What happens when an aircraft hits something that is not inclined to move?

[uruk]

several in the truth movement have already declared the video fake and/or disinfo

Wierd, I remember seeing that video on a PBS documentary years before 9/11.

I guess they made this video in advance of the troothers arguments back when they were putting C4 on the 4" rebar during the construction of the WTC towers.

 

[uruk]

It's been tried. He rejects hard evidence as inconvenient to his fantasies.

I guess he thinks this company does not exist.: http://www.flowcorp.com/waterjet-pr...e&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=flowwatercutter

Or that they rip off thier customers.
May he can visit them personaly to prove that thier product or comapny does not exists

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Wierd, I remember seeing that video on a PBS documentary years before 9/11.

I guess they made this video in advance of the troothers arguments back when they were putting C4 on the 4" rebar during the construction of the WTC towers.

maybe i was a but hasty n saying "some" truthers, it seems its mainly killtown, but man, is he ever prolific about it

I'm going to say that this Sandia F4 Rocket-sled Test is psyops meant to help explain why the four planes on 9/11 vanished to the sheep out there. I doubt this test was made in 1988. Did anybody see this test before 9/11? I sure didn't.

(no link, sorry, it was somewhere at LCF)

but theres more:

Can you show me another plane crash of a large plane that it's tail did what you claim 93's did besides the fake plane crashes on 9/11 or the Sandia F4 psyops experiment?

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=735&st=90

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=472

http://s10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/ar/t453.htm

 

[Apollo20]

One very interesting result of the F-4 Phantom aircraft impact test concerns what happened to the TARGET:

The target was 469 tonnes of reinforced concrete in the form of a 7 meter square, 3.66 meter thick block.

Here is what was said about the target after the aircraft impact:

"Damage to the target was relatively minor indicating that the major portion of the impact energy was absorbed in moving the target and not in producing structural damage. The target was displaced 1.83 meters against the back-up structure and rebounded."

About 35 milliseconds into the impact the target exhibited a peak acceleration of about 50 g's.

However, NIST's aircraft impact analysis model ASSUMES that 100 % of the impact energy went into plastic deformation and fracture of the aircraft and the WTC columns and floor slabs in the impact zone.

I would like to see some proof that this is a valid assumption when we know that the top of WTC 2 was displaced about 50 cm by the aircraft impact!

 

[DGM]

One very interesting result of the F-4 Phantom aircraft impact test concerns what happened to the TARGET:

The target was 469 tonnes of reinforced concrete in the form of a 7 meter square, 3.66 meter thick block.

Here is what was said about the target after the aircraft impact:

"Damage to the target was relatively minor indicating that the major portion of the impact energy was absorbed in moving the target and not in producing structural damage. The target was displaced 1.83 meters against the back-up structure and rebounded."

About 35 milliseconds into the impact the target exhibited a peak acceleration of about 50 g's.

However, NIST's aircraft impact analysis model ASSUMES that 100 % of the impact energy went into plastic deformation and fracture of the aircraft and the WTC columns and floor slabs in the impact zone.

I would like to see some proof that this is a valid assumption when we know that the top of WTC 2 was displaced about 50 cm by the aircraft impact!

Wouldn't that have a lot to do with the objects ability to absorb the impact? Surely a concrete block would allow for more transfer of energy to movement than a steel column. Is this not true?

 

[Apollo20]

DGM:

I am simply quoting the published numbers for the deflection of the target in the Sandia test vs. the WTC 2 deflections. And of course they are different,... but in each case the target recoiled. That's the point!

If you could quantify the energy transfers involved in each case that would be great!

And I would certainly be interested in what value you used for the flexural rigidity (EI) of the towers. The values I have seen look too high.....

 

[Furcifer]

Apollo: Why not calculate the deflection of all the floors involved, then i could calculate the transient effects and see how they relate. The way you're doing it now is decptive, I assume this is the intent? I can respect what you are questioning, but don't you agree it amounts to FA in the end? It's a tiny amount of energy we are talking about isn't it? I'm just curious if you think this is where the conspiracy lies? In the little ommitted details.

 

[bjb]

Apollo: This video is more applicable to the crash of flight 93 in Shanksville. The immovable object in this case was the ground so the plane was turned into little tiny pieces. The WTC towers are a different case because the airplanes penetrated well into the towers and pieces even came out the other sides.

 

[Apollo20]

3bodyproblem:

When you say: "Don't you agree it amounts to FA in the end?"

No!

As a Newtonian mechanic I would say it amounts to F = MA!

The problem is in selecting the mass!

If you use Timoshenko's approach you get the very interesting result that for the aircraft impact on a tower you must use a reduced mass of 33/140 times the actual mass.

BJB:

Sure some of the aircraft's mass was ejected. This can be included in the calculation.

Once the calculation is done we can see if the observed deflection is reasonable.

How do we know there wasn't a bomb on the aircraft?

 

[Max Photon]

Max Photon, the ValuJet crash, Flight 93, and terra not-so-firma.

Apollo: This video is more applicable to the crash of flight 93 in Shanksville. The immovable object in this case was the ground so the plane was turned into little tiny pieces. The WTC towers are a different case because the airplanes penetrated well into the towers and pieces even came out the other sides.

BJB,

I am not sure that your are interpreting Shanksville correctly.

Flight 93 is said to have crashed at the edge of a reclaimed mine.

Basically, the jet is said to have crashed into fill.

Military deception planners chose this site, because they realized from the ValuJet crash into a swamp (in which the jet simply disappeared), that if the crash were claimed to have occurred into fill, then - again - the jet would just disappear.

What a great way to pretend a jet crashed.


Note that military deception planners had to choose a spot near an access road, so they could dig their little hole. (It's impossible to go out in a grassy field and not leave trails and footprints.)



Here is the ValuJet crash site:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/11/plane.crash/6p/crash.site.large.jpg


Here is the Shanksville "crash site"

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/aerial_wdr.jpg


Anyway, my point is that the ground at Shanksville may not have been quite as immovable as one might think.


Cheers!

Max

* * *

 

[Max Photon]

Max Photon asks: Was there a bomb on the jet? In the tower? Improvised from both?

3bodyproblem:

When you say: "Don't you agree it amounts to FA in the end?"

No!

As a Newtonian mechanic I would say it amounts to F = MA!

The problem is in selecting the mass!

If you use Timoshenko's approach you get the very interesting result that for the aircraft impact on a tower you must use a reduced mass of 33/140 times the actual mass.

BJB:

Sure some of the aircraft's mass was ejected. This can be included in the calculation.

Once the calculation is done we can see if the observed deflection is reasonable.

How do we know there wasn't a bomb on the aircraft?

Apollo20,

I extend your fine question.

• How do we know there wasn't a bomb on the aircraft?
  
• How do we know there wasn't a bomb in the tower?
  
• How do we know there wasn't an improvised bomb (using materials in both the aircraft and the tower)?

Max

* * *

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Military deception planners chose this site, because they realized from the ValuJet crash into a swamp (in which the jet simply disappeared), that if the crash were claimed to have occurred into fill, then - again - the jet would just disappear.

What a great way to pretend a jet crashed.


Note that military deception planners had to choose a spot near an access road, so they could dig their little hole. (It's impossible to go out in a grassy field and not leave trails and footprints.)


Cheers!

Max

* * *

doesnt seem very clever to me, if i were a "military deception planner" id just dump a load of fuel into the middle of lake erie and claim it crashed there

no wreckage? its all at the bottome of the lake!
no bodies? their all at the bottom of the lake!
no evidence? bottom of the lake!


it took me about 5 seconds to come up with this apparently superior deception, so ill assume the real conspirators had less planning time

 

[Apollo20]

Is it true that the movie "Flight 93" shows a hijacker with a bomb strapped to his body?

Why not smuggle a bomb or two on to all those flights?

 

[Corsair 115]

Why not smuggle a bomb or two on to all those flights?

Why take the risk? A fake bomb is just as good at keeping passengers co-operative as is a real one. After all, the passengers don't know it's a fake; they'd assume it's the real thing unless they had a good reason to think otherwise.

 

[Bell]

Is it true that the movie "Flight 93" shows a hijacker with a bomb strapped to his body?

Why not smuggle a bomb or two on to all those flights?

The Hijacking of United 175

The hijackers attacked sometime between 8:42 and 8:46.They used knives (as reported by two passengers and a flight attendant), Mace (reported by one passenger), and the threat of a bomb (reported by the same passenger).

The Battle for United 93

At least ten passengers and two crew members shared vital information with family, friends, colleagues, or others on the ground. All understood the plane had been hijacked. They said the hijackers wielded knives and claimed to have a bomb.

Source: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

But I don't see why this is important?

ETA: Oops

The Hijacking of American 11

The hijackers quickly gained control and sprayed Mace, pepper spray, or some other irritant in the first-class cabin, in order to force the passengers and flight attendants toward the rear of the plane.They claimed they had a bomb.

 

[Apollo20]

A bomb on the flight 11 or 175 aircraft hijacked on 9/11 would make a difference to the analysis of the impact dynamics and the elasto-plastic structural response of WTC 1 & 2.

Since there were no tests carried out for explosive residues at GZ, how do we know there wasn't a bomb on the aircraft?

 

[Bell]

A bomb on the flight 11 or 175 aircraft hijacked on 9/11 would make a difference to the analysis of the impact dynamics and the elasto-plastic structural response of WTC 1 & 2.

Since there were no tests carried out for explosive residues at GZ, how do we know there wasn't a bomb on the aircraft?

In all fairness... would a bomb onboard have such more impact on the destruction of the towers? Imho it would have differed nothing.

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper851/stills/3cb2ffac16b34-38-1.jpg

 

[Gravy]

Good lord. Someone should get Apollo working on that unsolved pod/missile mystery.

 

[Max Photon]

Apollo20, do you like your thermite neat, or on-the-rocks?

A bomb on the flight 11 or 175 aircraft hijacked on 9/11 would make a difference to the analysis of the impact dynamics and the elasto-plastic structural response of WTC 1 & 2.

Since there were no tests carried out for explosive residues at GZ, how do we know there wasn't a bomb on the aircraft?

And I would add that even if they had tested for explosive residues, a thermite+water explosion would not have revealed any traces of explosives.


Apollo20, along those lines, I have a general question.

There are several videos on the internet that show thermite+ice explosions.

Here is just one:

Video of thermite + ice explosion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MvvxndPDTk


You're - like - a genius.

What causes the explosion?

I say it is not just a steam (littoral) explosion.

I say it is a hydrogen explosion.


I would really appreciate your thoughts.


Max


* * *

 

[Apollo20]

Bell:

Showing a photo of the impact of the aircraft hitting WTC 2 and saying a bomb would have made no difference is no help! What if that IS a photo of the bomb!

Please show me a photo of a similar aircraft impact where you KNOW for sure there was no bomb!

Maxwell:

A genius? I thought I was a miserable old curmudgeon!

Anyway, I beleive the temperatures attained by burning thermite would be high enough to dissociate H2O into H2 + O2 - so I guess a hydrogen explosion is possible in such circumstances... But I would have to look up the thermodynamic data to say more.