What brought down WTC7

[Number1]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
<-- PhD chemical engineer / materials scientist. Aced all my mechE coursework too for good measure.

<-- has read the majority of the 9/11 report and believes that the official 9/11 story is 'grade A baloney'.

There is so much misinformation out there concerning the supposed 'facts' of 9/11... it is absolutely mind boggling. But when you start sorting through information it quickly becomes apparent that the 9/11 investigation and the media coverage/treatment thereafter is a total snow job.

I will say this... if start reading through legitimate 9/11 truth'er information and reports (i.e. people who are doing honest investigation and simply reporting facts as they find them and reporting proper analysis) you will have to conclude one of two things: A) the 9/11 report is largely full of shit or (B) the legitimate 9/11 truth movement is making shit up. Well a lot of 9/11 truth info and reports, etc. are extremely well documents with supporting evidence in the form of pictures, interviews, videos, etc. There are loads of contradictions and omissions within the 9/11 commission report itself.

So to me the conclusion of where I place my belief and trust is a simple. Do i believe a government or do i believe it people who want the truth. And honestly, I think very little needs to be said concerning the trustworthiness of our federal government, particularly under Bush and Cheney... or the complete lack thereof.

Do I

I also know pilots who said the plane would not take off. Your obvious paranoid view of the world and the government is distorting your reality.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Your feet aren't glued to the floor.

They are somewhat stuck to the the floor by gravity, and you are flexing your muscles above that point, allowing you to descend quicker than free fall. That said, if you did actually superglue your feet to the floor, that would potentially allow you to descend even quicker, assuming you are strong enough and quick enough for it to make a difference. I can't get my feet off just making my knees buckle when trying it myself, but then I'm not nearly the athlete I once was either.

LOL

Are you kidding me?

You have no understanding of basic physic.

You have to add a force to fall faster then free fall. Simply raising your knees would not do it.

The feet would HAVE to be glued to the floor and bending your knees would pull your body down potential faster then free fall.

So there you have it. Absolute proof the the OP has no reasonable understanding of BASIC physic.

Typical twuther.

Don't be so quick. If you jerk your knees up in the air you will accelerate the rest of your body in the opposite direction. Basic physics, my friend.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Granted but the effect would be negligible as compared to puling down with your legs. The OP is still very wrong.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Don't be so quick. If you jerk your knees up in the air you will accelerate the rest of your body in the opposite direction. Basic physics, my friend.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Kind of. Keep in mind though that in the particular case of jerking your knees up in the air the mass of your legs is accelerating upwards. Since the ankle bone is connected to the leg bone, the leg bone is connected to the hip bone, and so on, there is a transfer of that mass acceleration to your entire body which affects the acceleration in the opposite direction.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
As I mentioned in my reply to miniMUNCH, the investigations seem to have been compartmentalised and directed from the top down, so most of the people working on it, scientists and otherwise, were given tasks that separated the evidence into parts which would confirm the official story rather than expose them to anything that would lead them to question it. And of course anyone who does come forward against the official story gets shouted down or worse, so I'm sure many are dissuaded from ever really looking into the matter simply by that.

Who has been bought into covering things up, blackmailed into covering things up, or just simply confused into covering things up, is something I doubt more than some few people know, and certainly not anything I am in any position to speculate on. However, if we ever get a real investigation set up, I'd wager we find it is some mix of all of the above.

I read your reply to MiniMunch and one of the links you gave with all the dissenters and I think I'd like your opinion related to a couple items that were mentioned in that link..
They said cell phone high altitude use was not developed until 2004. I'm not sure if they mean for airplanes having cell phone connection or for passengers using their own cells not working at such high altitude and what might that altitude be if the cells work inside a plane?
The other bit is well, mind boggling or confusing. I take it the link takes issue with one plane.. the pentagon one but the PA. one and the towers event they indicated that it could have been stopped. Or that is my take on it. IF that is correct reading on my part then they accept terrorists flew the planes into the towers and PA but not the Pentagon and if not into the Pentagon where is Barbara Olsen?
I didn't read the Conspiracy Theory stuff much at all.. as you can tell so this is new stuff to me and sorta well... I can't imagine any thing like allowing our citizens to be killed.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Assuming the elevator is in true free fall you would not be able to jump up at the last second because you would be weightless and floating in the elevator, at least if you discount air resistance on the elevator that would not be affecting you. If you could somehow maneuver yourself into a crouched position on the floor you could at the last second spring up, but if you were able to do it with such force as to reverse your downward acceleration you would be killed by hitting the roof of the elevator. At that point the impact would be worse than hitting the ground because by jumping off the floor you would have accelerated the elevator by pushing the floor away with your feet.

