Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

3bodyproblem said:
That's not possible. At least from a modeling standpoint. As you are well aware, key elements were obstructed from view, let alone every contact point.
Click to expand...

It has been done in the past by our Japanese friends, e.g. they assumed two structures colliding and they simulated it by proper structural damage analysis (a couple of 1000 FEM analysis of each step of failures/load pathes total CPU time three weeks). Then there was a full scale test with plenty of failures. Simulation and full scale test compared pretty well.
Evidently the model simulation by PC is full scale. Easy to do same thing with WTC 1 with present technology ... but not yet done.
 
Wood meets steel. steel loses.

Last night I was watching Dirty Jobs. They were salvaging a steel river barge on the Mississippi in St Louis. This barge was double hulled, A man could walk between the hulls at the ends. During its last shipment it was filled with grain. It collided with a group of wood pilings that were roped together while attempting to dock. One end of this barge was crushed in a total of twelve feet. it sank.
 
R.Mackey said:
To Homeland Insecurity, your claim that I'm making a case for explosions in the Towers (at impact??) is just plain stupid. No further comment is needed.
Click to expand...

No. You compared a ship hit with a bomb to the WTC Mackey. If it's stupid then why did you do it? I don't think you are stupid Mackey.

Bagdad after shock and awe.

http://planetsean.blogspot.com/statuecrowd%20(3).jpg

A burning building in New Belgrade after it was hit by NATO air-strikes. NATO jets struck the 18-story high-rise building with at least three missiles.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~craigg/g4c/usce-victor.jpg

Hiroshima Gembaku Dome after hit with an atomic weapon.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Hiroshima_Gembaku_Dome_1_lightened.jpg

Lower Manhattan after being hit with two airplanes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...s_With_Original_Building_Locations.jpg/800px-

Do not hotlink images from another site - see Rule 4.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Homeland Insurgency said:
No. You compared a ship hit with a bomb to the WTC Mackey. If it's stupid then why did you do it? I don't think you are stupid Mackey.

Bagdad after shock and awe.

[qimg]http://planetsean.blogspot.com/statuecrowd%20(3).jpg[/qimg]

A burning building in New Belgrade after it was hit by NATO air-strikes. NATO jets struck the 18-story high-rise building with at least three missiles.

[qimg]http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ecraigg/g4c/usce-victor.jpg[/qimg]

Hiroshima Gembaku Dome after hit with an atomic weapon.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Hiroshima_Gembaku_Dome_1_lightened.jpg[/qimg]

Lower Manhattan after being hit with two airplanes.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/World_Trade_Center_Site_After_9-11_Attacks_With_Original_Building_Locations.jpg/800px-[/qimg]
Click to expand...

You are comparing in these cases apples and oranges and watermelones.

That surviving structure after atombomb was in the epicenter of blast,things are known to be much less damaged under it as majority of blast and energy is going to sides and up,not down.(And bomb did not explode on the ground anyway)

"Bomb in Belgrade".No burning fuel I am afraid and explosions are one-time,short-duration events,unlike fire and there were differences in buildings,so comparsion is not correct.

Bagdad:Nicely picked picture.Where there all other images same as well?

And last:Some truthers claim that proof of CD is that WTC fell to its footprint,while others claim that CD was proven by wide coverage of area by debris.When some tihngs will fall from hundered story,it can get quite far.

Another FAIL.

And apology to R.Mackey.
 
Klimax said:
You are comparing in these cases apples and oranges and watermelones.

That surviving structure after atombomb was in the epicenter of blast,things are known to be much less damaged under it as majority of blast and energy is going to sides and up,not down.(And bomb did not explode on the ground anyway)

"Bomb in Belgrade".No burning fuel I am afraid and explosions are one-time,short-duration events,unlike fire and there were differences in buildings,so comparsion is not correct.

Bagdad:Nicely picked picture.Where there all other images same as well?

And last:Some truthers claim that proof of CD is that WTC fell to its footprint,while others claim that CD was proven by wide coverage of area by debris.When some tihngs will fall from hundered story,it can get quite far.

Another FAIL.

And apology to R.Mackey.
Click to expand...

Yes apples and oranges and watermelons.

Or atomic weapons, missiles, and airplanes. Whatever you like.

Glad you got the point.

