The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

The War on Terrorism & Homeland Security

If you think heat could not collapse the WTC!

Discuss the War on Terrorism, Homeland Security, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and other global terrorist concerns.

Postby Tairaa » Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:44 am

Oh I don't doubt that with the appropriate among of force one could very well drive a needle through a penny. Whether I'm able too or not, I mean... How am I to set it up so that the penny is secure and has somewhere for the pin to go? I guess sit it on a piece of cork or something...

Regardless, I definitely think it's possible to propel a needle through a penny or a quarter, but in order for the paper to go through the rock it is going to have to be substantially more dense, if I'm not mistaken.
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."
Tairaa
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby vulcan6gun » Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:23 pm

That's where things can get misleading with physics: it's not really a question of density as much as it is one of how much potential energy you can apply. It's just easier to do with higher mass objects. A piece of straw driven into a telephone pole is a better analogy, but you did catch the drift...nice Bacon quote, BTW. :)
Vulcan6gun

"Would you like your scientific research grilled, or roasted?"--Unknown Japanese whaler
User avatar
vulcan6gun
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Grid DB82, 4 kts, -12 meters

Postby Tairaa » Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:02 am

Not Sir Francis Bacon, but rather Galileo. Of course, assuming you're referring to my signature.


Anyway.

If you're driving at 100kilometres per hour on a highway and throw an egg into on coming traffic also travelling at 100kph, but of course in the opposite direction, the egg will strick the car, who is moving at 100kph, at 100kph. Which means that it would be approximately equivocal to it hitting the car at 200kph if the car was stopped.

So, with this sort of relativity in mind how can something so substantially less integral then a stone, like paper, possibly be accelerated to the point were it's kinetic energy is sufficient to destroy the rock? Would not the kinetic energy rather destroy the paper upon impacting the rock, as did the phantom impacting the concrete barrier at 500 some odd miles an hour?
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."
Tairaa
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby vulcan6gun » Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:19 am

Feel free to cheat a little; a solid molded projectile made from bleached wood fibers still qualifies as paper, just as much as 'cast stone' (architectural term for concrete) qualifies as rock.

Besides, those 'aluminum airplanes' typically contain several TONS of copper, steel and titanium. My point for Cole months ago was we weren't talking Reynolds Wrap, we were dealing with many tons of metal flying at a relatively high velocity. See Bernoulli's Equation, E=MV^2 to get a realistic idea of how much force a jetliner could apply to a building.
Vulcan6gun

"Would you like your scientific research grilled, or roasted?"--Unknown Japanese whaler
User avatar
vulcan6gun
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Grid DB82, 4 kts, -12 meters

Postby Cole_Trickle » Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:30 am

Indeed, only the resistance of several tons of high tensile steel was virtually nonexistent on 9-11. Especially during collapse. That's why the latest craze is now focused on the buildings poor design concept. Like Pink Floyd : Just another brick in the wall.

I've done enough on this to be 100% confident in saying to anyone that all has yet to be told about WHAT REALLY HAPPENED on 9-11. I Equally accept the fact that some will always believe what they are told regardless of evidence. ;)

Cole
User avatar
Cole_Trickle
 
Posts: 2703
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby greeney2 » Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:25 am

I've done enough on this to be 100% confident in saying to anyone that all has yet to be told about WHAT REALLY HAPPENED on 9-11. I Equally accept the fact that some will always believe what they are told regardless of evidence.


And some will believe just about anything, and imagine the evidence, even if they can't explain any of it, and still be 100% confident, everyone else is wrong. :lol:
greeney2
 
Posts: 9527
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Cole_Trickle » Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:42 am

Don't worry Greeney the PTB are rolling out Jesse " THE BODY " Ventura. He's gonna set things straight or people are gonna get body slammed. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I do hope someone asks him about Wellstone. :lol: :roll: Maybe he can team up with Dog the Bounty hunter and really lay on the sh*t. Bring up space aliens and abductions, some ghosts would be nice. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh and let's not forget Alex Jones ( the obvious CIA operative ) I wonder if he puts notches on his bullhorn. One for every time he takes it to a rally yelling " 9-11 was an inside job " and DOESN'T get it shoved up his ass by a real searcher of the truth.

How obvious can they get? Maybe they're getting desperate. ;)

Image

Jesse Ventura is returning to television this fall with a new cable show built around conspiracy theories.

Minnesota's seldom seen former governor will host "Conspiracy Theories with Jesse Ventura" on cable's truTV, a Turner Broadcasting System channel.

A truTV news release issued Monday says the channel has ordered seven episodes. The first is due to air in late fall.

The ex-wrestler left office after a single term. He splits his time between Minnesota and Mexico, and he flirted with a run for U.S. Senate last year.

Ventura hosted an MSNBC show in 2003 that was canceled after a two-month run.

The new show suits his penchant for expressing alternative theories, including on the John F. Kennedy assassination and the 9/11 terrorist attacks.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Divide and conquer by way of completely controlled insanity.

http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_12989638

Cole
User avatar
Cole_Trickle
 
Posts: 2703
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby vulcan6gun » Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:08 pm

"Doing Cole's Homework For Him"

Energy = Mass X Velocity ^2.

Mass = about 100 tons at time of impact.

Velocity = about 500 miles per hour.

Solve for Energy...

TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND TONS OF FORCE, BUBBA.

If you don't mind my saying so, that is one HELL of a big wrecking ball. Enough force for some of the steel framing to shear as cleanly as if it were cut with a torch. The questions you SHOULD be asking are what the hell kept the buildings standing so long after being slammed so hard, and how come a third-world goatherd can figure this out and you can't?

I'm sorry, I know that's not nice, but dear Cole, you've sold short some very highly intelligent (though twisted in mysterious ways) people that come from lands where things like Algebra were first dreamed up.

Closing thought: a 100 ton paper airplane would do the same damage, especially if part of that weight was glorified Kerosene.
Vulcan6gun

"Would you like your scientific research grilled, or roasted?"--Unknown Japanese whaler
User avatar
vulcan6gun
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Grid DB82, 4 kts, -12 meters

Postby Tairaa » Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:21 pm

Closing thought: a 100 ton paper airplane would do the same damage, especially if part of that weight was glorified Kerosene.


a 100 ton paper airplane would take up a lot more space then a 100 ton aluminum-nickel-titanium-chromium aircraft, unless you compressed it and thusly increasing it's density. :)

amirightguyz?

Also, I'm pretty sure the equation is
KE=1/2MV^2.

Which I don't understand, because MV = momentum, so I don't get how kinetic energy is half of an objects momentum squared... Which is relevant? Momentum or kinetic energy?
"George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."
Tairaa
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby vulcan6gun » Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:58 pm

The basic formula was correctly posted, the very equation which Einstein took to its ultimate conclusion; as typed out in my previous post, 'mv' is mass multiplied by velocity. Kinetic energy is converted into potential energy whenever the velocity or direction of the mass is changed.

Put another way: Smack a duck into an airplane windshield by hand and you'll shatter the duck. SLAM the duck into the same windshield at a few hundred miles an hour and you'll shatter BOTH.

Multiply mass by velocity, then square the result. 8-)

If you multiply the mass by the speed of light and square the result, you get a mushroom...cloud. :shock:

Nuke 'em, Rico. And, uh, watch out for PETA. :P
Vulcan6gun

"Would you like your scientific research grilled, or roasted?"--Unknown Japanese whaler
User avatar
vulcan6gun
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Grid DB82, 4 kts, -12 meters

PreviousNext

Return to The War on Terrorism & Homeland Security

  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest