| 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: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| SaiGirl appreciates Scott Loughrey | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 22 2010, 07:37 PM (1,214 Views) | |
| MAC | Oct 18 2010, 08:57 AM Post #16 |
|
Beat, It is the idea that the building was stronger which leads to a contradiction (right or wrong). Yes, the building is (was) a whole lot stronger, how then, was the plane able to penetrate so successfully producing as it did such a gaping hole without any obvious visible signs of distortion etc of the much weaker plane (re videos)? And what of the tail fin? Disappears in the videos, yet leaves no gash, or marks on the wall. And the 'wing vs columns-severe-fail' in that well known photo? The common 'explanation' (re Rasga's cartoon) that the wing shattered and slipped through the 'gaps' between those unbroken columns is a bit laughable. Sure, some of it would have, but the whole bloody wing? Looking more closely at that photo, there aren't actually very many gaps between the columns anyway, they're blocked, partly by debris from internal explosion no doubt post plane event, but the walls are intact too in some places. Most of the best gaps are above the wing strike area as i recall (Sorry, photo not at hand, later perhaps). Now, no wing would 'bounce' off the wall, but, and despite the crappy vids, i would still expect to see at least some of the wing shatter into pieces, or even chunks, as it surely must have ripped apart from the fuselage which was continuing forward through the columns, unlike the wing which instead hit the columns (hence column-server-fail). Granted, in general the videos are crap and zooming in on a crap video doesn't do much to give us better details. "Having no structual strength left it finds it's way through the large open gaps between the exterior columns. " Are you suggesting the plane as a whole slipped through the 'gaps'? Engines would have smashed through no problem. But if the plane shattered and merely slipped between columns, then what destroyed the rest of the columns (the majority, not destroyed by the heavier parts like engines) and made the big hole? Most of the surface area of the plane which hit the wall was made of the weaker materials, obviously. And yes, interaction is missing, but i don't think that the 'missing interaction' would only have occurred during the missing frames (presumably inbetween the frames we do see..?). Less to do with missing frames, more to do with simply crap, fuzzy videos? My position on the planes is DON'T KNOW these days. I'm inclined towards thinking they were real solid planes, modified, RC, etc (evidence in favor, eg, people seeing a plane - holograms aside - , and that engine on Murray, too big, heavy and in public view to 'plant' in a hurry, don't like cannon theory too much either).. but the videos we have of that event (alleged 175) just don't add up, there's just something very wrong with the whole 'crash' thing.. sure, crap videos, but something is still wrong and some of the odd explanations (to put it politely) of the 'crash physics' i've heard don't help matters. Who knows? I don't  MAC |
 |
 
|
| beatprophet | Oct 18 2010, 01:25 PM Post #17 |
|
Mac, Thanks for the honest and understandable reply. The reason we see the plane appear to slip into the building is due to all the things which you mentioned and the fact that the body of the plane was moving so fast there was no way any part of the airframe could have stopped outside of the building. Think of those wings moving at over 500mph and then hitting this extorior! The wings would make their way iside the building damaging the columns and then the following exposion is going to blow those columns away leaving wing shaped holes. |
|
|
|
| MAC | Oct 20 2010, 06:23 PM Post #18 |
|
Well.. there's the clean and clinical diagram above showing those extra wide and very empty gaps between columns to the left.. Then there's what the scene actually looked like;  In the real world photo, most of those spandrel sections remain intact, cladding blocks other parts, leaving only a few broken windows. There's no way a wing went through there. Shattered into many pieces, probably, but very little went 'between' those columns. MAC |
|
|
|
| kognitive | Oct 21 2010, 04:19 PM Post #19 |
|
