Well that depends on your taste. I like strawberry the best ...or apple ...but I don't like figs. Well... I suppose if your toddler put one in your camera, that would reduce the speed considerably ...but other than that I don't see any connection.
I know what a Newton is. I was wondering what in the world it had to do with the camera speed. You start off calculating the speed of the plane, then you get a feet per frame for the plane & camera relationship and then you say the answer will be in Newtons. I was trying to find out if you had any idea what you were calculating, because it appears not. :wink: A newton, in this case, is a kg-m / s^2 (kilogram x meter) / second squared. The earth's gravitational pull, depending on where you are at, is 9.807 m/s^2. No kg=no Newton for gravity (sorry)
BOYS! The equations are right...even Ken's rounded off one. It's still *around* 50. The explaination of Newtons is right, as was the explaination of Joules...and they were used correctly, so quit bulldogging Ken already. Shall we go further into it? We can drag a little more Thermo in here. I'll gladly jump into the foray with that.... I agree with Jen, personally. Speaking with those I mentioned before, I'm just not convinced. We didn't lose anyone (I'm glad, Kaci, for you and very heartbroken, Tassy, for ya'll), but I'm very much an evidence/scientifically minded person. Prove it to me one way or another, that's moi. Frogger
If you think you can tie Thermo into a camera record speed, then be my guest. In fact, I actually dare you!
:wink: To be honest, I would have left the camera math alone...........until you mentioned Newtons (couldn't resist :wink: ) but like you said, you're the same way.
i thought this topic was already torn apart. thats why i said sorry and not to reply. i am not convinced. where are plane parts? looks like sonething was hid. but i by no means know all the facts. jmo. 8)
Flight 77 from Washington Dulles to Los Angeles, crashed into the Pentagon Crew Charles Burlingame David M. Charlebois Michele Heidenberger Jennifer Lewis Kenneth Lewis Renee A. May Passengers Paul Ambrose Yeneneh Betru Mary Jane (MJ) Booth Bernard Curtis Brown Suzanne Calley William Caswell Sarah Clark Zandra Cooper Asia Cottom James Debeuneure Rodney Dickens Eddie Dillard Charles Droz Barbara G. Edwards Charles S. Falkenberg Zoe Falkenberg Dana Falkenberg James Joe Ferguson Wilson 'Bud' Flagg Darlene Flagg Richard Gabriel Ian J. Gray Stanley Hall Bryan Jack Steven D. Jacoby Ann Judge Chandler Keller Yvonne Kennedy Norma Khan Karen A. Kincaid Dong Lee Dora Menchaca Christopher Newton Barbara Olson Ruben Ornedo Robert Penniger Robert R. Ploger Lisa J. Raines Todd Reuben John Sammartino Diane Simmons George Simmons Mari-Rae Sopper Robert Speisman Norma Lang Steuerle Hilda E. Taylor Leonard Taylor Sandra Teague Leslie A. Whittington John D. Yamnicky Vicki Yancey Shuyin Yang Yuguag Zheng Well, then why don't you look up the families of any of these people.. whatever happened to the people who were on that plane that day? Didi they just make-up the passenger and crew list and pay actors to pretend to be family members to do fake interviews after-the-fact? How about the crew... call the airline personnel office and ask if they are deceased employees...
