| Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Jim Fetzer with Webfairy and myself; The Real Deal 10/02/09 | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 3 2009, 08:00 PM (821 Views) | |
| broken sticks | Oct 13 2009, 12:03 PM Post #46 |
|
plane debris? smashing all around? at 500+mph? no. |
 |
 
|
| NoseOut | Oct 13 2009, 07:44 PM Post #47 |
|
You are losing the plot, Princess Diana reminds us what happens when vehicles hit steel girders at high speeds, if the car was doing 540mph like F175 (lol), it would have been sliced in two. 
|
|
|
|
| Yougenedebs | Oct 13 2009, 09:03 PM Post #48 |
|
Thanks everyone; I think I’m beginning to understand the interaction between a flying object and the south Tower. For instance, just considering the outer 25 feet of a wing: the part headed toward a box column would likely get destroyed upon impact; but the part headed toward the space between columns would likely pass through and between the columns to impact the glass window (at least). Too bad the south face was in shadow at the time, or such interaction would be easier to see. Thanks again. Debs |
|
|
|
| achimspok | Oct 13 2009, 10:45 PM Post #49 |
|
|
|
|
|
| achimspok | Oct 13 2009, 11:20 PM Post #50 |
|
car mass = 1ton velocity = 540mph = 241 m/s Ekin = 0.5*m*v² = 0.5*1000kg*58081m²/s² = 29040500J = 29040500Nm = force * distance One joule [J] is defined as the amount of work done by a force of one newton [N] moving an object through a distance of one meter [m]. (wiki) One exterior column of the WTC had an energy absorbing capacity of about 277778J. In other words, the column NoseOut described has to be at least 10 times stronger than one exterior column of the WTC. ...something like the pillar of a huge bridge. Therefore, the NoseOut-car has enough energy to damage 10 perimeter columns. The plane was 46mph faster and 100times heavier. It would look like slicing through butter. (Of course, the energy absorbing capacity of car and plane isn't very big. Both will end up as confetti.) Edited by achimspok, Oct 13 2009, 11:30 PM.
|
|
|
|
| DrBabs | Oct 16 2009, 09:51 PM Post #51 |
|
One exterior column of the WTC had an energy absorbing capacity of about 277778J. Where did you get this number, and what does it represent? Another question that nobody seems to hear me asking is "If the first set of steel beams didn't destroy the plane, then why did the second set of steel beams destroy the plane?" Aluminum wouldn't dissolve as it hit steel. It would bounce. Airplanes aren't going fast enough to liquify themselves. What would happen is that the plane would instantly start slowing down, and by the time the back of the plane reached the south wall of the WTC, the plane would be traveling much slower and therefore have much less kinetic energy. No plane could have kept flying at 500 mph after it hit the exterior steel beams. It would have slowed down drastically, crumpled, twisted, and smashed into a zillion pieces, many of which would have fallen to the ground right there at the south face of the WTC. None of this happened. Therefore, no plane crashed into WTC 2. |
|
|
|
| DrBabs | Oct 16 2009, 10:13 PM Post #52 |
|
Look at the picture of the car wreck for a moment. See how the car is stuck halfway into the wall? See the debris from the car crash is lying around? Why did the car stop? Because the impact of the wall slowed it dramatically. Be honest. Wouldn't a plane begin to slow down immediately, if it hit the exterior steel beams of WTC 2? You can't seriously think it would be traveling as fast after the impact as before, or do you? I really don't know. One thing you always twist around is the fact that the plane was supposedly going so fast that it was capable of slicing through the steel exterior beams. If it's going fast enough to do that much damage, then it would have exactly that much damage done to it at exactly the same time the damage was done to the WTC exterior. Not later. Instantaneously. The plane wouldn't damage the building and then wait to explode after it fully entered the building. You'd see pieces. |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Oct 17 2009, 10:46 AM Post #53 |
|
babs, we all hear all of your questions. you clearly don't read the answers though, you just keep posting the same questions across different threads. no-one (unless you can prove otherwise) is suggesting the plane survived the impact of the outer wall ("the first set of steel beams"). no-one. no...one... hehe, yeah! lol right! bouncing 540mph aluminium! hehe good one
 so what? it does instantly start slowing down. its been demonstrated for you in threads you have ignored. you keep insinuating we believe the plane survived the outer-wall intact. we're not saying this. no-one is saying this. you keep ignoring all our responses. no plane kept flying after it hit the exterior steel beams. it got all shredded up and wrecked. it slowed from 540mph to ZERO within 208 feet. that's a pretty drastic slow-down, don't you agree? not visibly at 540mph. more like disintegrated.
 twisted? ok.....it did get smashed into a zillion pieces. you've basically shown yourself to be wrong again, because if a plane is smashed into a "zillion" pieces, then these pieces have to be particularly small (agreed?). but you're also saying the pieces should have been big tail pieces and stuff. if they were all massive, there wouldn't have been a "zillion" of them. how many threads are you going to ignore our answers on this on? would you like your own forum perhaps, where you can ignore everybody? or would you prefer to spam up every thread here with the same questions, ignoring every single answer? |
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Oct 17 2009, 10:49 AM Post #54 |
|
visible deceleration has been proven already on this forum babs. you just ignore the asnwers to your questions then ask them again on a different thread a few days later. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
2:17 AM Dec 2
