Conspiracy Theories

[Hampus Andersson]

Ignorance is a bliss.

Try and listen instead. Let me break it down slowly for you.

we have a hole that goes through the A B & C building,
NIST, the ones who was assigned to explain the attacks on 9/11 has no explanation for the hole.

If an engine blew that hole, would they not find the engine right next to the hole?

See if you can actually answer this one.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Not only does Architects and Engineers say the official story is wrong.

You also have pilots saying what the terrorist allegedly did in mid-air is unheard of.
Even highly skilled pilots say they would NOT be able to pull of those maneuvers.

If you don´t believe me let´s listen to a former US Air Force and United Airlines pilot.
He says the plane would not even handle the supposed maneuvers.

Remember that the person who apparently flew into the Pentagon, only had training in a Cessna.
Again, this is from the OFFICIAL story.

And yet he jumps in and is a natural born pilot.

 

[Mapu]

Official "story" of whom? All I see is a video snippet, no single source.

I'm sorry for quoting me again, but I want to draw a clear line and make sure that everyone sees that I try to keep my distance to these speculations.

No, sorry I won't contribute anything more to this topic; I did a few pages before. This kind of "investigation" doesn't suit my style. It's guesswork, reading the crystal ball, shady and not objective, and therefore doesn't contribute anything towards clarification.

To each their own, but that's my real opinion and I am sorry for being sarcastic two post above.

Instead of bringing up questions and stirring the plot, most of all, you should ask yourself first if you could answer these questions in a conclusive way without betraying yourself.

I could give you a link to a youtube video that wants to (un-) cover another dramatic issue in the world. When you would see it, you'd think: ... oh yeah they are absolutely right about this topic and what a shame nobody, even myself, hasn't seen it that way... You wouldn't even notice that at its basis, this documentation was made for propaganda.

Once again I'd like to stress that everybody should be critical when reading, hearing and watching any kind of media.

No more words from my side.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Official "story" of whom? All I see is a video snippet, no single source.

Official story of who? Did i just read that correctly?
How am i supposed to take you seriously when you have no idea what the official story is.
(yes noticed there´s no question mark, i figured you would continue to dodge questions)

You just proved how LITTLE you know.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

I could give you a link to a youtube video that wants to (un-) cover another dramatic issue in the world. When you would see it, you'd think: ... oh yeah they are absolutely right about this topic and what a shame nobody, even myself, hasn't seen it that way... You wouldn't even notice that at its basis, this documentation was made for propaganda.

No it doesn´t work like that. Maybe for you.
I should be religious by your logic.

I hope everyone sees how you CONSISTENTLY DODGES THE QUESTIONS.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Here´s a simple physics question. Feel free to answer if you know it.

What happens when you shoot an aluminum bullet at a steel wall?
Assuming the steel wall isn´t paper thin, let´s say 6cm thick (WTC steel column was this thick)

What material wins? And what material wins if you double or triple the speed of the aluminum bullet?

The answer to this question will open the Pandora´s box. I´ll explain why later.

 

[David Ignjatovic]

http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dy...rg/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

This is a site called "Hunt the Boeing".......see if you can find evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagram.

 

[Miguel Gonzalez]

I hope everyone sees how you CONSISTENTLY DODGES THE QUESTIONS.

Bright future in politics lol

It's hard to be scientific and only discuss facts and evidence when most/all of it was immediately sent away to be melted down( in the case of the towers) and covered up (literally covered and replaced the pentagon lawn.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Since Chris is at work or doing other things we can move on from Pentagon and resume it when he gets back.

Let´s get back to the physics question.

What happens when you shoot an aluminum bullet at a steel wall?

Or to make it more simple/obvious. What happens when you shoot a softer material at a harder one?

What material wins? the harder or the softer? even at 5 times the speed?

It´s a simple straight forward basic physics question.

 

[Erik Tveit]

The harder one

 

[Hampus Andersson]

The harder one

Every time or can it be different if you shoot the bullet at 100m/s or 300m/s ?

Will the harder material still win the battle?

 

[Chris Preston]

Sorry guys, had a late night so I just woke up lol, it's 12PM my time...