Now maybe someone can tell me why an airliner is so much more effective and efficient then a weapon designed to destroy? Very expensive weapons at that. Is there a better mousetrap in weaponry technology that was discovered on 9/11?
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Yes apples and oranges and watermelons.

Or atomic weapons, missiles, and airplanes. Whatever you like.

Glad you got the point.

Now maybe someone can tell me why an airliner is so much more effective and efficient then a weapon designed to destroy? Very expensive weapons at that. Is there a better mousetrap in weaponry technology that was discovered on 9/11?
Click to expand...

What weapon. Outside of Nuclear bombs, the largest warhead in the inventory is about 2,000 pounds of TNT.

One of those can be heard for miles when it explodes.

Nobody head any such bombs go off on 9/11.

I'm excluding the GBU-43/B (aka MOAB), any discussion of man-made bombs at WTC is stupid.
 
Last edited:
Indeed. As I've remarked before, a highly effective modern weapon is the concrete bomb, which uses nothing more than aircraft speed and gravity to destroy targets.

With that, let us all return to topic, gentlemen. Now.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Yes apples and oranges and watermelons.

Or atomic weapons, missiles, and airplanes. Whatever you like.

Glad you got the point.

Now maybe someone can tell me why an airliner is so much more effective and efficient then a weapon designed to destroy? Very expensive weapons at that. Is there a better mousetrap in weaponry technology that was discovered on 9/11?
Click to expand...

I doubt that airplanes would be that much usefull against different types of targets or just different skyscrapers.Like Empire state building.
And we are getting back to carriers.Wooden deck with some steel can be bit easly damaged,but as soon as thick steel-armor grade is present most aircrafts would bounce unless used close to 90° attack-angle.

And since than technology got further,but there are still limitations.
Another thing,terrorists did not have to purchase plane,they hijacked it,therefore cost-argument is out.

maybe similar effect could be done by combination of larger HE-bomb and WP or napalm style bomb.

ETA:Ups.Once again sorry R.Mackey...
 
Al Qaeda uses nails in their car bombs to get more casualties, by HI's logic, they should use bullets instead, since bullets are designed to kill people...
 
R.Mackey said:
Indeed. As I've remarked before, a highly effective modern weapon is the concrete bomb, which uses nothing more than aircraft speed and gravity to destroy targets.

With that, let us all return to topic, gentlemen. Now.
Click to expand...

This is on topic Mackey. Is high velocity or explosive power something we haven't incorporated into military technology to this point?

Boy these terrorists really were ground breaking geniuses weren't they?
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Boy these terrorists really were ground breaking geniuses weren't they?
Click to expand...

What the terrorist lack in technology and means, they compensate with what they can get easily and cheaply and with a little ingenuity they can get the same results.

Besides, they are mainly using basic physics.
 
Pardalis said:
What the terrorist lack in technology and means, they compensate with what they can get easily and cheaply and with a little ingenuity they can get the same results.

Besides, they are mainly using basic physics.
Click to expand...

So the Military Industrial Complex lacks basic physics?
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Now maybe someone can tell me why an airliner is so much more effective and efficient then a weapon designed to destroy? Very expensive weapons at that. Is there a better mousetrap in weaponry technology that was discovered on 9/11?
Click to expand...
Welcome to 2007.
JREF.jpg


ETA: Homeland, your question has been answered. If you have follow up questions, bump this thread and don't derail this one.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
OK, now you're off topic.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Mackey in his presentation offered a few comparisons.

A couple of plane crashes into buildings where the buildings still stood.

A controlled test where a high velocity jet was destroyed hitting a wall. I don't think a whole lot happened to the wall.

Then he shows the USS Franklin after being attacked in 1944 not just by a high velocity kamikaze attack but a bomb as well. This ship was repaired and back in service to be attacked again in 1945.

I offered some of my own comparisons that also did not accomplish the damage that occurred in lower Manhattan on 9/11.

What's not on topic?

Do you have something that compares to 9/11?
 
HI is showing how he doesn't really know the basic causes of the collapse.

HI is arguing that the impact shouldn't have caused the collapse, well of course, that's because it didn't. What the planes did was to inject the fuel and ignite the fire, the destruction itself was caused by the fire which weakened the structure and the the energy released by the falling upper section.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom