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

[Dave Rogers]

As an aside, but related none the less, I have on numerous occasions, quoted your paper. In particular, the calculation of "the kinetic energy required to collapse 1 floor of the WTC". I find this a defining calculation seperating "total global collapse" from "WTF". I have put much of my, for lack of a better word, "faith" in this number (much more so than NCSTAR). My question then is this: "Am I a GreenIAN?"

That's a very good point - I'd have to number myself among the ranks of... Can we call ourselves Apollonians? It sounds more impressive.

Dave

 

[Furcifer]

Dave: Thanks for responding. There were only a few people that I would expect to relate to this, you being one of them. I don't expect anyone to agree, in my eyes agree would be to conside. It's just nice to know someone can try to reason as I do. Or as I say, as least relate.

 

[jaydeehess]

This topic gets me thinking about just what happens when an aircraft hits really fast into something. Until 911, and the CTs about it, I didn't realize that a commercial jet slamming into reinforced concrete, or even the ground, at a high rate of speed, could instantly vaporize not only bodies, but luggage, seats, cell phones, aluminum, titanium, and just about everything else on a jet.

It really is amazing. Looking at the Shankesville crash, just slamming into the ground really fast is enough to vaporize almost everything, including the aircraft itself. It isn't hard to understand why some people don't believe it. Before 911, crashes always left all kinds of a mess. But if you crash at high speeds, there isn't much left.

Typical misrepresentation of facts.

It is not that things were vaporized just because Killtown could not see them in photos, it is because everything gets broken into smaller parts that scatter with the attendant dirt and gravel. Only an idiot expects there to be a lot of large pieces.

 

[robinson]

It is not that things were vaporized just because Killtown could not see them in photos, it is because everything gets broken into smaller parts that scatter with the attendant dirt and gravel.

Watching the video of the fighter jet smashing into the reinforced wall makes it clear that vaporization, or at least really really small pieces, is what happens when an aircraft hits head on at high speeds.

Most crashes are not at high speeds, or directly into something. I imagine the pilot is trying very hard to avoid that scenario. Usually there is obvious evidence, you can tell a plane or jet has crashed. The photos and videos of the 911 crashes have no obvious parts, so it looks like there wasn't a jet.

Of course there is some stuff left, I can see it in the photos.

I'm not sure I want to know, but who is Killtown? And why would you mention him/her?

 

[jaydeehess]

Watching the video of the fighter jet smashing into the reinforced wall makes it clear that vaporization, or at least really really small pieces, is what happens when an aircraft hits head on at high speeds.

Most crashes are not at high speeds, or directly into something. I imagine the pilot is trying very hard to avoid that scenario. Usually there is obvious evidence, you can tell a plane or jet has crashed. The photos and videos of the 911 crashes have no obvious parts, so it looks like there wasn't a jet.

Of course there is some stuff left, I can see it in the photos.

I'm not sure I want to know, but who is Killtown? And why would you mention him/her?

If you google Killtown you will find his web pages in which he comes up with many a fantastic senario for the events of 9/11/01 including the one in which a trench was dug in a feild in Penn. some aircraft parts strewn about, the bush nearby lit on fire and a small amount of fuel poured in the trench and set on fire to corresspond with an explosive to make it sound like something crashed.

Yes, in almost every case of a crash the pilots are trying desperatly to control their craft and not die. It is rare that an aircraft slams into a solid object at high speed and near orthagonal direction. In the case of the F4 into the solid concrete block the tips of the wings are outside the width of the block and those parts would have suffered less break up. Even the dense parts of it were broken.

While the concrete block would be harder than the ground in Shankesville, it also could move somewhat whereas the Earth did not and this was a strip mine reclaim area and just below the layer of gravel and topsoil would be a layer of large broken rock, the remains of the overburden from the mine. Basically the plane hit a few feet of upper soil then hit almost solid rock.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Okay, so someone wanted to know how that big concrete block in the J-79 Fuesalage test was held down. It wasn't. I work with the engineer who designed part of that thing so I just asked him

The big concrete blocks were cast on the ground and then tilted up on the sled tracks. It was then rolled up against the tower. Craaazy.

 

[T.A.M.]

This topic gets me thinking about just what happens when an aircraft hits really fast into something. Until 911, and the CTs about it, I didn't realize that a commercial jet slamming into reinforced concrete, or even the ground, at a high rate of speed, could instantly vaporize not only bodies, but luggage, seats, cell phones, aluminum, titanium, and just about everything else on a jet.

It really is amazing. Looking at the Shankesville crash, just slamming into the ground really fast is enough to vaporize almost everything, including the aircraft itself. It isn't hard to understand why some people don't believe it. Before 911, crashes always left all kinds of a mess. But if you crash at high speeds, there isn't much left.

I hate the word "vaporize" in this context. I have not seen any proof of large amounts of "Vaporization", but there was overwhelming evidence of smashing the craft into many millions of tiny pieces.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

I would be a "Greenian" if he were not so darn crooked and nasty to the NISTIANs all the time. I believe in his science, I applaud his refusal to side with the CTs (although I think at times he wants to) because the science forbids him, I admire his persistence....

I won't go into yet again the things that I dislike...let just say..."Can anyone say beat the dead horse".

TAM

 

[Norseman]

While the concrete block would be harder than the ground in Shankesville, it also could move somewhat whereas the Earth did not and this was a strip mine reclaim area and just below the layer of gravel and topsoil would be a layer of large broken rock, the remains of the overburden from the mine. Basically the plane hit a few feet of upper soil then hit almost solid rock.

I need to do some kind neat picking here.

The FBI excavated the Shanksville crash site down to 45 feet looking for clues. If I remember correctly they went all the way down to the bedrock. There are some photos of the excavation at end of this presentation showing the make up of the ground at the crash site.

But this does not matter much because at these speeds even water behaves like concrete. Take look at the photographs on page 60 of the accident report for Silk Air Flight MI 185. The aircraft reached supersonic speeds before it crashed into a river. Not much left.

Another tragic example is the muddy crash site of Trans-Canada Airlines aircraft that crashed on November 29 1963.

 

[robinson]

I'm thinking that combined with the jet fuel, the high speed impact AND instant fireball would lead to vaporization of most of the craft. Powdered aluminum mixed with jet fuel, guess what that makes? No no, don't actually try that at home. I'm considering doing a simple experiment about this.

Using a potato gun, an aluminum soda can full of water could be shot into solid concrete. If the speed is about 500 mph (probably even less), I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be much left to see.

Then do it with the can full of jet fuel. I'm betting there won't be a single piece of aluminum left. This experiment has the added benefit of being a very cool YouTube video.

As to the ground crash, even dirt, as was pointed out, is going to be like concrete at those speeds, and with an almost direct hit.

I can imagine both the impact and the fireball would simply destroy almost everything. This is no doubt what happened at the Pentagon as well. Almost instant pressure and flame, destroying almost everything.

 

[jaydeehess]

Robinson, Try it but I don't think you will be able to get the velocity you need to break up the aluminum into small enough bits to ignite.

Thanks for the correction norseman.

 

[robinson]

Robinson, Try it but I don't think you will be able to get the velocity you need to break up the aluminum into small enough bits to ignite.

Well, to be scientific I could grind some aluminum up and just set it on fire with some jet fuel.

I wonder what will happen ...

 

[PhantomWolf]

Well the fact is that 95% of the plane was recovered, so quite simply it didn't vapourise, or burn. Perhaps the better word would be disintergrate, though even that might lead some to think "turn to dust" rather that the idea of being torn into little bitty pieces.

 

[rwguinn]

Well the fact is that 95% of the plane was recovered, so quite simply it didn't vapourise, or burn. Perhaps the better word would be disintergrate, though even that might lead some to think "turn to dust" rather that the idea of being torn into little bitty pieces.

