there was no moon landing .... discus

[colinz]

Except, of course, you don't really understand the third law (or the first or second for that matter) and you certainly don't understand relatavistic mechanics or the mechanincs and science of space travel.

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]

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.

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]

there was ...if you disagree you are an arse

Nothing to discuss ,no man has ever walked on the moon

 

[readingstockport]

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.

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]

Nothing to discuss ,no man has ever walked on the moon

i saw quite a few of us over it yesterday evening.

 

[colinz]

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.

It's a still from the Michael Hezakhani footage shown on CNN when UA175 enters WTC2

 

[colinz]

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.

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]

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.

The plane has not hit the building yet, so why is that picture a fake?

 

[readingstockport]

It's a still from the Michael Hezakhani footage shown on CNN when UA175 enters WTC2

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]

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.

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.

 

[colinz]

The plane has not hit the building yet, so why is that picture a fake?

The nose of the plane is inside the building

"How would the pictrure HAVE to be a fake based on third law of newtonian mechanics?"

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.

do you actual understand what that the 3rd law of Motion means?

YES Newton's Third Law of Motion: III. = For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

the picture simply shows a collision,

Which is exactly what it is, so why did the plane end up inside the building ?

if i drive a car into a wooden fence, i would surely go straight through it, same with a metal garage door

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.

if i hit a concreate wall i would certainly be stopped,

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]

Should have paid more attention at school colinz.

 

[colinz]

Should have paid more attention at school colinz.

please explain

 

[Manx Shearwater]

You're applying scientific principles to things when its patently obvious you don't understand the science.

 

[KZNSeagull]

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.

 

[Dominoid]

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

 

[colinz]

You're applying scientific principles to things when its patently obvious you don't understand the science.

Still waiting for your explanation. Me thinks your referring to this post there was no moon landing .... discus - Page 9

 

[Manx Shearwater]

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.

 

[colinz]

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 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.

 

[colinz]

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.

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

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.

Because it crashes.