OK explain how the third law works relative to the still I posted above.
For the third law to work the picture would have to be a fake.
Last edited:
there was no moon landing .... discus
- Thread starter Pevenseagull
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
OK explain how the third law works relative to the still I posted above.
For the third law to work the picture would have to be a fake.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,021
go ahead and explain how you think the still refutes the 3rd law of Motion or howthat law proves it fake. i fail to see how the picture has anything to tell us about the 3rd law of Motion.
Mutts Nuts
New member
- Oct 30, 2011
- 4,918
Nothing to discuss ,no man has ever walked on the moon
readingstockport
New member
Explain that then. How would the pictrure HAVE to be a fake based on third law of newtonian mechanics? Care to tell us where the picture came from by the way.
GoldWithFalmer
Seaweed! Seaweed!
i saw quite a few of us over it yesterday evening.
It's a still from the Michael Hezakhani footage shown on CNN when UA175 enters WTC2
because, For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
When an aeroplane hits a building it crashes against the building, as opposed to flying inside with no deceleration.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
The plane has not hit the building yet, so why is that picture a fake?
readingstockport
New member
You seem to have missed the bit where I asked
"How would the pictrure HAVE to be a fake based on third law of newtonian mechanics?"
So I've reposted it so you can get a chance to see it this time and try to answer.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,021
do you actual understand what that the 3rd law of Motion means? i'm not sure you do. i infer from your "explaination" that you expect a aeroplane hitting a building to simply squash like a fly against a moving car. the thing is, its more complex than that. the velocities the types and strengths of materials all have to be considered. a structure may not be designed to have a high impact from a lateral force, expecting only to contain vertical (gravity) and low energy, wide distrubuted horizontal forces (wind). the main point to make is that your picture tells us nothing about any of this, its simply an image. we would need to research and confirm a hundred different data references to gain all the relevent information. the picture simply shows a collision, nothing else. if i drive a car into a wooden fence, i would surely go straight through it, same with a metal garage door. if i hit a concreate wall i would certainly be stopped, but depends on the thickness, reinforcements, construction quality etc. a picture of the moment of impact wouldnt tell me anything unless i know the materials involved, their construction and the forces applied.
The nose of the plane is inside the building
Newton's Third Law of Motion: III. = For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
Because the plane enters the building with no deceleration. It's a still from alleged live footage aired on CNN. I'll post the full footage later.
YES Newton's Third Law of Motion: III. = For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
Which is exactly what it is, so why did the plane end up inside the building ?
The WTC was not made out of wood. It would depend on the strength of the garage door (but depends on the thickness, reinforcements, construction quality etc,) in this case I assume you mean of a flimsy thickness, maybe not even securely fastened.
The WTC had thick horizontal flooring slabs of concrete, approx 4 meters apart. (along with the reinforced steel columns spaced at less than 1 meter apart)
According to NIST the plane impacted the WTC at speeds well over 500mph. I would assume the plane would be mainly aluminium of an aerodynamically friendly thickness. Except for the engines.
Another interesting point of the picture, is how the nose cone easily penetrated the building before the impact of the engines.
Manx Shearwater
New member
Should have paid more attention at school colinz.
please explain
Manx Shearwater
New member
You're applying scientific principles to things when its patently obvious you don't understand the science.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
Perhaps a practical demonstration is required.
Punch a piece of paper and see what happens. Then punch a wall. Document the results with illustrations/pictures (if you can). Using your findings, describe how flying a plane into a building could result in no apparent deceleration of the aircraft on impact as per the picture above.
Punch a piece of paper and see what happens. Then punch a wall. Document the results with illustrations/pictures (if you can). Using your findings, describe how flying a plane into a building could result in no apparent deceleration of the aircraft on impact as per the picture above.
Dominoid
Albion fan in Devon
I believe my fist has a little less momentum than a multi tonne, fully laden aircraft travelling at 500mph. With enough momentum, anything can be destructive. To demonstrate this, try throwing a bullet at yourself, then try shooting yourself and report back here with your findings.
I'm not sure I want to live on this planet any more. I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that so many people don't understand basic physics or the fact that so many people think they do and then come up with this shit based on their misunderstanding.
Sent from my X10i using Tapatalk
I'm not sure I want to live on this planet any more. I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that so many people don't understand basic physics or the fact that so many people think they do and then come up with this shit based on their misunderstanding.
Sent from my X10i using Tapatalk
Still waiting for your explanation. Me thinks your referring to this post there was no moon landing .... discus - Page 9
Manx Shearwater
New member
You might have to wait a bit longer, I am in meetings this morning.
However, did you eventually grasp the first law? That took several pages I seem to recall, and its a far simpler one to grasp.
Incidentally, Dominoid and KZNSeagull have provided you with enough to get you started, have a think about what they have posted.
However, did you eventually grasp the first law? That took several pages I seem to recall, and its a far simpler one to grasp.
Incidentally, Dominoid and KZNSeagull have provided you with enough to get you started, have a think about what they have posted.
I hate to say this but a large Boeing such as a 767 cannot fly at 500+mph at an altitude of 500 meters/ sea level. The best it could manage without the aircraft starting to become uncontrollable for the pilot would be about 300mph.
As the aircraft climbs to a higher altitude where the air is thinner, it can increase it's performance as in go faster and use less fuel.
Last edited:
Thats a shame I can't wait to see you apply Newton's law, to aeroplanes landing inside buildings. Maybe someone at your meeting can help.
My reply to KZNSeagull
Because it crashes.