Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

[yankee451]

Whoever made the picture with the lines of equal size superimposed over it seems to be unaware of the concept of barrel distortion, a commonplace product of zoom lenses, which would make identically sized objects appear slightly different sizes within the photograph even if they're the same distance from the lens.

Yeah, I'm aware, but that's not the reason. The reason is that the spandrels for the mechanical floors were sized differently than the others.

Here's a video that considers focal length and distance, and also happens to debunk Simon Shack. Once again I was admitting error - you'll notice I am often wrong, but I'll admit it. I am also often not wrong, and I admit that too.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove material not suited for moderated thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm62AdGbhBI

 

[beachnut]

Whoever made the picture with the lines of equal size superimposed over it seems to be unaware of the concept of barrel distortion, a commonplace product of zoom lenses, which would make identically sized objects appear slightly different sizes within the photograph even if they're the same distance from the lens.

What you know about things is not what 9/11 truth followers are willing to learn. 9/11 truth followers spent zero time on research, and make it up as they go, as they plagiarize the lies from 9/11 truth.

Rational is not valid in 9/11 truth fantasy-land.

 

[rwguinn]

"The math" would not only be massively complicated it would also be massively varied. Loads, forces, dimensions, material properties, stresses, strains ....

"The math" would probably occupy hundreds (thousands?) of sheets of printer paper.

There is no chance on earth you'd understand it. You know this, so constantly asking to see "the math" is just your very dishonest way of denying the arguments lined up against you without having to explain why.

Some of that has to do with the fact that it takes years of study to understand it. Your inability to grasp the higher math is not an indication of in accuracy.

For those that want to see what it looks like in practice, I've uploaded a simple problem solved with FEA. This is a simple analysis of a 3 degree of freedom beam with two point loads. It is linear, and elastic.

The global stiffness matrix of my problem is 12x12. The global stiffness matrix for the analysis conducted by NIST would be in the order of 100,000x100,000. Printing that out would be a pile of useless gibberish. However the analysis conducted by NIST also goes a step further than this. My problem solves [K]{d} = {r}. Put plainly, it's the resting state of the problem (no vibration, etc). NIST solves the problem and solves the FEA problem many times per second. The output would be millions (if not billions) of pages of matrices. Asking to "see this math", as one here has demanded, is a completely ludicrous demand that anyone with a modest knowledge of FEA and engineering would know.

The essential equations are actually not excessively difficult to write out, but there are a lot of them. Just generating mass and stiffness arrays are complex in terms of number of calculations, although relatively simple in concept. All thos coupling terms...
I've doing FEA since 1977. At that time, things were pretty limited in size. 228 degrees of freedom (a mere 38 points) took hours to compute the mode shapes and run a 3 second transient event, so we often did it in stages. Now, even on a laptop or desktop, I can do that in minutes. The largest non-linear model I ever ran was 30000 dof, and it took 17 hours under static conditions
100,000 dof is only 16666 physical points (33332 if you ignore rotational dof). A million dof is doable, but if you run transient and non-linear (pretty much a necessity in analyzing failures) you are looking at thousands of iterations to get convergence, and it's going to take a very long time, even with modern "Super" computers. And billions of pages of output. You are going to store terabytes of interim and temporary data. Disk space is going to be a real problem...

 

[yankee451]

The essential equations are actually not excessively difficult to write out, but there are a lot of them. Just generating mass and stiffness arrays are complex in terms of number of calculations, although relatively simple in concept. All thos coupling terms...
I've doing FEA since 1977. At that time, things were pretty limited in size. 228 degrees of freedom (a mere 38 points) took hours to compute the mode shapes and run a 3 second transient event, so we often did it in stages. Now, even on a laptop or desktop, I can do that in minutes. The largest non-linear model I ever ran was 30000 dof, and it took 17 hours under static conditions
100,000 dof is only 16666 physical points (33332 if you ignore rotational dof). A million dof is doable, but if you run transient and non-linear (pretty much a necessity in analyzing failures) you are looking at thousands of iterations to get convergence, and it's going to take a very long time, even with modern "Super" computers. And billions of pages of output. You are going to store terabytes of interim and temporary data. Disk space is going to be a real problem...