Well, the bit about accelerating the elevator that I'm on has me. I can't figure that out cuz I'm on the elevator and if I push down I'd have thought I'd have to be using some object not also in free fall to push against.. iow, i push down with my feet but push with my hands against something not also in free fall... grrrrrrrrrrrrr..
I don't think I'll get it if you even use baby words and lead me by the hand... my mind just won't see it! But thanks for trying.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I didn't read the Conspiracy Theory stuff much at all.. as you can tell so this is new stuff to me and sorta well... I can't imagine any thing like allowing our citizens to be killed.

I actually disagree there. I believe that if it were tenable that certain people would allow US citizens to be killed in some way to forward their agenda. However, 9/11 isn't tenable. Too many people involved, too many variables, not to mention the real possibility of worldwide financial collapse or American collapse after a 9/11 event, which such persons conspiring would not want to happen, as most of their money is probably in investments. Maybe some shadowy group would blow up a cruise ship in international waters or something along those lines. Small scale stuff.

Even in that poll on truthers from a while back, the majority subscribed in much higher numbers to the theory that Bush simply "let" 9/11 happen, than actively conspired to bring it about. While I find this also ridiculous, that theory has the advantage of neatly avoiding the believability issues regarding manufactured cell phones conversations, missiles, hidden bodies, transferred wreckages, controlled demolitions, thousands of conspirators all remaining completely quiet and secretive to this day, and all the other fucking illogical, insane contradictions one would have to believe in order to buy the full Truther "official version".

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Your feet aren't glued to the floor.

They are somewhat stuck to the the floor by gravity, and you are flexing your muscles above that point, allowing you to descend quicker than free fall. That said, if you did actually superglue your feet to the floor, that would potentially allow you to descend even quicker, assuming you are strong enough and quick enough for it to make a difference. I can't get my feet off just making my knees buckle when trying it myself, but then I'm not nearly the athlete I once was either.

LOL

Are you kidding me?

You have no understanding of basic physic.

You have to add a force to fall faster then free fall. Simply raising your knees would not do it.

The feet would HAVE to be glued to the floor and bending your knees would pull your body down potential faster then free fall.

So there you have it. Absolute proof the the OP has no reasonable understanding of BASIC physic.

Typical twuther.

Don't be so quick. If you jerk your knees up in the air you will accelerate the rest of your body in the opposite direction. Basic physics, my friend.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Granted but the effect would be negligible as compared to puling down with your legs. The OP is still very wrong.

Not if you could jerk them up at light speed. But then of course you would find your toes well cooked and on their way to the next galaxy.

But yes, the OP is still quite wrong as far as I can see. There is nothing I can see that is abnormal about the fall of number 7. The action of mysterious forces is a needless complication.

When a structure begins to fall the inertia it gathers, seems to me, would be 4 times and 2x in velocity. That would be like saying, I think, that if a building falls for half a second it would effectively weigh twice as much to anything trying to resist further falling and in one second it would effectively weigh four times as much. So all the kinetic energy put in a building to raise it is released as it falls. Nothing is going to stop it when it starts to come down.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: jonks
What confuses me is that LunarRay believes the "official story" about the Shroud of Turin until and unless peer reviewed scientific research rebuts the paranormal explanation he favors, and yet he somehow doesn't belief the "official story" of 9/11 with regard to WT7 despite the peer reviewed scientific research (and having seen it with his own eyes).

Truly Mind Boggling.

Ah... unboggle...

What did I say about that Shroud that you misunderstand? My belief basically is that even if you could date it to 33AD, you still need to prove who's depicted thereon and how it got there. It could be Melvin the camel broker for all I know.
Regarding 9/11 and this thread... IF you read what I've been writing you'd not say what you did. I, well.. atm, accept everything most folks say that support Terrorists Attacked the US on 9/11 but do have an issue or two regarding WTC 7. One issue is not at all to do with the tragedy and the other is how/why the building fell...
Now, I've stated that probably 20 times in this thread so is your mind in sync with what appears on the thread pages?
But, I will say that although I support the Official Version, I'm starting to see folks on here laughing at folks with disease and making that issue somehow indicative of the validity of their comments. That could be construed to mean we should first look to the medical condition of anyone making comment. Starting with the Official folks and move on to the dissenters.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Number1

I also know pilots who said the plane would not take off. Your obvious paranoid view of the world and the government is distorting your reality.

I'm not sure I follow that statement. Or how it related.
Are you speaking to the Terrorist piloted Planes or the US Jets intercepting?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I didn't read the Conspiracy Theory stuff much at all.. as you can tell so this is new stuff to me and sorta well... I can't imagine any thing like allowing our citizens to be killed.

I actually disagree there. I believe that if it were tenable that certain people would allow US citizens to be killed in some way to forward their agenda. However, 9/11 isn't tenable. Too many people involved, too many variables, not to mention the real possibility of worldwide financial collapse or American collapse after a 9/11 event, which such persons conspiring would not want to happen, as most of their money is probably in investments. Maybe some shadowy group would blow up a cruise ship in international waters or something along those lines. Small scale stuff.

Even in that poll on truthers from a while back, the majority subscribed in much higher numbers to the theory that Bush simply "let" 9/11 happen, than actively conspired to bring it about. While I find this also ridiculous, that theory has the advantage of neatly avoiding the believability issues regarding manufactured cell phones conversations, missiles, hidden bodies, transferred wreckages, controlled demolitions, thousands of conspirators all remaining completely quiet and secretive to this day, and all the other fucking illogical, insane contradictions one would have to believe in order to buy the full Truther "official version".

No... that is what I believe. I further believe that aside from the Military being in harms way us normal citizens can never be used as pawns. I'll make an exception to that if the citizen him/her self is a danger to the population you might be able to make a case of sequestration but kill..... no! I really can't imagine MY Government plotting to terminate citizens for any reason... That thought sickens me, actually!

I can't accept Bush let anything happen... He was MY president at the time.. I differ in many regards with him but I ... no... Bush would not ALLOW his citizens to be killed if he had fore knowledge of the events in 9/11. NO WAY!!
You might convince me that WTC 7 was destroyed by circus elephants dancing on the roof although they were invisible before you could convince me that the US lets its citizens be killed to ... for any reason..

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Assuming the elevator is in true free fall you would not be able to jump up at the last second because you would be weightless and floating in the elevator, at least if you discount air resistance on the elevator that would not be affecting you. If you could somehow maneuver yourself into a crouched position on the floor you could at the last second spring up, but if you were able to do it with such force as to reverse your downward acceleration you would be killed by hitting the roof of the elevator. At that point the impact would be worse than hitting the ground because by jumping off the floor you would have accelerated the elevator by pushing the floor away with your feet.

Well, the bit about accelerating the elevator that I'm on has me. I can't figure that out cuz I'm on the elevator and if I push down I'd have thought I'd have to be using some object not also in free fall to push against.. iow, i push down with my feet but push with my hands against something not also in free fall... grrrrrrrrrrrrr..
I don't think I'll get it if you even use baby words and lead me by the hand... my mind just won't see it! But thanks for trying.

There is no difference between gravity and acceleration. You have maybe seen pictures of folk in large military plains floating inside a chamber inside the plane. What they do is dive in an arc that matches the acceleration of gravity. Essentially what they do is descend at an accelerating rate of 32 feet per second so the plain around you is expending energy to cancel the slowing effects of the atmosphere and perfectly matching itself to the rate of your fall. They could do the same thing in an elevator but the plane has the advantage that it can go very high and dive for quite some time and then pull our so you can survive.

