AH, but it doesn't have to distribute over the entire aircraft, the factor to watch here is the g force of the deceleration, the fact is that once the airliner had to displace mass to create that hole, there would be a very serious jolt of deceleration that is >100 g, the consequences of that would be that those 5 ton jet engines would be straining the mounts by 500 tons, and would most certainly break off, and tumble as they did so, the greatest probability being that the engine would strike the wall with the side of the engine and thus having no chance of penetrating and busting out the other side to land on Murray st. This whole fiasco is a fraud, no commercial airliner ever flown could have done what was alleged for FLT11 & FLT175
My impression is that the "simulation" was a product of Purdue University in Ind. If MIT produced one, do you have a pointer to said simulation? also If any of the source data for any simulation is available, please produce it did you know that the source data for the simulation NIST ran on the collapse of WTC7 is SECRET to release this data would endanger public safety, that is what NIST used to justify keeping it secret.
true, and they only have lame excuses for not having the source data. the problem here is that there is no foundation for the "simulation" its a cartoon with an image of an airliner penetrating a wall, however, without any foundation of data, its a cartoon.
Before you make any claims about what a commercial airliner could or could not do, you might want to learn some basic aerodynamics. The amount of force needed to displace air as the aircraft moves forward is called "drag". This force can be calculated or measured, and is nowhere near the ">100 g" force you imagine it to be. Consider this, the two CF6-80A engines on a typical 767-200 aircraft produce 100,000 lbs of thrust. With a max weight of 315,000 lbs, the airframe will barely see 0.3 g of force during max thrust. Thrust during level cruise would be even lower, probably around 0.25 g. The mounts holding each engine are certified to restrain the engine up to 9 g's, which is still far below your estimate. If you doubt that these aircraft could penetrate the World Trade Center buildings, explain how United Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, could leave a crater eight to ten feet deep and 30 to 50 feet wide in solid ground.
You mention the airliners performance in AIR, however there is no benchmark for the performance of an aircraft attempting to penetrate a wall. the deceleration g force is a function of the resistance that the aircraft would encounter upon contact with the wall. also referencing "FLT93" is of no use at all because the evidence points to the fact that ALL of the alleged hijacked airliners on 9/11/2001 were fraudulent.
I love it when people that have no clue what happens in an aircraft crash claim ultimate knowledge they cannot prove.
Same cartoon that has been presented MANY times over, and now .... where is the foundation for this (?) the data that states what parameters were used to assign values to the strength of materials and the forces applied. are we simply left to assume that the engineers didn't fudge factor ANY of the parameters?
Your interpretation is a joke. One thing that could have been done years ago, and to the effect of totally destroying the "truth movement" would have been for Prudue to publish the source data, and with that TA-DA! there would be an end to the speculation and questions, either the source data works to prove the simulation to be accurate, or it would prove that the engineers fudgefactored all the data to make the plane do what they wanted and having no connection to reality would then settle that matter then and there. the fact that Purdue has not been forthcoming with INFORMATION is very telling indeed. also did you know that the NIST created a "simulation" of the collapse of WTC7 and that data is SECRET because to release said data would endanger public safety ........ "The very word secrecy is repugnant to a free society "- - - JFK
Your response is a joke. Have you contacted Purdue for their source data? Furthermore, it is the NSA that prevented the NIST from publishing the data, so take your complaint to the judge that signed the order.
This whole tangent is a blatant attempt to drag the discussion away from the math and proper science that I have presented, Note that an aircraft allegedly traveling at 540 mph, striking a wall such as the WTC tower wall, would have to displace a minimum of 3 tons of mass in order to create that hole, therefore it is a given that the airliner would have to experience a jolt and indeed one of such proportions as to cause catastrophic structural failure of the airliner before the wings had any chance to actually even touch the wall. and in alleged rebuttal to this, I'm shown a cartoon that has NO bearing at all on any of this unless Purdue is willing to publish source data. and this has not been done. Universities do NOT have to comply with freedom of information act requests and so are able to simply sit by issuing lame excuses as to why they have not provided any foundation at all to any of there allegations that an airliner could produce said wing shaped gash. BTW: see my other thread "Basic Logic" ..... enjoy
But have you contacted Purdue? To 'assume' they won't comply is poor reasoning. Your evaluation of the animation is contradicted by reality. Furthermore, the planes striking the towers is not an 'allegation' but a reality, that you seem unable to disprove. Your 'maths' are invalid owing to reality. There's a theme here, and it is reality vs. your so-called science and maths.
"Your 'maths' are invalid owing to reality." what reality proves my math wrong? the airliner, upon striking the tower would by the very nature of the event have to experience a jolt. and this jolt, to calculate as a minimum figure based on displacing 3 tons of mass, would have to be >100 g what do you have to rebut this?
