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

[Max Photon]

The No Skateboard Theory

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

TAM,

I hear you support the No Skateboard Theory (NST).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...135&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

I bet JREF feels like home.


Max

 

[Max Photon]

9/11 truth is right there in the errors, in plain view, for the whole world to see

Maxwell:

Would that be information in errors that are hiding in plane sight so to speak?

Indeed.

You know Apollo, I suspect you are the only person here who gets it.


For those who don't get it...


Covering up evidence is a crime.

So why cover up evidence?

Hide the evidence in plain view, as any magician would.


How did military deception (MILDEC) planners hide evidence in plain view?

They reduced the chroma or saturation of the information.

They told the truth - but they desaturated the truth.

Painter know that to paint natural looking portraits, one typically needs to use unsaturated colors (information).

MILDEC planners also know how to paint natural-looking portraits using grey.

In fact, the evidence was destroyed, and finite element analysis was put in its place. Why? Because modeling such over-driven systems only produces noise - ambiguous noise that can be Mackey'ed around until the sun supernovas.


Using Paul's Magic Filter to filter out the military deception, one can clearly see the controlled demolitions of the WTC towers fully explained in the NIST reports!

You just need to know how and where to look.

Whenever you feel the resistance of ambiguity - dig there!

And as you fit your models to resolve the ambiguity, never forget, the information is in the errors.


Cheers!

Max

 

[gumboot]

Indeed.

You know Apollo, I suspect you are the only person here who gets it.


For those who don't get it...


Covering up evidence is a crime.

So why cover up evidence?

Hide the evidence in plain view, as any magician would.


How did military deception (MILDEC) planners hide evidence in plain view?

They reduced the chroma or saturation of the information.

They told the truth - but they desaturated the truth.

Painter know that to paint natural looking portraits, one typically needs to use unsaturated colors (information).

MILDEC planners also know how to paint natural-looking portraits using grey.

In fact, the evidence was destroyed, and finite element analysis was put in its place. Why? Because modeling such over-driven systems only produces noise - ambiguous noise that can be Mackey'ed around until the sun supernovas.


Using Paul's Magic Filter to filter out the military deception, one can clearly see the controlled demolitions of the WTC towers fully explained in the NIST reports!

You just need to know how and where to look.

Whenever you feel the resistance of ambiguity - dig there!

And as you fit your models to resolve the ambiguity, never forget, the information is in the errors.


Cheers!

Max

Are you feeling okay?

-Gumboot

 

[deep]

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.

Calm down. Nobody is claiming that two airliners didn't crash into the building - not sure where you got that idea from. Dr. Greening pointed out that certain calculations found in the NIST report (relating to the impact of one of the planes) appear to be incorrect.

 

[rwguinn]

Calm down. Nobody is claiming that two airliners didn't crash into the building - not sure where you got that idea from. Dr. Greening pointed out that certain calculations found in the NIST report (relating to the impact of one of the planes) appear to be incorrect.

Y'all ain't from 'round here, are ya? That is exactly what a fair number of troofers propose.
And it has also been pointed pout that Dr. Greening may be incorrect in his assumption that NIST was incorrect.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Calm down. Nobody is claiming that two airliners didn't crash into the building - not sure where you got that idea from.

Google "Ace Baker" or "Morgan Reynolds". Just don't blame me for the effect it has on you.

Dave

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Google "Ace Baker" or "Morgan Reynolds". Just don't blame me for the effect it has on you.

Dave

and if thats not enough self punishment, google killtown

 

[cloudshipsrule]

All reported values, except NIST's, are over 150 MN.

That's a lot of fig newtons!

 

[T.A.M.]

Calm down. Nobody is claiming that two airliners didn't crash into the building - not sure where you got that idea from. Dr. Greening pointed out that certain calculations found in the NIST report (relating to the impact of one of the planes) appear to be incorrect.

You have heard of the "No-Planers" havent you?

TAM

 

[rwguinn]

On an on-topic note:
How long do y'all figure we need to hold our breath before Apollo:
1. Admits he has no clue about structural dynamics, or
2. Publishes calculations to show I don't have one...

 

[Apollo20]

Structural Dynamics 101

Well, let's keep it simple for the engineers on this thread:

Let's use V^2 = 2as

Assume the aircraft penetrated the perimeter wall and was stopped somewhere near the middle of the tower. Let's say within a distance of 20 meters.