Gravity acts on you just like it acts on the elevator you are in. Discounting air resistance, if something falls and you are inside it you and it fall at exactly the same rate. That means that anywhere in the elevator is the same as anywhere else in it. In other words, you would stay wherever you were in it if you didn't move but you would be totally weightless. You could flip over and pretend to stand on the roof, but you wouldn't be standing because there would be no force on your legs. The elevator is accelerating faster and faster as it falls but at the exact same rate as you. You would have no weight but you would have inertia because you have mass. You could move around in the elevator with a light push against any part of it. But if you push against the elevator and move away from where you pushed, the elevator also moves a bit in the direction you pushed. It would be like a little guy pushing an elephant. The elephant is moved a bit, but the guy himself that gets pushed away.

It would say it's like a one pound ball going 10 mph hitting a 10 lb ball going one mph. They would cancel each other out and neither would bounce away theoretically.

It would also be like in space. You would be weightless in a rocket orbiting the earth, but the minute you tried to fly to Mars you would have to accelerate. If you accelerate at 32 ft/sec/sec you will experience one gravity of weight. As soon as the engines cut out, you would be in free fall again, effectively. You would be weightless. You can't tell the difference between gravity and acceleration. Falling at the acceleration of gravity is identical to being weightless in space. You are accelerating toward something that is pulling you. It amounts to being in the jet. The acceleration pushing you back in your chair is canceled by the earth pulling you. You are weightless if you escape a gravity field or if you accelerate toward it at the identical rate it is pulling you.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I didn't read the Conspiracy Theory stuff much at all.. as you can tell so this is new stuff to me and sorta well... I can't imagine any thing like allowing our citizens to be killed.

I actually disagree there. I believe that if it were tenable that certain people would allow US citizens to be killed in some way to forward their agenda. However, 9/11 isn't tenable. Too many people involved, too many variables, not to mention the real possibility of worldwide financial collapse or American collapse after a 9/11 event, which such persons conspiring would not want to happen, as most of their money is probably in investments. Maybe some shadowy group would blow up a cruise ship in international waters or something along those lines. Small scale stuff.

Even in that poll on truthers from a while back, the majority subscribed in much higher numbers to the theory that Bush simply "let" 9/11 happen, than actively conspired to bring it about. While I find this also ridiculous, that theory has the advantage of neatly avoiding the believability issues regarding manufactured cell phones conversations, missiles, hidden bodies, transferred wreckages, controlled demolitions, thousands of conspirators all remaining completely quiet and secretive to this day, and all the other fucking illogical, insane contradictions one would have to believe in order to buy the full Truther "official version".

No... that is what I believe. I further believe that aside from the Military being in harms way us normal citizens can never be used as pawns. I'll make an exception to that if the citizen him/her self is a danger to the population you might be able to make a case of sequestration but kill..... no! I really can't imagine MY Government plotting to terminate citizens for any reason... That thought sickens me, actually!

I can't accept Bush let anything happen... He was MY president at the time.. I differ in many regards with him but I ... no... Bush would not ALLOW his citizens to be killed if he had fore knowledge of the events in 9/11. NO WAY!!
You might convince me that WTC 7 was destroyed by circus elephants dancing on the roof although they were invisible before you could convince me that the US lets its citizens be killed to ... for any reason..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
k: You can't buckle your knees with standing without depending,

M: Huh?

I'd meant "descending" rather than "depending", that was my bad. However, the rest of your confusion with my statements is the fault of your obtuseness here, and I'm not going to bother chasing you as you dance in circles around them. But I will address this point:

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I will tell you what causes a building to fall. A building falls when the force holding it up is exceeded by the force of gravity pulling it down.

Sure enough, and only when the all the force holding it up is instantaneously removed do you get free fall, which is why it is obvious that some yet to be identified force removed all of that resistive force over the 105 feet of height though which the building accelerated at a period of free fall.

Originally posted by: First
You don't understand the science in question and have wimped out of answering the numerous debunking of your points in this thread. It's pretty clear who the losers and winners are here.

It is clear that you are in the mindset of playing games here, in no place to judge my understanding of physics to the point of not even being capable of presenting one of your imagined debunking points, and hence are left to spout hollow attacks at me. Your behavior here reminds me of a child being told Santa Claus isn't real.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Rather, they ignored any evidence which contradicted the official conspiracy theory, and dance around like sock puppets when confronted about it. But again, the free fall itself disproves the official story, and your quoting a summery which pretends otherwise does nothing to change this.

