Humint Events Online: "Jonesing" for Some Crash Physics

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

"Jonesing" for Some Crash Physics

If Steven Jones were really interested in the truth about 9/11, you would think he would be willing to clarify whether, as a Ph.D. physicist, he thinks the WTC "plane crashes" violated physics.

Coffinman explains more here.

6 Comments:

Anonymous major jones. said...

aha! some of the 911blogger.com geniuses once insisted that since the alleged ua175 was allegedly travelling 500+ mph when it allegedly hit the wtc2, it's observed behavior (as recorded for posterity) in slipping thru the side of wtc2 like a ghost without any of it breaking off (or indeed even slowing down in the slightest) was nothing out of the ordinary and that at such a high speed the (alleged) plane would have cut thru the massive steel perimeter columns of wtc2 in said observed manner even were it made of papier mache*.

*this incredible papier mache analogy has been brought to you by the (alleged) genius of 911blogger.com

3:29 PM  
Anonymous shep said...

i have the censored jones video from youtube where he's questioned by someone regarding his paper publication in a tier 1 research journal. if anyone wants it, let me know and i'll do a putfile or something. i ripped it from youtube before it was taken down and i believe it is about 5 mb.

911blogger is full of genius! just have a gander at this piece of genius work, which slid right by the censorship police. keep in mind this blog was created by someone who says he was born in 1969.

http://911blogger.com/node/5217

i gave up debating at 911blogger for a number of reasons, mostly being that after i engaged in a long debate, someone conveniently registered my handle and then i was no longer able to post pseudo-anonymously unless i registered for real-- thanks but no thanks. but mostly, the reason i won't debate there is because everyone is more interested in rating comments down than actually investing some time thinking about issues raised.

for instance, reflecting back to the above post, if it were that case the extreme speed could overcome dense material then we'd have a damn hard time explaining bulletproof glass and bulletproof jackets. lexan and kevler are not magic materials, but they do stop bullets going faster than the speed of sound. i am no bullet expert, but if a bullet proof jacket can stop a bullet going 670 mph in a fraction of a second and in less distance than the thickness of the jacket, clearly more physics are at work than just speed.

pistol velocity = 300 m/s or 670 mph
type 1 bullet proof jacket protects against .22 caliber bullet traveling at 329 m/s or 735 mph

but when one considers how speed is relative, and the laws of physics concerning impacts care not which object is moving and which is stable, the above argument falls apart like paper mache. if one believes that ua175 was simply traveling so fast that it cut through the columns like paper mache, one would also have to believe that if ua175 was stable on the runway and perimeter columns could somehow (thought experiment) be shot at the plane wings at a speed identical to the speed ua175, then those perimeter columns would disintegrate, and ua175 would be standing on the runaway, ready for take off.

the physics of impacts is concerned with the density and mass of the two impacting materials, as well as the relative speed of the two impacting materials prior to impact. 911blogger babies don't wanna hear that and they don't wanna hear anything which makes their collective movements hurts.

5:01 PM  
Blogger Democrat said...

I understand your reasoning about the masses and the U175 on the runway (great example, Spooked used the cartoon silhouette example), but you have to acknowledge that you are going against a powerfull enemy: perception.

I must admit that I still have trouble with the idea that the second hit would not be what it shows on tv. The human sight brings 80-90% of our perception of things, hence my problem here.

The smart and simple reasoning about the impact etc point at serious problems with the impacts, but I am still in the middle as far as this no 2nd plane is concerned.

5:40 PM  
Anonymous Conspiracy Smasher said...

As a giggly snickerer I wholeheartedly condemn anything that John Ashcroft or Edwin Meese wouldn't want a 4th grader to watch with Mark Foley. I wholeheartedly CONDEMN the following sexy music video! It's the worst trash I have ever seen! Half naked girls with space beams! I would watch this at work with Pinch, Sword, and Reno, but it's not safe for work.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-790854254030684755

9:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Uhhh, I think he's talking about this. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7908542540306847552

9:14 PM  
Blogger Democrat said...

CS, never seen a woman naked before?

1:20 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger