Holes shaped like planes?

what do you think is in the space between every molecule of atomized fuel?
If not oxygen?

How does fuel hitting a solid object at the speed of a bullet not atomize entirely when even lead disintegrates and mostly atomizes when hitting a solid object?



Much less form puddles and pour down elevator shafts?

seems we have a problem here doesnt it!

By all means explain these mysteries of science.

 

Sigh, since your level of education evidently only extends to unrelated gifs, I believe nothing like logic or physics will make a difference.

 

so you think a gif showing the atomizing of solid lead bullet going the speed of a bullet has nothing to do with atomized liquid fuel going the speed of a bullet and somehow that liquid fuel would escape atomization and form puddles to flow down the elevators?

That logic defies all reason.

The reason I use gifs are for visual aids to help those who quote debunkers visualize their errors.

 

Like I said, unrelated gifs that have nothing in common with the issue are only interesting to the uneducated.

 

Is English a third language for you or something? I didn't point to the strength of a single column. I asked you to tell me how much force it takes to shear a WTC column. If you think about the answer to the question for half a second you'll have a better understanding of what I'm talking about. Before you can tell me what is impossible, I want you to tell me what you think is possible. I doubt you think it's impossible for the steel in the building to be cut, you're just stuck on the idea that the only way the energy required to cut the steel can be produced is with explosives or magic 3d beams or something. If you actually take the time to figure out the energy involved, the forces involved, and how they interact with each other, you will dissolve that illusion that it's impossible for a high velocity object to penetrate and shear the supports of a building made of steel.

Not once did I ever say the "Plane would have bounced off" if the surface area of the building was 30,000 square meters. In fact, the surface area of the building could have been a million square meters, and it wouldn't have made a difference because the surface area of the plane matters too. The impact distributed a large amount of force over a relatively small amount of area.

Again, I was talking about pressure. Force applied over an area is pressure. The smaller the area the force is applied to, the greater the pressure.

Did you know that steel is cut with high pressure jets of water? This illustrates exactly what I'm talking about. Water isn't particularly massive, and it certainly couldn't be considered stronger than steel, yet if you get it moving fast enough, and focus it on a small enough area it will cut right through a steel plate with a surface area of a billion square meters. The entire surface area isn't what matters. All that matters is the amount of surface area that transfers the energy.

Look above. You've got it all wrong. Think harder.

You've got to be kidding.

 

that only works when talking about apples and oranges, not apples and apple.

the topic here atomization of fuel as a result of striking a solid object at high speed, atomization of lead striking a solid object at high speed is what people call an apples for apples on topic argument.

I have never seen blind denial win an argument.

 

How could you see anything with your eyes closed so tightly?

 

well I gave you pictorial demonstrations how everything works and you merely stand on a soap box screaming nah nah.

Once again, what do you think is between each molecule of mist if not oxygen?

and here

and here

 

That is what truthers need, simplistic cartoons because everyone knows that cartoons are more accurate than observation or physics.

 

the cartoon was posted to contrast the difference between real physics et al and dablunder dreamland koolaid!

It was posted because for some reason official story huggers [OSH's] cant seem to wrap their heads around reality.

 

I doubt anyone that believes the NIST report or the truthers can wrap their heads around reality. One has major flaws (NIST) and the other is just pure bunk (truthers).

 

but if there is no oxygen between the molecules it burns like this.



not blasting outward like this



and this



see the purty fire show you get when you use explosives to mist fuel?



I have yet to hear a debunker even attempt to defend the fuel puddling and or flowing down the elevator.

Only crazy dablunder websites would come up with fuel impacting at the speed of a bullet forming puddles.

 

so instead of simply accepting the fact that these dablunder sites and those who promote them are leading people up the garden path and leave it at that.

Nope, instead denounce me as a troll while trolling by posting off point garbage in pretense its on topic for your new straw man argument "Yeah, diesel never burns." that has nothing what so ever to do with the matter.

Hey guess what farts burn too! Its as on point as that trash!

If pictures that tell the story are not enough then there is little I can do to help.

Anyone who knows anything about the process knows that eye witness accounts hold the least value of all other means of evidence.