It depends on the size of the bullet really... Bullets in the Barrett .50 cal are made to penetrate tank armor so it could probably go through a 6cm steel frame. A bullet from an AK-47 probably not so much.

The second one is actually a thinker... My gut tells me that the harder material will win, but there are some cases where the softer material can win. Anyways what are you getting at here?...

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Sorry guys, had a late night so I just woke up lol, it's 12PM my time...

It depends on the size of the bullet really... Bullets in the Barrett .50 cal are made to penetrate tank armor so it could probably go through a 6cm steel frame. A bullet from an AK-47 probably not so much.

The second one is actually a thinker... My gut tells me that the harder material will win, but there are some cases where the softer material can win. Anyways what are you getting at here?...

Nice to see you Chris, but let´s focus on Aluminium,
(it has to do with my theory i will present) which you will be free to shoot down if you want
Aluminium versus steel.

Could you provide an example where a softer material manages to penetrate a harder material?
Preferably Aluminium versus Steel as it will correlate the best with my theory.

And also before we get further, just want to get the basis done otherwise it might be for nothing.

Would you say a bullet shape would be the most (or one of the most) efficient way to penetrate a harder material (assuming it can)

Instead of shooting a cube of aluminium at it for example?

Edit: let me re-phrase that one.

Would you say a bullet would be more successful at penetrating the steel then let´s say a cube of aluminium?

 

[Rupe Wilson]

http://www.thesatirist.com/satires/PoliticalSatire/ConspiracyTheoryTest.html

Well i took the test and there was no suprise there...

 

[Hampus Andersson]

http://www.thesatirist.com/satires/PoliticalSatire/ConspiracyTheoryTest.html

Well i took the test and there was no suprise there...

I clicked 1 on every single one just to see what happened, and i almost guessed right on the answer.
I thought sheep but instead it said i probably watch Fox news or CNN which essentially is the same thing.

Can we try and keep the thread clear of these funny but uneccessary links

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Chris correct me if i´m wrong but if you took a softer material and shot it at a harder material.

If you increased the speed, would it not increase the destruction and increase the rate of destruction of the softer piece?
Meaning the highest chance of staying intact would be to slow down the speed considerably?

Like throwing the bullet at it instead of shooting it?

 

[Erik Tveit]

Every time or can it be different if you shoot the bullet at 100m/s or 300m/s ?

Will the harder material still win the battle?

The harder material will win the battle until the softer material goes with a fast enough speed to get enough power too make enough damage to the harder material and still have enough speed to go through the harder material.

Ain't this advanced

 

[Hampus Andersson]

The harder material will win the battle until the softer material goes with a fast enough speed to get enough power too make enough damage to the harder material and still have enough speed to go through the harder material.

Ain't this advanced

Any diagram or something i could look at?

At what speed would a weaker material suddenly become stronger then a stronger material?

Even if you add momentum i think you would only increase the speed of destruction for the aluminum bullet.

Because the density of the bullet stays the same at 500km/h or 1000km/h.
Would it not just be destroyed even faster at 1000km/h?

 

[Chris Preston]

Steel is an alloy of other elements for one so Aluminum vs Steel could go either way.

Two that come to mind for a softer material penetrating a harder material is a chisel on a diamond and paper cuts. As I said though there are some variables for this one though, it depends on it's shape, thickness, etc.

A bullet's shape, mass, and velocity would be the best way to penetrate a harder material. The shape would make it aerodynamic and allow it to "cut" through the material easier, and the mass/velocity give it the momentum to propel itself through the material.

The bullet would probably be more successful than the cube of aluminium presuming they're the same mass and have the same velocity.

Also the equation for momentum is Δp=m*v ... p is momentum in kg*m/s, m is mass in kg, v is velocity in m/s. The higher the mass/velocity (both are directly proportional to momentum) the more momentum it has.

 

[Erik Tveit]

I know nothing Hampus, I just talk about what sounds logic for me.

I support you in the fact that there were no plane that hit pentagon, but advanced physics stuff is not my strong side, I still got much to learn.