"Shredded" is the term that most closely describes what happened.

 

[robinson]

Well the fact is that 95% of the plane was recovered, so quite simply it didn't vaporise, or burn.

Which jet? Do you have a source for that information? Are you saying 95% of the aircraft survived? What percentage of the people, luggage, personal belongings, etc survived?

I thought there were no bodies recovered, from either the Pentagon or the Shanksville site. I would bet you have an official site that has this information, right? I'm interested in reading about it.

Don't misunderstand, I never thought there was anything but jet airliners involved on 911.

 

[TjW]

Recovered is not a synonym for survived.

 

[BenBurch]

Robinson,

I believe he is referring to flight 93, and by survived he means "survived in a form that the recovery workers could still recognize as a shredded aircraft part or shredded victim."

-Ben

 

[LashL]

Robinson,

It appears to me that the issue being taken with a couple of your posts is the use of the words "vapourized" and "survived".

The planes and their contents were not "vapourized" but rather shredded into (mostly) very small pieces. Reportedly, a large percentage of the plane known as Flight 93 was recovered from the field in Shanksville and eventually turned over to UA.

None of the passengers "survived" the crashes, obviously, but sufficient remains were recovered to enable DNA identification of nearly all of them.

In addition, numerous pieces of detritus (papers, luggage, identification cards, calling cards, etc.) from both sites were recovered and identified.

 

[R.Mackey]

I'm thinking that combined with the jet fuel, the high speed impact AND instant fireball would lead to vaporization of most of the craft. Powdered aluminum mixed with jet fuel, guess what that makes? No no, don't actually try that at home. I'm considering doing a simple experiment about this.

Using a potato gun, an aluminum soda can full of water could be shot into solid concrete. If the speed is about 500 mph (probably even less), I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be much left to see.

Purdue University has been doing exactly this as part of their validation experiments for their recreation of the WTC impacts. The destruction is considerable, but probably not as incredible as you think.

Then do it with the can full of jet fuel. I'm betting there won't be a single piece of aluminum left. This experiment has the added benefit of being a very cool YouTube video.

As to the ground crash, even dirt, as was pointed out, is going to be like concrete at those speeds, and with an almost direct hit.

I can imagine both the impact and the fireball would simply destroy almost everything. This is no doubt what happened at the Pentagon as well. Almost instant pressure and flame, destroying almost everything.

No, probably not. Jet fuel is less dense than water, so there's less kinetic energy. The fireball energy will not be significant, since it has to aerosolize before it explodes, and once it does the initial heating is actually fairly minor -- the Flight 93 fireball, for instance, does not appear to have output enough heat to burn dry grass (a result predicted by theory), and the fires that resulted were due to the remainder of jet fuel that didn't explode.

If the jet fuel in your soda-can-HPA-cannon experiment doesn't explode but instead ignites and burns, then it will certainly melt the shredded aluminum remains. But I gravely doubt you will ever vaporize much aluminum, and only that little at impact. Science and experiment predict small but visible shards, not total destruction, and this is what we saw at all four crash sites.

 

[robinson]

Recovered is not a synonym for survived.

Yeah, I guess it should have been worded, how much of the remains survived?

Science and experiment predict small but visible shards, not total destruction, and this is what we saw at all four crash sites.

So there was almost invisible shredded material all over the place? That is why it looks like so little "survived" the crash? In a form that was recognizable?

I have to agree with the CT people on the lack of photos or information at times. As I hinted, I would bet you have an official site that has this information, right? I'm interested in reading about it.

Pictures of the tiny little pieces of aluminum, steel and titanium would be cool. It really is amazing how little obvious-jet-crash material there was. In the few photos and videos.

But then, watching the video of the crash test, it is obvious that there isn't going to be much left after that kind of impact. I still want to know what happens when you slam a fighter full of fuel into that concrete test wall.