They melted and burned! Where are the pieces to the planes that crashed into the twin towers? Same thing. :cry:
Responce to Tawiii's link: Sorry my device will not let me use the quote or any font features, but I did my best to differentiate my answers. Question n°1 Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon? Well let me try - Its the Pentagon, it was built to withstand much worse. It is also clear that the other rings withstood damage based on the photos provided. Question n°2 Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building? They probably did not bother with the landing gear so the height numbers are suspect (yes I know that the tail section still sticks up there, but this piece of aluminum probably crushed like a Coke can when it hit the floor divider on the reinforced building). The wings which contained the fuel also crushed and then burned/vaporized/melted. Question n°3 The photograph above shows the lawn in front of the damaged building. You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph? No and I wouldn't expect too! Question n°4 The photograph in question 4 shows a truck pouring sand over the lawn of the Pentagon. Behind it a bulldozer is seen spreading gravel over the turf. Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack? See all that damage behind the trucks? Probably putting down a surface so that the salvage vehicles can get to the damage and out without turning the turf into a giant mud hole. Question n°5 The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit. Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage? See answer to question 2 Question n°6 When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" "First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." " You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know." When asked by a journalist: "Where is the jet fuel?" "We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the -- what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft. So -" Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was? Again see answers to the above questions (primarily 1 & 2). I would be shocked if there were significant quantities of fuel left based on all the damage shown. Then you could start talking conspiracy. Question n°7 The two photographs in question 7 were taken just after the attack. They show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck. Can you find the aircraft's point of impact? Wouldn't expect too especially with all the smoke (boy you would think something burned here wouldn't you). Additional questions (they ran out of fingers, or just couldn't see them?) How did you do? Very well, thanks for asking! Did you find the Boeing? No and didn't expect too! I have seen a plane that crashed with less fuel that didn't even hit a building, let alone a reinforced one, that didn't even resemble a plane. Can you still defend the official version of events? Yep!
Actually, I posted the link to show where I got the picture from. One would think that a piece of the tail section would have been laying around. The entire plane didn't just vaporize did it? Is there fuel in the tail? btw How did you do the little degree symbol?
My thoughts are that the plane probably hit the building at over 300 mph, which probably would create a hole, and with all that momentum carry the mass into the hole. Remember the plane isn't much more than an aluminum container with quite a bit of weight in it. With that much momentum it wouldn’t surprise me that the tail ended up in the building. By accident, I just copied everything from the website to my PocketPC version of Microsoft Word for editing and spell checking. I then just copied ad pasted it to the post box.
Hught Jet fuel, which is a modified Kerosene burns at 800C to 950C depending on which JP composition they use. The engines are predominantly made with Titanium & Steel. The melting point on Titanium is 1660C. That’s the melting point, not vaporization. To instantaniously vaporize Titanium you would need the equivalent heat produced from an atomic explosion, and at weighing approx. 6 tons the engine would need to burn for approx 1 minute after exposure. Please tell me you’ve found a way to defy the laws of physics and you can make Titanium vaporize at 950C in less than 5 seconds. I’ll help you publish the article and we can apply for that billion-dollar grant, because you just found the world’s greatest non-atomic weapon. The skin of most commercial aircraft is a Magnesium / Aluminum composition. Some have incorporated Carbon fiber into their compositions. To instantaneously vaporize this composition without any trace elements left behind it would take a burn time of 2.5 minutes at (not less than) 2500C. Again, lets go get that grant. Next step, the wings of all commercial planes are weakest at the end of the aileron which causes shear in almost all crashes. The momentum of the plane can not carry an approx. 10’ x 16” section of wing into the hole behind the crash after it shears. And then … vaporize it. Let’s take this one step farther. If the wings collided with the wall, that you said was next to impervious, the reaction would have ejected large debris prior to the ignition of the fuel. (equal and opposite reactions) Apply good ole Newton’s laws and the debris would exceed the speed and direction of the flame and it would escape ignition. The fuel cells in plane wings are located with the center of gravity on the fuselage. A very long portion of the wing tip is void of any fuel. This leaves a very large amount of skin that would be ejected, both from the impact and the explosion. I'm going to take this even one step farther. The point at which the wing attaches to the fuslage is the strongest section of a plan. Because of the reinforcement here to resist shear on the wing assembly you will always see a short stub of wing that protrudes from the fuselage after a crash with wing separation. Why is the entry hole round and not an inverted "T"?? Ken, can explain why the frames that were captured don’t block the background out for 25’ in height? Even if only one frame is captured, the background would still be blocked in that frame for the height of the aircraft. Never mind the fact that it would have to be at least 10’ off the ground to maintain air flow over the wing to stay aloft and miss the grass. Also, to stay aloft at that elevation the engines would need to be at full. At full throttle, that lawn would have had two very long burn marks on the grass in the approach line.
Excellent points Dan. That's what I was pointing at with the video, as well as many other inconsistencies shown.
Neither Video looked like a large plane. In the first video the plane kinda looked to have a long pointed nose rather than a snub. It did look like the plane was being pulled toward the earth at 9.8 Newtons
