Re: NBC Loose Change

"Dan" <Dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
gumboman wrote:

That video doesn't do what you and Dan think it does. Period. End of
story. If you walked into a physics class and offered that video as
evidence to refute anything The New Guy said you would be laughed out of
the classroom.

You are honestly saying that this video does not show it is POSSIBLE for
an airplane to crash and not have an intact tail section hanging out of a


That isn't what I said at all. I said this video isn't related to what
happened at the Pentagon so it is irrelevant to any discussion of the
Pentagon. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to go back to physics I.

Let's look at what happened. A large plane loaded with a lot of weight,
traveling very fast, crashed into a pre WWII era building that had recently
been renovated (I think the Pentagon was built pre WWII and there were some
recent renovations carried out). The walls of that building in no way
represent anything close to the walls of a nuclear containment facility.
Now, do you seriously want me to believe that there was enough heat
generated when the plane crashed into the outer walls that the plane was
vaporized? Fine, explain to me how that happens but don't get pissed off if
I happen to point out things that are scientifically implausible, if not
impossible. You can't rewrite the laws of physics just because the
government doesn't appear to want to give an adequate explanation and your
mind is closed to believing anything other than the story put out by the

Let's start simply. Momentum must be conserved, even in an inelastic
collision. The momentum in this case comes from the mass and velocity of the
plane. The fuel wouldn't have created a fire hot enough to vaporize all that
metal so are you trying to get me to believe that enough of the original
momentum was converted into heat so as to vaporize the plane? And if the
plane wasn't vaporized but simply scorched, then where are the parts?