First of all, all the handwaving about "molten steel" proves nothing and makes no case for demolition, except maybe to absolute simpletons...

Sure, NIST couldn't provide an explanation for the molten steel and had to deny it because they are simpletons. On the other hand, you Mr. Learned Science Guy, obviously have a perfectly reasonable explanation for it right in your pocket, eh? Oh wait, that is clearly just you waiving your hand around in your pocket pretending like you've got something there.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Second of all, free fall does not disprove the official story. In fact, the official story accounts for the momentary free fall that happened in WTC7, as I've already pointed out.

The NIST report notes the free fall, but the only pretend to explain it, as I've already pointed out.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the building had already been collapsing for several seconds by the time this near free fall acceleration happened. once enough support was removed by the action of several seconds worth of failures the building really starting going.

Rather, the building started sagging in towards the middle because the interior columns were taken out first, and when the perimeter columns were taken out the building dropped at free free fall for 105 feet because all off the support was removed.

Originally posted by: Number1
Are you kidding me?

You are kidding yourself, by ranting on against your own misconceptions of what I have said rather than addressing it.

Originally posted by: jonks
... he somehow doesn't belief the "official story" of 9/11 with regard to WT7 despite the peer reviewed scientific research (and having seen it with his own eyes).

Truly Mind Boggling.

Rather, you only believe the official conspiracy has any scientific backing in regard to their story of WTC7's collapse, because your mind is truly boggled.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Don't be so quick. If you jerk your knees up in the air you will accelerate the rest of your body in the opposite direction. Basic physics, my friend.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Kind of. Keep in mind though that in the particular case of jerking your knees up in the air the mass of your legs is accelerating upwards. Since the ankle bone is connected to the leg bone, the leg bone is connected to the hip bone, and so on, there is a transfer of that mass acceleration to your entire body which affects the acceleration in the opposite direction.

I think I'll try to grasp this concept one more time because it seems somehow to be important to understanding WTC 7's event..

Let me give you an example and please tell me where I'm wrong.
Example: There is a sealed container, a box let's say. It is a cube of 20' x 20' x 20'. (Inside dimensions). ok... I'm inside this container. The container has been hauled into the air by an airplane. The container is let to drop from the airplane. The container is now in free fall. There is nothing but air and there is no wind or anything else but gravity acting on the container.
Ok... could you explain how I can exert a force on the container to cause it to either slow down or speed up?

EDIT: I wrote this before reading Moonbeam's post... I'll now go read that and ponder it for a few hours...

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jonks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

which didn't happen.

 

[Moonbeam]

I must say, LR, that the vaunted rationality of the official version sure comes apart in a hurry when they deal with you. You must ipso facto be nuts if you vary from their beliefs a single scintilla. It's, um, unbelievable. It must be the mercy of God that another of your crimes isn't that you also believe is self hate. I think that would put you beyond the pail.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think I'll try to grasp this concept one more time because it seems somehow to be important to understanding WTC 7's event..

Don't waste your time. Moonie is way off in the deep end here, only arguing loosely based on reality, and not in any way important to understanding WTC7's collapse.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: jonks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

which didn't happen.

No, it was rejected. But some people cannot conceive such a thing would be even considered let alone drafted into a plan by the joint chiefs and presented to the president as a viable option. I somehow don't think the report "Bin laden determined to attack within the US" contained a section detailing possible response options one of which was "Well, we could let him."

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think that would put you beyond the pail.

this one?

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

They are somewhat stuck to the the floor by gravity, and you are flexing your muscles above that point, allowing you to descend quicker than free fall.

Explain to us how feet gets stuck to the ground by gravity?

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Number1

I also know pilots who said the plane would not take off. Your obvious paranoid view of the world and the government is distorting your reality.

I'm not sure I follow that statement. Or how it related.
Are you speaking to the Terrorist piloted Planes or the US Jets intercepting?

I am referring to the plane on a treadmill question and how so many people were unable to understand that the plane would indeed take off until it was demonstrated on the show Mythbuster.

