Holes shaped like planes?

Columns blown from the inside like exploding cigars and cgi planes that disappear into walls? I suppose I shouldnt be too surprised.

- - - Updated - - -

the alum covers are completely blown off, nice try

- - - Updated - - -

thats nice but thats not what is shown.

 

Yes, just like a soft lead bullet through steel. Who woulda thunk?
Btw do you know the difference between swaged and turned? Not very technically inclined I see.

 

So you fancy yourself a ballistics guy huh?

The question for you then is what is the principle that governs why a lead bullet will penetrate steel and a beer can will not.

 

There isn't any. You are just not ever likely to land n one piece if you go over 600 below 1000 feet. lave that crap to honest aviators and ignore dumb asses like Jayhan and Nelson who see pods where any aircraft mechanic will tell you there is a wheel well fairing.

 

So, the explosion of the plane wouldn't have caused the outward bend of columns? Take a look at the plane exploding and see the force of that explosion. Using your half-logic....what caused the inward bend of columns we see in the photos? How could those have been caused by explosions in the building? The plane impacted and explosion explains exactly what we see in the video.

Logic, you're doing it wrong.

 

A 203 grain 7.62X54R lead bullet weighs far more than an empty beer can ,thus can convey far more kinetic energy to the target and delivers it over a much more restricted area than can a beer can. Also, a great deal of the kinetic energy of the beer can would be spent crumpling it into as compact form.

Silly question for a grown-up to ask.

 

Another thing he misses,is the 'beer can' was pressurized..

 

Going through some of this thread again I notice that I said it before... Better wonder what the mass of a 500,000,000 kg building moving at 550 mph or whatever does to a 150,000 kg aluminium plane. Yes, you can say that the building was the one moving. It does not matter. The theory of relativity which has been universally accepted by mainstream science a long time ago says that either object can be considered as stationary or moving. So to see how smart you are... the more the speed of the plane, the more it adds to my point. Where do you add the fact that both buildings were joined through their foundations with Planet Earth! More mass... This is why your myth of super fast projectile-like airliners goes to the bin.

There is only one blurry video in existence showing a white plane that looks like a drone. Do you call that evidence?

 

What absurd 'logic'...by your logic a speeding car cannot knock over a wooden phone pole because it's anchored in the ground..

 

If that pole is of concrete and steel and is heavy enough then yes, a car can't knock it over. But I didn't say that alone is the decisive factor. Like that matters... If the towers had been sitting like huge boxes on the ground with no foundation the outcome would still have been the same.

I just said that the ground supporting the towers via their foundations with columns going deep underground further adds to the mass that got translated into force that the towers released upon the plane. This means that the airplane should have exploded into millions of pieces rather than cut through the building. You guys here seem to suggest that if a bicycle moves fast enough (yet at subsonic speed) it should slice a tank in two.

 

Oh goodie,more absurd analogies

 

Let's start with the kinetic energy of both bodies at 550 MPH. As all novice truthers know, kinetic energy is:



In truther world 250,000,000 x 302500 = 75000 x 302500

Seems legit.

Someone's confused about the theory of relativity.

Now you want to add the mass of the Earth to the building? Awesome.

5,972,190,000,000,000,250,000,000 x 302500 = 75000 x 302500

It's totally true!

Well I guess if you believe your mathematical statement above is true, I guess you can believe this statement is true as well.

 

Can you be more specific? What does each number account for? Why do you double the mass of the plane and halve that of the tower? It doesn't make sense. You will say you do that because the plane was the one moving. How do you know that? The kinetic energy as far as I know, and please correct me if I'm wrong, would have been equal regardless of which was moving.

Really? Why is that?

What does this mean? How come you have the same result in both examples since you yourself added the mass of the Earth?

Math doesn't have much to do with the detective work does it?

 

Oh man, Vlad. Sometimes when you're in over your head you should just swim to shore. Kinetic energy is half the mass times the square of the velocity. That's what that formula in the middle of my post means. The kinetic energy of a building moving a 550 miles an hour is clearly not the same as the kinetic energy of a plane moving at 550 miles an hour.

See my response above. What you're thinking about is force at the point of impact. The force is the same regardless of whether the building is moving or the plane is moving. Force is mass times acceleration. Your claim is dependent on the entire mass of the aircraft accelerating to 0 at the point of impact. So let's say the plane was 68038.9 kilograms moving at 245.872 meters per second which equals 16,728,860 newtons. The ultimate tensile strength of structural steel is 400-550 Megapascal (this is 1 newton per square meter). Given the strength of steel, the plane could only stop in an instant if the force was spread out over 30,416 square meters. The entire side of the building was only 26,437 square meters.

Look at it again. One side of the equal sign is the kinetic energy for the plane, the other side is the kinetic energy of the building and your preposterous claim that the mass of the Earth counts too. They obviously aren't equal. And this proves my point.

 

Correct. And what difference does it make? Kinetic energy matters only at the point of impact which is when you can't establish what that energy is relative to except the two colliding objects. Since you do not have a third object involved shouldn't the resulting force of the impact exist only between the tower and the plane? That kinetic energy is not a good point. That same kinetic energy has different values depending on what object records it. What can you relate the kinetic energy of one of the 2 objects to? You can only relate the kinetic energy of one to the other and what else than the other? ...in that same way you can't establish what is moving relative to what. Kinetic energy is bound to the same level subjectivity as with motion....

What do you take into account when you say that the kinetic energy of the plane existed in a different way than if the tower had hit the plane instead? What do you take as a point of reference to establish that difference of effect of plane vs. tower/ tower vs. plane?

Yep, and that's the only thing that matters.

Glad you agree with me. So you confirm that cjnewson88 didn't have a good point.

You can say the same about the Twin Towers and you get a pair of airplanes splashed all over America.

Haha that's a funny example. Why are you trying to blur this out instead of making it clear for everyone to see? So you're saying that even if the plane had been half its mass it still should have gone through... That's interesting. But none of this matters since I did not say the airplane should have remained outside completely. Some of it obviously should have gone inside, only through and because of the windows. And the airplane was not 68038.9 kg. Why give a fictional example in the case of the plane but give the real example of the Twin Towers?

I never said the entire mass of the Earth mattered. I only said that the ground immediately beneath contributed with some extra resistance to the plane (like it needed any...).

 

You said a plane flying at a building at 550 miles an hour is the same as a building flying at a plane at 550 miles an hour. Clearly you're wrong. The building you're talking about would have 3000 times more kinetic energy than the aircraft flying at 550 miles an hour. Accelerating the building to zero would therefor take orders of magnitude more force. But that's not the point you're trying to make. You're trying to equate inertia and strength.

In the example of the building flying at a plane, the plane does not have to accelerate the building to zero before it can damage the building, but the building does need to have enough strength to accelerate the plane to 550 in order to remain intact. I've shown you that the building did not have anywhere near this amount of strength.

What's this garbled sentence mean? Since you're talking about two equivalent velocities, the difference in kinetic energy is dependent on the difference in mass.

More garble. Kinetic energy is one half the mass times the velocity squared. Simple. Not subjective, concrete. No need to garble.

Again, it's simple. A tower moving 550 miles an hour has thousands of times more energy than a plane moving at 550 miles an hour.

Again you're confused if you think I'm agreeing with you at any point here.

I showed you mathematically that this is not the case.

Yeah because if you notice, the mass is not nearly as important as the velocity in terms of energy. A plane twice as large only increases the energy by a quarter. A plane twice as fast increases the energy by 400%. And again, the ultimate strength of the steel in the tower was not enough to withstand the pressure created by the aircraft on the surface of the building. The plane went through not just because of the glass, but because the steel was not strong enough to withstand the force. The aircraft did not have to accelerate the entire mass of the building. It only had to overcome the ultimate strength of the steel that it impacted.

No, the mass of the earth is irrelevant. The speed of sound through steel is very fast, but the aircraft entered the building through the steel before the energy of the impact even made it to the ground, let alone reflected back from the Earth.

Let's try it this way. How much force do YOU think it takes to shear a WTC steel column? I just told you the ultimate strength of steel is at maximum 550 megapascals. Show me mathematically how the building was supposed to resist the force of the impact using your own numbers.

 

Oh brother... stop digging vlad.

 

Yes.

Why?

And whatever point of reference you decide to base that calculation on, even you agree that the force created between the two at the impact is the same in both cases.

Who said the building should accelerate to zero if the roles were reversed? Who said it should not? Who said it matters? Remove the ground, the city and the planet and imagine the two in empty space. Can you tell if the tower has stopped? No, because you only measure it relative to the plane and there is no plane left.

Who said the building should remain intact? I never said it should. I do not dispute that your calculations are correct but they are only calculations... they are only an abstract, theoretical model, a general standard that is not applied to the real life. As soon as you do you get loads of unpredicted inconsistencies that need further calculations & adjustments in order to be an accurate reflection of the real thing and you know that... ...as a scientist you know that.

When Leslie Robertson, one of the two structural engineers of the Twin Towers said that they designed the buildings to take the impact of a fully loaded 707 he meant the 707 was not meant to go through at all. Now I know that the alleged 767 was faster than what they prepared the building for but have nothing left outside whatsoever with Flight 175? Come on... Watch whatever videos of the South Tower hit you want, magnified and in the slowest motion possible. You see that everything, everything goes inside. No matter the speed, force, kinetic energy and whatever, some small bits are always, always shot back. The explosion comes only after it disappears inside completely and you can see that nothing falls back... nothing. How is that possible?

No matter how many calculations you made, there's still many you haven't made and can't know and nobody will know which.

And isn't that formula valid only between the two objects that collide? That formula is the same even if you remove everything around including the planet. So I think my point stands. I don't understand why this math should escape the world of the two objects alone.

You did very much. Too late to deny it.

Again... math is only math. It's the ideal model of how 'it should be' rather than how 'it is'.

Just a while you ago you said it did because of the reduced surface area of the tower. Make up your mind.

In which case an older model tank which is made of separate armor plates should clearly have one single plate removed by a beer can without having the rest of the structure accelerated.

Are you suggesting that shock waves are that slow?

Aren't you confusing just a few columns with the entire building? Even assuming that some columns were cut by the plane, that should exhaust all the created force and turn the airplane into many many bits.

Speaking of your beloved shock waves, you clearly see in the South Tower videos that none were sent through the fuselage. Its shape was all perfect as it passed the facade. Maybe it's also time to tell me about the 'ultimate strength' of whatever that airplane was made of. You took into account that of the steel but not that of the fuselage which is perfect as it enters the building all the way to the facade. Watch the slow motion videos.

 

You evidently think this is something unusual. It isn't. The remaining aircraft at that speed will not deform until it meets something to deform it. At that speed, the remaining plane would look normal until the remaining parts actually hit something. The plane was shredded upon impact and the shredding depends on the the material. For instance, the landing gear, which is much stouter, exited the other side of the building, though in rough form. The mass of all of that which includes the fuel, is enough to damage much of the building at point of impact and beyond. You don't seem to understand that all of the parts involved, the aircraft and the building, have limits to what they can withstand. That is why the aircraft was completely shredded and the building wasn't but to expect the building to have no damage is just ignorance of physics.

 

Yeah... Flight 175 didn't find enough stuff to deform itself onto so its nose came out through the other side, probably looking for the other tower as it was thinking that one tower was not enough.

But when you look at the wings and the way they cut through... That is just as unrealistic. You'd expect them to bend back.

 

*shakes head*

 

Very convincing argument.

 

You forget that the wings were filled with fuel and fuel has mass. At that speed, fuel would not act much different than concrete. They did not "cut" through as much as they sheared attachment points as you can see in many of the photos giving that stair step affect.

 

As you know, the original designers never said a 707 would bounce off but they designed the building for a 707 on approach with little fuel and a much slower speed.

The fact that the buildings lasted as long as they did after the impact with much larger aircraft, at a much higher speed, and full of fuel says a lot for the design of the buildings but the original designers never planned for this kind of impact and designers now are saying that you cannot design for this kind of impact and can't.