And don't forget that it is impossible to prove a lie, even with math which may be why no one has done it, not Wierzbicki, Bazant et al, MIT, Purdue, NIST - no one. They all threw in the towel at accurate calculations of the interaction of the wings with the walls. I'm betting it's because of the shape of the exterior wall columns and the way a swept-back wing of a 767 would strike them sequentially, one sharp corner at a time. When you think about it it must have been a daunting task to put a shine on that turd, so its no wonder why they tossed up their hands in despair at the thought of using math to back up the official story that a mostly hollow aluminum jet cut through a steel skyscraper like a hot knife through butter.

 

[JSanderO]

The mostly hollow jet was not what cut through the steel... it was the dense concentrations of mass... metal structure, engines, landing assemblies, fuel in tanks...

Even the fully load with fuel tanks weighed tens of tons... and traveling at 400+ mph that would mess up wtc steel columns up there easy peasy.

 

[yankee451]

The mostly hollow jet was not what cut through the steel... it was the dense concentrations of mass... metal structure, engines, landing assemblies, fuel in tanks...

Even the fully load with fuel tanks weighed tens of tons... and traveling at 400+ mph that would mess up wtc steel columns up there easy peasy.

A jet is just the sum of it's parts. It is not one solid mass and should not be calculated as such. If you do then you need to calculate the mass of the entire building too. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your calculations are accurate. How much mass would you say the wing tip had after it was no longer connected to the jet?

 

[thedopefishlives]

The mostly hollow jet was not what cut through the steel... it was the dense concentrations of mass... metal structure, engines, landing assemblies, fuel in tanks...

Even the fully load with fuel tanks weighed tens of tons... and traveling at 400+ mph that would mess up wtc steel columns up there easy peasy.

If you want to get technical, the columns were not "cut", as with a saw blade; they were bent and broken, smashed through with the force of concentrated mass moving at high speed. Notice how the hole is not a perfect cutout of a 767, but it has ragged edges where steel was bent and pulled as the aircraft forced its way through.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

A jet is just the sum of it's parts. It is not one solid mass and should not be calculated as such. If you do then you need to calculate the mass of the entire building too. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your calculations are accurate. How much mass would you say the wing tip had after it was no longer connected to the jet?

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/inside1.jpg[/qimg]

Finite Element Analysis. Much more accurate when performed on a computer with actual numbers rather than by guesstimate and goatee with a meat-based CPU and OS. When FEA has been performed (by several different researchers asking several different questions over the years) it has been found that only a quarter to a third of the KE available in the aircraft mass is scrubbed by penetrating the exterior of the WTC. The rest of the energy dumps into the core flexing the entire building in the direction of impact, which then oscillates for several minutes.


Mass of individual pieces is irrelevant. Instantaneous deceleration of a single bolt from 500 mph to 1mph in an entire second (longer than the amount would apply ~23g of force on both components, the bolt and whatever it hits. (These values are the best I could put into a simple online g calc applet I could find online that runs on a iPad - if pursuaded I could MAYBE be talked into crunching more accurate numbers with excel on a laptop. I doubt the effort would have any return on investment, though).

With the numbers for bolt weight and size (surface area presented to target, working out to PSI applied by impactor to target), and various strengths and resiliences of a piece of steel, we could find out if a bolt decelerating from 500mph to zero in a fraction of a second (significantly greater than 22g, by an order of magnitude) would bounce off the metal, deform it before stopping, or penetrate completely.

But making wild arm-swinging guesses

 

[yankee451]

If you want to get technical, the columns were not "cut", as with a saw blade; they were bent and broken, smashed through with the force of concentrated mass moving at high speed. Notice how the hole is not a perfect cutout of a 767, but it has ragged edges where steel was bent and pulled as the aircraft forced its way through.

The wing tip though, according to the official story it took the mass of the fuel to bash through but that the wing was destroyed simultaneously. That would mean that by the time the engines had penetrated the walls, the wing tips would no longer be connected to the plane. So we have a wing tip that is arguably not as massive nor constructed of material as dense as what it was impacting, nor having the benefit of the mass of the plane or jet fuel still able to bust through the steel? If that was the case the damage should reflect it. But it doesn't.

 

[yankee451]

Taboo Truths: The Missiles of 9/11

I’m hearing a lot about fake news these days, that we need to beware of fake news on the Internet.

The irony is bitter because this warning is coming from the masters of fake news, the media outlets like CBS, ABC, NBC, and the New York Times, the very propaganda organs that for the last 16 years or so have been looking us in the eye and telling us mostly hollow aluminum jets can bore through concrete, burrow into the ground, and sever structural steel box columns like a hot knife through butter.

All it takes is to scratch the surface of 9/11 to realize just about everything peddled about that fateful day was and is indeed, “fake” but it’s not just the authorities pushing fake news, even the 9/11 Truth Movement prefers fake truth rather than the real thing. In fact the rank and file within the truth movement seem quite content with the belief that the truth will never be known, which makes me wonder why they call it a truth movement in the first place.

In my 15-minute video “What cut the plane shaped hole” I discussed some of the evidence the truth movement ignores but in retrospect I should have named it, "What couldn't have cut the plane shaped hole?" because I focus on evidence that eliminates planes as well as planted explosives alone (and by extension "holograms") as being responsible. As a followup to that video in this post I will explore what could have caused it, but first I should note that the information referenced herein is available to anyone with Internet access; so it is disappointing to learn that nobody in the 9/11 Truth Movement has already investigated it, in fact truthers and true believers alike still treat it as if it doesn't exist. Usually, when they are confronted with this information they very quickly turn on me by questioning my motives, sanity and intelligence, but rarely do they address the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. If this was a real crime scene investigation the act of “reconstructing the crime” would be critical; every clue no matter how small would be collected and used as a basis for the formulation of a theory, but truthers don’t do that. They skip right to the theory and then look for supporting evidence, ignoring those clues that don't fit, an activity known as "cherry-picking," not "truth-seeking."

If you’re like me and just want to follow the evidence wherever it leads then the details discussed in this post can lead directly to the most likely cause and the most likely suspects. If I’m wrong then there must be a better explanation for it and I want to hear what that is, but so far the response has been silence. It is as the late Harold Pinter described how Americans react when they hear “real news” about all the atrocities committed by the USA around the world since the end of World War II:

“It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”

It is this hypnosis that has kept the war on terror going strong with both sides so entranced that they will reject the evidence that can lead to the truth in favor of fantastical explanations straight out of Gene Roddenberry’s imagination. The truth is; no, planes can't slice steel, and no, buildings don't turn to dust in the real world. For 16 years both sides (all sides) have bent over backwards to avoid the first step in any investigation - the scene of the crime, probably partly because it makes most of the truth movement's hypotheses irrelevant, but also because of the staggering implications that accompany it.

Years ago a friend warned me that even if I discovered the truth about 9/11, no one will give a damn, a prescient prediction. Not that I'm saying I'm right, but I have done my best to keep myself honest in my investigation and although I am often wrong, I am also often not wrong. All I can say is that the fact that no one will address these clues is exactly what I would expect if I did stumble on the right path.

Fake news is everywhere but from what I can tell most people like it that way, truthers included, which is a pity. The truth may hurt but it really does set you free.

http://yankee451.com/?p=4147

 

[beachnut]

study proves an aircraft can and did break the shell of the WTC

A jet is just the sum of it's parts. It is not one solid mass and should not be calculated as such. If you do then you need to calculate the mass of the entire building too. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your calculations are accurate. How much mass would you say the wing tip had after it was no longer connected to the jet?