Acceleration, a = (250)^2 / (2 x 20) = 1563 m/s^2 or about 160 g's

Now use F=Ma

F = 124,000 x 1563 = 194 MN

Not bad in comparison to Riera and Mendis.

Not good in comparison to NIST.

And remember the outer wall of WTC 2 offered very little resistance to the aircraft. (See Wierzbicki's paper, where he estimates only 4 % of the impact KE was consumed by the aircraft penetrating the exterior wall).

So, anyway you cut it, NIST's 75 MN is too low and cannot be correct!

Q.E.D.

So arguing one, have you tried calculating the flexural rigidity of a tower?

The real question is what to use for the second moment of area. W. Schueller gives a value of 1,587,601 ft^4, but that looks a bit high to me...

What do you think?

P.S.

Glad to see I set you straight on the meaning of % critical damping...

 

[LashL]

<snip>
Assume the aircraft penetrated the perimeter wall and was stopped somewhere near the middle of the tower. Let's say within a distance of 20 meters.

Acceleration, a = (250)^2 / (2 x 20) = 1563 m/s^2 or about 160 g's

Now use F=Ma

F = 124,000 x 1563 = 194 MN

Since the towers were each ~63.4m across each face, why would you choose 20m as "near the middle" rather than a more accurate ~30m? Wouldn't a more accurate figure make a considerable difference to the calculation?

ETA: Using 30m, wouldn't that make the result 129 MN rather than 194 MN?

 

[Apollo20]

You can use any number you want as long as it's REASONABLE...

Obviously you don't understand the point being made here...

Perhaps RWGUINN could explain it to you.

Personally I prefer to use the Energy Theorm, (See Knudsen's book, page 205.), to calculate the strain energy, how about you?

 

[LashL]

You can use any number you want as long as it's REASONABLE...

Okay, but why use a number that is 1/3 shy of the middle and describe it as "near the middle" instead of just choosing a point that is much closer to the middle? Obviously, the result using a number nearer "the middle" gives a result much closer to the NIST figure that you got by using your 20m figure.

Obviously you don't understand the point being made here...

Perhaps not, but I do recognize sophistry when I see it.

 

[Furcifer]

Constant velocity? In this collision? Please, don't include this calculation when you send your paper to NIST accusing them of bad science.

 

[Apollo20]

3bodyguy:

Constant velocity?

Where?

Please explain.

 

[Furcifer]

250 m/s over 20 m?

 

[pomeroo]

Indeed.

You know Apollo, I suspect you are the only person here who gets it.


For those who don't get it...


Covering up evidence is a crime.

So why cover up evidence?

Hide the evidence in plain view, as any magician would.


How did military deception (MILDEC) planners hide evidence in plain view?

They reduced the chroma or saturation of the information.

They told the truth - but they desaturated the truth.

Painter know that to paint natural looking portraits, one typically needs to use unsaturated colors (information).

MILDEC planners also know how to paint natural-looking portraits using grey.

In fact, the evidence was destroyed, and finite element analysis was put in its place. Why? Because modeling such over-driven systems only produces noise - ambiguous noise that can be Mackey'ed around until the sun supernovas.


Using Paul's Magic Filter to filter out the military deception, one can clearly see the controlled demolitions of the WTC towers fully explained in the NIST reports!

You just need to know how and where to look.

Whenever you feel the resistance of ambiguity - dig there!

And as you fit your models to resolve the ambiguity, never forget, the information is in the errors.


Cheers!

Max

You are crumbling, Max. Toto has pulled the curtain.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Assume the aircraft penetrated the perimeter wall and was stopped somewhere near the middle of the tower. Let's say within a distance of 20 meters.

From most of the things I have seen, it's believed that the plane wreackage make it right the way across the towers.

 

[gumboot]

Assume the aircraft penetrated the perimeter wall and was stopped somewhere near the middle of the tower. Let's say within a distance of 20 meters.

Why would you assume something that the evidence demonstrates is not true?

Given that some of the aircraft debris went right through the towers and out the other side, and given that the video and photographic evidence indicates the aircraft impact moved debris (both aircraft and building contents) right against the opposite wall, I'd say your assumption is a very bad one.

-Gumboot