-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
What happens when an aircraft hits something that is not inclined to move?
- Thread starter furrod
- Start date
quoted and bolded as a reminder to the author (a future reminder the next time you slip)...
TAM
Apollo20:
I have a wonderful idea. Why don't you, and the "9/11 truth" scientist of your choice put together a paper listing all of the NIST errors, and then submit them to a scientific journal for publication. IF the two of you have the know how, you could even provide the proper answers to correct their errors. I would LOVE to see such a paper, as it would get everything out in the open, said and done with.
TAM
I have a wonderful idea. Why don't you, and the "9/11 truth" scientist of your choice put together a paper listing all of the NIST errors, and then submit them to a scientific journal for publication. IF the two of you have the know how, you could even provide the proper answers to correct their errors. I would LOVE to see such a paper, as it would get everything out in the open, said and done with.
TAM
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
I don't.
I think NIST has the collapse initiation wrong but that is based on my engineering intuition, nothing more concrete. Theirs is plausible too. I have done my own calculations of the energies involved and can see no deficit that needs to be made up for with explosives or magic nano-thermate. I had in fact calculated long before how much gravitational potential energy was in a building that size, so I was not wholly surprised when they collapsed.
Good science STARTS with accepting the observed dataset. You can't just go moving data points around to suit what you want to find. We observed two jets crashing into two buildings. Two jets were missing. Scientifically this is a slam dunk UNLESS you can SHOW me the missing aircraft somewhere else. Until you have that, son, you have bupkis.
TAM:
It's funny how you always show up when I start to criticize NIST!
But please let's stick to the thread topic!
BenBurch:
Who's moving data points? I am providing a list of estimates of the impact force from the aircraft impact on WTC 2. All reported values, except NIST's, are over 150 MN.
If you are not concerned about that fine, that's your prerogative I guess.
It's funny how you always show up when I start to criticize NIST!
But please let's stick to the thread topic!
BenBurch:
Who's moving data points? I am providing a list of estimates of the impact force from the aircraft impact on WTC 2. All reported values, except NIST's, are over 150 MN.
If you are not concerned about that fine, that's your prerogative I guess.
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
I think it's funny how your criticism's of NIST get posted on JREF and haven't been presented in a scientific format. If I'm incorrect, I apologize and please let me know how you've published them.
someone has got to keep you in check
Maybe it just seems that way because all you ever comment on are errors in NIST.
TAM
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,592
Huston, we have an error.
The information is in the errors.
The information is in the errors.
The information is in the errors.
* * *
someone has got to keep you in check
Maybe it just seems that way because all you ever comment on are errors in NIST.
TAM
The information is in the errors.
The information is in the errors.
The information is in the errors.
* * *
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Fixed that one for yousomeone has got to keep you in check
Maybe it just seems that way because all you ever comment on areerrorsstuff you don't want to understand in NIST.
TAM
Apollo20:
I have a wonderful idea. Why don't you, and the "9/11 truth" scientist of your choice put together a paper listing all of the NIST errors, and then submit them to a scientific journal for publication. IF the two of you have the know how, you could even provide the proper answers to correct their errors. I would LOVE to see such a paper, as it would get everything out in the open, said and done with.
TAM
In cased you missed it Dr. Greening. Perhaps Max could be your "9/11 truth scientist".
Would love to see the article. Anyway, sorry for the derail...continue to point out some more errors.
TAM
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
An interesting thing about flexible bodies is that they can sustain extremely high g-levels locally, and not transmit that g level to the entire structure. (Yes, the force goes into the structure.)
That is because they bend, or even break.
The accelerometers on the WTC were designed to show the overall acceleration of the building.
They will not register the local accelerations on the impact area.
The overall building acceleration can be defined by
W^2=a/D
W^2=((1/11.5)*2*pi)^2=.298
D=50cm=19.7 in (Dr. Apollo20's number
Acceleration at top of WTC:.298*19.7=6 inches per second = .015 g
That is the BUILDING acceleration.
Local accelerations would be in excess of 100g, at places and depending on what was hit, at what angle, and by what.
ETA: Another way of putting it:
A 2200 lb automobile undergoes a tractive force of 300 lb. What is its acceleration?
A 80000 lb semi truch undergoes a tractive force of 300 lb. What is its acceleration?
Same force, different accelerations--as anyone who has been stuck behind a Texan in a Winnebago in the Colorado Rockies can testify...
Last edited:
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Only because it doesn't matter to the outcome. You have to show a reason to not believe that two loaded hijacked aircraft smacked into two occupied office towers setting off a chain reaction of death that is still playing out to this day. And you haven't. The conclusion that is what happened was arrived at without recourse to analysis of the forces involved and if you believe that what happened was not what any rational observer believed he had seen then YOU need to show compelling proof. Picking holes in a technical analysis aimed at establishing new building codes does not constitute proof.
Slayhamlet
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 2,423
Oh god. Now you're even imitating the lame puns of your new "special" friend.
A new low for you, I must say
BenBurch:
You have the audacity to say that I HAVE to show a reason to not believe that two loaded hijacked aircraft smacked into two occupied office towers setting off a chain reaction of death that is still playing out to this day.
Who are you to say what I HAVE to do, and what has this strange comment got to do with the theme of the debate of this thread?
We are discussing the physics of the aircraft impacts in case you haven't noticed.
Please stay on topic: "What happens when an aircraft hits something...etc"
If the topic does not interest you, please do not try to derail the discussion for those who are interested in it.
You have the audacity to say that I HAVE to show a reason to not believe that two loaded hijacked aircraft smacked into two occupied office towers setting off a chain reaction of death that is still playing out to this day.
Who are you to say what I HAVE to do, and what has this strange comment got to do with the theme of the debate of this thread?
We are discussing the physics of the aircraft impacts in case you haven't noticed.
Please stay on topic: "What happens when an aircraft hits something...etc"
If the topic does not interest you, please do not try to derail the discussion for those who are interested in it.
deep
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 1,367
If what you believe happened really did happen, the facts will back that up. Dr. Greening is attempting to collaborate with other members of this forum to correct errors contained in the NIST report that were previously regarded as "facts".
If you're 100% positive that NIST was correct in their conclusion, you have nothing to worry about, because the corrected facts will support that conclusion. Your argument that none of this "matters to the outcome" is not sound, or more specifically, an example of aprioristic reasoning.
--
"We do not need to look through your telescope, Mr. Galileo. We know there cannot be more than seven heavenly bodies."
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Nonsense. Because NIST could be substantially wrong in their engineering assessment and that still will not change the fact that two airliners crashed into two buildings, causing them to collapse. That part is not open to doubt as it is in the shared data set - We all saw it, and ordinary perception is sufficient to make the conclusions required.
Again, the only way to falsify that is to show physical evidence that this did not occur.
And nobody has.
Again, the only way to falsify that is to show physical evidence that this did not occur.
And nobody has.
Furcifer
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 13,797
There's too much jumping back and forth from "Force" to "Energy" in this discussion. By my last recollection we have yet to determine a "mass" for the WTC. In addition you have the chemical potential energy in the fuel, so what "Force" is associated with the combustion process? I can kinda see where you are going with this Apollo, but I'm leaning towards NIST not showing their work as opposed to "bad science" (as of now) And to be fair, NCSTAR wasn't an experiment, it was an accident investigation.
you haven't run across the "no-planers" yet have you Ben.
(hint, they would argue with you on your claim that two planes hit the WTCs).
TAM