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/inside1.jpg[/qimg]

It takes some engineering knowledge (advance math, and physics included) to understand the WTC tower's shell could stop a 707 going 180 mph. The shell was strong, and was the lateral support for the WTC to withstand hurricane force winds and remain standing. But the WTC shell can't stop a plane going 470 to 590 mph - the shell will fail the aircraft mass with enter the WTC, along with fuel, bagage, humans, and plane parts. The shell can't stop a plane going above a certain speed, it is called physics. You ignore physics and spread lies about 9/11. It is that simple, you are fake news and you don't care, and you don't know it.


https://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2005)131:10(1066)

This study, which you can't refute, explains in detail that the aircraft can and did "cut" through the shell. The plane broke the shell. You can't use engineering to prove otherwise, your only evidence is talk, no math, no physics.

I have a copy of the study, why don't you have anything to support your claims, which amount to lies.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

When I use a hot knife to cut butter, I always fire the knife at the butter at 500 mph and rely on its momentum to smash its way through. But the knife doesn't get smashed into a million fragments, so I must be doing something wrong. Because that's what "a hot knife through butter" always brings to mind, isn't it; a knife travelling at immense speed, smashing into a pat of butter and being utterly destroyed by the impact. Right?

 

[JSanderO]

Steve...

The plane contains stored fuel and water and heavy engine and landing gear within in profile. These were traveling at high speed with enormous force.

The building it slammed into had a facade of box columns made from steel plate which was 3/8" thick. Do you think that this steel should not bend or be ripped by impact with a fuel tank weighing tens of thousands of pounds?

Did you do any calculations of the forces involved in the crash? Hint... crashes usually involve mutual destruction of the objects involved... of course depending on their physical properties.

In the cases you cited the force calculations and mechanics will describe exactly what happened... even if your uneducated mind can't comprehend this.

When someone lacks technical knowledge they see the world though the eyes of a child. Their understanding is handicapped by their ignorance.

What do you envision should have happened? The plane bounces off the tower? The plane is crushed to bits and the tower not even dented? The planes knocks the tower over?

Let us know what you think should have happened and WHY... please provide references.

 

[JSanderO]

Steve... brush up or LEARN mechanics..... statics and you will see that this makes perfect sense.

You have the technical mind of a child more or less... but you don't realize how your lack of technical knowledge leads your mind to form childlike conceptions of the physical world.

You can't know what you don't know... But people who do know can see your deficits.

You need to educate yourself. Your theories are laughable to people who actually know something about mechanics.

 

[Trojan]

Are we going to hear how the wing shaped holes were created by a swarm of cruise missiles striking at various angels? I always liked that story.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Any mass with sufficient energy in it's momentum will cause deformation of a mass without sufficient energy to resist.
Even Water simple physics,
You add to that the friction heating and that the mass includes particles that are the second hardest substance known to man it is easy to see why even the wind tips penetrated the steel.

 

[yankee451]

The plane contains stored fuel and water and heavy engine and landing gear within in profile.

Please explain how these things add density to the the wing's aluminum sheeting.

 

[abaddon]

Please explain how these things add density to the the wing's aluminum sheeting.

You think that a full fuel tank and an empty fuel tank have the same density? Really?

 

[GlennB]

Please explain how these things add density to the the wing's aluminum sheeting.

Please explain how water jets can cut steel (you can find examples easily on YouTube).

Basically, you don't understand the concept of "impulse".

 

[Sherman Bay]

Please explain how these things add density to the the wing's aluminum sheeting.

Please explain how an island in the Pacific, 6 miles across, is different from a 6-mile across island from the sky impacting at 10-20 miles/sec. Why does the Pacific island rock not produce a tsunami and the Chicxulub asteroid rock of the same size causes a world-wide environmental catastrophe and wipes out the dinosaurs?

Next question: Why does a plane sitting on the runway not cut through steel, but a plane at 400MPH does?

Answer to both: Speed. Speed multiplies force, and as the speed goes up, the force is increased exponentially.

Try this sometime. Throw a baseball against a brick wall. The best pitcher can do this at 100MPH. Then throw the same baseball at the wall at 15 miles per second. Think the results will be the same?