 The only thing that could make such straight cuts in fireproof steel is cutter chargers or high explosives on one floor that has blown outwards. Please note the straightness of the steel cuts, that is obviously due to it being on a specific floor but a plane impact can not explain that.  The red circle indicates the initial impact that could not have been made by the fuselage because the noes would have crumpled and the fuselage would have not made a hole over multiple floors of steel and concrete. There is no way of verifying if this is a real shot of the hole. It could have looked different. There is a very limited amount of photos of the hole itself. The apparent speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s. The apparent speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s. The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was = 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174 = 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules). The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was = 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174 = 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules). Just because we have 6,227,270 Kilojoules of energy from the apparent plane impact does not necessarily mean that it has the ability to blow apart materials that are stronger than than what it is made out of. 6227270 kJ = 0.00148 kT One of the main arguments i have come across from people who think a plane can enter a building from noes to tail without breaking a wing or showing any deceleration is that the impact itself some how was equivalent to dynamite. They make argument such as, shooting 80 tonnes of jelly beans at a building would make a hole. But what they do not consider is that you would not be able to shoot 80 tonnes of jelly beans at a building at 500mph, practically impossible. That is why a plane is built with specific materials, so that it can fly easily. If a plane goes above a certain speed at a specific level above the ground it will completely break a apart. Realisticly if a boeing 767 hit a steel and conrete building such as the wtc. It would actually hit the outside of the building and that would be visible from the videos, it would break apart instantly and a lot of the plane, seats and fuselage and wings would fall down to the ground. You would actually see that in the video. The plane would not just enter the building like the building was not even there.  in this shot, it literally enters the building from noes to tail. even a plane would have hit this:  remember planes are weak, made out of aluminum and carbon composites and wood and other light weight materials 
Edited by kognitive, Oct 21 2010, 04:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
| broken sticks | Oct 21 2010, 05:45 PM Post #20 |
|
no 900km/h object weighing over 100tonnes is weak even water can cut through steel at that speed. kognitive, do some research please if you're not a troll. start by googling water jet cutters. Edited by broken sticks, Oct 21 2010, 05:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
| MAC | Oct 21 2010, 08:26 PM Post #21 |
|
Kognitive I’m not sure the cuts are in the steel. It appears to be the ali cladding that has broken off along the points where the sections are joined. ‘Breaks’ might better describe what we see, rather than ‘cuts’. “The red circle indicates the initial impact that could not have been made by the fuselage because the noes would have crumpled and the fuselage would have not made a hole over multiple floors of steel and concrete.” Yea, something is up with that one.. the heavy, dense engines smashing through i can understand, but the fuselage in the middle..? MAC |
|
|
|
| MAC | Oct 21 2010, 08:50 PM Post #22 |
|
broken sticks A water jet cutter is a good example of something soft cutting through something hard. However, this can't really be compared with the plane. A water jet cutter is laser focused on a very small area and is carefully designed for the task of cutting through.. a Boeing is not, it's varied materials are spread over a very wide area and it is constructed only to fly through the air. MAC |
|
|
|
| kognitive | Oct 22 2010, 02:44 PM Post #23 |
|
Object density matters, that is how kevlar can stop a bullet. A great analogy is a coke can at 500mph hitting a thick steel fence it would not go right through. The only difference is that a fence is just one thickness, while the wtc was a building that had a more dense core. So you would see deceleration. The glass would have broken but no ways would we have seen a hole over six floors of steel and reinforced concrete. Even if a plane could do that damage to a building. When you were watching the videos, you would see deceleration, there is clearly no deceleration in any of the videos. Even at the pathetic quality that we have available, you can observe that there is no deceleration or defamation of structure of the object. No object can hit another object and go right through it whilst staying completely intact. Even if you shoot an object at something that will slice an object like a grater, the object will still see deceleration and it will break a part. |
|
|
|
| A Storm is Coming | Oct 22 2010, 04:08 PM Post #24 |
|
Defamation and deformation are two different things Koglodite |
|
|
|
| kognitive | Nov 3 2010, 05:35 PM Post #25 |
|
yes thank you for the correction, i have made that mistake before. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The Drama Club · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
12:39 PM Jul 13