I will give you credit though that was a pretty slick way to derail my point, veiling it by calling me a troll to distract everyone, nice move.

You were challenged to support your claim, and when you failed miserably I proved mine despite your attempts to derail it.


CHECK
and
MATE

 

Pictures are find for comic books but observation and physics are a little above that. You should try it.

 

the irony huh.

but if there is no oxygen between the molecules it burns like this.



not blasting outward like this



and this



see the purty fire show you get when you use explosives to mist fuel?



I have yet to hear a debunker even attempt to defend the fuel puddling and or flowing down the elevator.

Only crazy dablunder websites would come up with fuel impacting at the speed of a bullet forming puddles.

 

It's a nineteenth.

Remember when you said this:

Now you say the other way around:

Now you go even further into contradicting yourself:

I do look above. I do think hard. And I ask you to do the same.

You have no idea what kind of walls are part of the communist legacy here in this part of the world. Even sledgehammers can make sparks against them as they bounce back. Every time you hit you only remove a tenth of a spoon of powder from the wall. People here live mostly in either communist-era concrete apartment buildings or old stone houses.

 

Thanks for proving my point.

 

You are more than welcome!

You build em I'll burn em!

 

The only thing you do is make yourself look silly and prove that some people should keep quiet and not prove their ignorance.

 

well next time think (*)(*)(*)(*) through a little better before you start spewing and that wont happen.

I keep telling you people that these debunker sites are nothing but trash and will earn you one red face after another.

On the briter side now you know ther is oxygen between the molecules of misted fuel and the debunker version is yet another myth.

 

Yes, oxygen and molecules are a myth. LOL

 

omfg

what next

 

And I am an aircraft mechanic and while I haven't worked on the 767, I have worked on Airbus aircraft. Airplanes don't have speed limits like a wall they hit. An airplane can go as fast as the pilot dares push it. One 767 might come apart at 625mph and another at 655. You just don't know. But its absolutely possible that an airplane was going 585 when it hit. All kinds of alarms and stuff were going off in the cockpit about overspeed, but terrorists don't care/don't know about the alarms anyway. And there are private jets that, during initial testing, we dove through the speed of sound. The company required the airplane be able to survive such a dive. They are some of the fastest civilian airplanes in the air up until the latest Gulfstream came out.

The .86 speed limit (or whatever mach number is it's limit) of airplanes is at altitude, not at sea level. The Vne of a private jet is usually around 300-350kts at sea level. Since the air at 35,000 feet is so thin, you can go way faster because the plane thinks its going way slower than it's actually going. If he hit going 585 he was going to be losing parts soon anyway. I'm actually surprised it was still controllable at that speed. He can get control flutter at high speeds which tears the airplane apart.

 

You're really lost here. Everything I said is completely consistent. You appear to have the false impression that if two objects strike the force of the impact is spread over the entire surface of each object. That's not the case. The force is applied at the point of contact between the two objects. If you hammer a nail into a board, the entire surface area of the board is not affected by the force of the nail. Only the area directly under the point of the nail is affected. This is how nails work in fact. It's why they are sharp and wide at the other end. The sharp point of the nail focuses all the energy of the impact with the hammer on the wide side into a small amount of area. This is what forces the nail through the wood.

When the plane struck the building the force affected the building in the cross sectional area of the plane, not the entire cross sectional area of the building.

My point about the area of the building had to do with the strength of the material the building was made out of and the magnitude of the force that we are talking about. My statement underscores the point that the force was so large, that even if the force was applied over the entire surface of the building, it still exceeded the steel's ability to withstand it. Once you realize that, you'll realize the impossibility of your claim that the aircraft should have simply bounced off.

To say it as simply as I can, the aircraft was like a nail. All the energy of the impact was focused into a very small area.

You're doing everything in your power to avoid my questions.

You think the building should have withstood the impact. How much energy was required for the building to fail? Do you think it was impossible for a moving object to be fast enough and or massive enough to cut the steel of the building?

 

I suppose with the understanding of truthers if an asteroid hits the earth, it simply bounces off.