airplane fuselage) gives the dynamic force, which in SI units would be newtons (N).
Did I get all that right?
-
Pizza boxes? I hate to resort to catch-phrases, but he's not even wrong.
-
I don't know much about aeronautics, so let me work out the physical meaning of these units. This looks a lot like the classic kinetic energy equation, 1/2 * m * v2 ...
You can also see the simularity between the equations for dynamic pressure and drag force:
Dynamic pressure = 1/2 * Rho * V2
Drag force = 1/2 * Cd * Rho * V2 * A
Dynamic pressure is measured in Pa or N/m2. Multiply that by the area, A, in m2, and the drag coefficient, Cd, which is dimensionless, and you have the drag force, in N.
-
Pizza boxes? I hate to resort to catch-phrases, but he's not even wrong.
Yeah, it was more like a row of vertical uncooked spaghetti. Once the floor trusses pulled loose and the walls bowed out, the rest was more or less dominoes.
-
You know, the WTC was bombed before. If the US government wanted to stir things up but knew that planes couldn't bring the towers, why not just set up explain like the 'truthers' claim, why didn't they just bomb it in a similar false flag operation? It certainly is a lot simpler, as you don't have a lot of passengers that need to be either removed from the picture or created whole cloth.
-
Yes, a big truck bomb. They had to fix the garage. To do real damage that way, you'll have to do something special with the bomb, like using real explosives, instead of fertilizer-based home made stuff. And you'll have to place it very carefully - and use a directed explosion to maximize the damage to the structure.
-
Yes, a big truck bomb. They had to fix the garage. To do real damage that way, you'll have to do something special with the bomb, like using real explosives, instead of fertilizer-based home made stuff. And you'll have to place it very carefully - and use a directed explosion to maximize the damage to the structure.
Still, if they were planning on bombing the place anyway, adding planes just seems like a needless complication.
-
Still, if they were planning on bombing the place anyway, adding planes just seems like a needless complication.
Well, that made it a lot more spectacular, and from the truthers' perspective it "explains" to the sheeple why the towers collapsed.
-
Still, if they were planning on bombing the place anyway, adding planes just seems like a needless complication.
Well, that made it a lot more spectacular, and from the truthers' perspective it "explains" to the sheeple why the towers collapsed.
I don't know, a bombing would be pretty spectacular, Just pin it on some group like the 'truther's' claim was done anyway.
-
Not as spectacular as what actually happened on 9/11.
KSM, OBL and the rest of al Qaeda may be/have been absolutely deranged religious fanatics, but you have to hand it to them. They really knew how to tweak the deepest fears of the US public and government. Perhaps their most brilliant tactic was in allowing just enough time after the first plane struck for all the TV cameras to get into place to carry the second strike live.
That's why they call it "terrorism".
-
Not as spectacular as what actually happened on 9/11.
KSM, OBL and the rest of al Qaeda may be/have been absolutely deranged religious fanatics, but you have to hand it to them. They really knew how to tweak the deepest fears of the US public and government. Perhaps their most brilliant tactic was in allowing just enough time after the first plane struck for all the TV cameras to get into place to carry the second strike live.
That's why they call it "terrorism".
Same thing with the 7/7 London bombings. Just enough time between the ones on the tube and the one on the bus for people to get from one to the other.
-
7/7 worked less well though, because they were going against Londoners. They knew all about terrorism already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz).
-
I thought your link would lead to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_troubles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_troubles). The Blitz was all-out war, not terrorism.
-
I thought your link would lead to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_troubles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_troubles). The Blitz was all-out war, not terrorism.
It was meant to terrorize the population into submission and not merely to destroy military infrastructure. I'd call that terrorism.
-
Right up there with pizza boxes.
-
That guy's voice sounds just like the synthesized voice used at large airports on the ATIS (automated weather broadcast to pilots).
-
It was meant to terrorize the population into submission and not merely to destroy military infrastructure. I'd call that terrorism.
Well, yes. But in the language of the Allies that was called "weakening enemy morale" -- at least when they did it to the Germans and Japanese. It was Joseph Goebbels who first used the term "terror bombing" to describe aerial strategic bombing. Seriously.
-
Right up there with pizza boxes.
I can't tell if this is parody or not. Poe's Law is complete.
-
It was meant to terrorize the population into submission and not merely to destroy military infrastructure. I'd call that terrorism.
Well, yes. But in the language of the Allies that was called "weakening enemy morale" -- at least when they did it to the Germans and Japanese. It was Joseph Goebbels who first used the term "terror bombing" to describe aerial strategic bombing. Seriously.
No denying World War II, despite being pretty much the closest we've had to a just war, had its dirty, no, downright horrific, moments on both sides. Still, if Hitler couldn't do destroy that resolve with the full force of night after night of legions of bombers and rockets who could kill you before you even heard them coming, I doubt anyone could.
-
At least not with the technology available in 1940.
-
Strictly, dynamic pressure is half the air density times the speed squared.
I don't know much about aeronautics, so let me work out the physical meaning of these units. This looks a lot like the classic kinetic energy equation, 1/2 * m * v2, with air density substituted for mass to give units of energy per volume. So dynamic pressure is just the kinetic energy density of the air in joules (J) per cubic meter.
The basic units of J/m3 are the same as the pascal (Pa), the SI unit of pressure. And multiplying that pressure by an area (like the effective cross section of an airplane fuselage) gives the dynamic force, which in SI units would be newtons (N).
Did I get all that right?
Yes. You can think of pressure as a measure of energy stored up in the air. Release the air into a vacuum and that stored energy becomes kinetic energy.
-
Strictly, dynamic pressure is half the air density times the speed squared.
I don't know much about aeronautics, so let me work out the physical meaning of these units. This looks a lot like the classic kinetic energy equation, 1/2 * m * v2, with air density substituted for mass to give units of energy per volume. So dynamic pressure is just the kinetic energy density of the air in joules (J) per cubic meter.
The basic units of J/m3 are the same as the pascal (Pa), the SI unit of pressure. And multiplying that pressure by an area (like the effective cross section of an airplane fuselage) gives the dynamic force, which in SI units would be newtons (N).
Did I get all that right?
I've always seen the equation for dynamic pressure as resembling the momentum equation, m*v, rather than the kinetic energy equation. If we take the air density times the velocity, we have the mass flow rate per square meter. That is,
rho * v2 = (rho * v) * v = m-dot * v
So the equation gives us momentum per second per square meter. Since momentum per second is force, we have force per square meter, or pressure.
-
I've always seen the equation for dynamic pressure as resembling the momentum equation, m*v, rather than the kinetic energy equation.
But how do you account for the 1/2 factor that shows up in the KE equation?
-
It's probably from sharing the energy between the air and the vehicle.
-
It's from integrating a value that starts as zero and rises proportionally with velocity. Analogously to kinetic energy, energy content of a capacitor, tank of compressed air, tank of liquid, etc.
Various attempts to explain this (to a particularly innumerate "new physics" kook, but the math is good despite his denial of it) here:
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?126254-Doubts-About-quot-Modern-Physics-quot&p=1976237#post1976237