The second sentence is just to show hat preconceived ideas can distort someone's understanding of world issues.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Don't be so quick. If you jerk your knees up in the air you will accelerate the rest of your body in the opposite direction. Basic physics, my friend.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Kind of. Keep in mind though that in the particular case of jerking your knees up in the air the mass of your legs is accelerating upwards. Since the ankle bone is connected to the leg bone, the leg bone is connected to the hip bone, and so on, there is a transfer of that mass acceleration to your entire body which affects the acceleration in the opposite direction.

I think I'll try to grasp this concept one more time because it seems somehow to be important to understanding WTC 7's event..

Let me give you an example and please tell me where I'm wrong.
Example: There is a sealed container, a box let's say. It is a cube of 20' x 20' x 20'. (Inside dimensions). ok... I'm inside this container. The container has been hauled into the air by an airplane. The container is let to drop from the airplane. The container is now in free fall. There is nothing but air and there is no wind or anything else but gravity acting on the container.
Ok... could you explain how I can exert a force on the container to cause it to either slow down or speed up?

EDIT: I wrote this before reading Moonbeam's post... I'll now go read that and ponder it for a few hours...

Just in case your meditation fails:

You are in free fall inside a box that is also in free fall so you are weightless but not inertia-less. It still takes a force to move you. If you are floating inside the box you might have trouble getting to a wall because you have nothing to push against to get there. But lets say you have long arms and there are hooks in the walls. OK now you get yourself to a wall and you put your feet against it and spring off. The force you exert against the wall is transmitted in two directions. One direction is the direction you take away from the wall and the other direction is the wall moving away from you. If the box has the same mass as you it has the same inertia. It will move away from you as fast as you move away from it. On earth you would move away twice as fast because you wouldn't move the earth at all. But it would look the same, you having half the velocity and the wall having the other half, provide identical mass.

But of course, when you hit the other side of the box, you would cancel your velocity and that of the box so there would be no net effect. Conservation of energy. The opposite wall will now be coming at you with the identical velocity you are coming at it and bang, you each cancel the velocity of the other. This is why you want to remove the roof of the elevator before you jump up off the floor. If you could jump with enough force to stop falling you would have to accelerate to the same velocity as you're falling. So now instead of hitting the ground at whatever rate you are falling, you will hit the ceiling at that rate and it would becoming at you at that rate making the impact twice what it would have been. A collision at twice the speed produces 4 times the damage.

 

[JEDIYoda]

alot of peoples lives are in total free fall......

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Number1

I also know pilots who said the plane would not take off. Your obvious paranoid view of the world and the government is distorting your reality.

I'm not sure I follow that statement. Or how it related.
Are you speaking to the Terrorist piloted Planes or the US Jets intercepting?

I am referring to the plane on a treadmill question and how so many people were unable to understand that the plane would indeed take off until it was demonstrated on the show Mythbuster.

The second sentence is just to show hat preconceived ideas can distort someone's understanding of world issues.

Is the answer that a plane can't take off a tread mill? There would be no air flow across the wings and therefore no lift, seems to me.


Edit, sure it would take off because the wheels would just spin faster but the tread mill wouldn't exert any force to slow the plane. The wheels are free to turn.

The plane would roar down the treadmill just like it would a runway. The apparent ground speed would be greater but the air speed as usual.

And given a long enough treadmill going at sufficient speed the plane could take off without it's engines by turning in the opposite direction and putting on its breaks.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: jonks
I somehow don't think the report "Bin laden determined to attack within the US" contained a section detailing possible response options one of which was "Well, we could let him."

That is what I was leaning towards up until 2005, since the benign incompetence argument is so far-fetched. Then I saw a video of WTC7 coming down with a period of free fall acceleration, and I highly doubt bin Laden could have been the mastermind behind that. So of course I went back an looked at the towers, which I'd been baffled by when I saw, but figured those who knew them better than me would figure it out. Yet, just like WTC7, the official story only makes a lame attempt at pretending to explain the towers, while doing nothing of the sort.

Originally posted by: Number1
Explain to us how feet gets stuck to the ground by gravity?

The "how" is simply the result of the gravitational attraction of mass, both your feet and the Earth being mass. For this same reason you can strap enough mass to your feet to keep you from lifting them off the ground at all.