Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

bill smith said:
For me it gives some idea of the oscillation of such a building after a short sharp blow. Then I think of how the plane entered the buildng almost seamlessly withot any visible building oscillation worth talking about and I wonder how that could be possible. There musthave been SOME force of imact surely ?
Click to expand...

Kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared, momentum is mass time velocity.

A bb pellet and a thrown brick can have the same kinetic energy, but very different momentum.
If they hit your forehead the brick would snap your head back, the bb pellet would not.
 
Toke said:
Kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared, momentum is mass time velocity.

A bb pellet and a thrown brick can have the same kinetic energy, but very different momentum.
If they hit your forehead the brick would snap your head back, the bb pellet would not.
Click to expand...

I think the inertia of my forehead woulld probably stop the bb pellet dead though with perhaps a bleeding pinprick in my forehead. If it had enough momentum to smash through my skull I would expect that much force to rock me back on my heels.
 
bill smith said:
I think the inertia of my forehead woulld probably stop the bb pellet dead though with perhaps a bleeding pinprick in my forehead. If it had enough momentum to smash through my skull I would expect that much force to rock me back on my heels.
Click to expand...

You might be surprised at how little. Watch "Mythbusters" at all ?
 
bill smith said:
I think the inertia of my forehead woulld probably stop the bb pellet dead though with perhaps a bleeding pinprick in my forehead. If it had enough momentum to smash through my skull I would expect that much force to rock me back on my heels.
Click to expand...

So you do understand why a plane going real fast have alot of kinetic energy.
But that does not give it momentum out of proportion to its weight.
 
Toke said:
So you do understand why a plane going real fast have alot of kinetic energy.
But that does not give it momentum out of proportion to its weight.
Click to expand...

Spread over a wide area and largely unconcentrated, yes I do. And as the plane is so small, fragile and light by comparison to a huge behemoth of a building that is strong and massively heavy I am surprised at the seamlesss absorption of the plane into the building. Almost like sticking your hand into a mirror it looked.

PS.This is RM's thread basically. Is it okay to go on with this stuff ? It must be because he discussed this on the Hardfire Show.
 
Last edited:
The buildings were not massive, they were mostly air, plenty of room for a plane to "disapear" into and then have bits of plane, fuel, building and furniture come out the other side.

I am sure there are qualified people who have made estimates on swaying.
That was your point, right?
 
Toke said:
The buildings were not massive, they were mostly air, plenty of room for a plane to "disapear" into and then have bits of plane, fuel, building and furniture come out the other side.

I am sure there are qualified people who have made estimates on swaying.
That was your point, right?
Click to expand...

The plane had to SMASH through the line of perimeter columns. It did not cut it's way in because aluminium does not cut steel. That would be tantamount to the bread cutting the knife- right ? So to smash it's way in there must have been one heck of an impact....150 spread out tons of aircraft impacting steel columns braced against the concrete floors at 12-foot intervals. In WTC2 33 columns were severed and even more in WTC1. But where was the visible shock and correspnding oscillation of the building ?

I add this clip to illustrate the type of oscillation that might be expected- if less extreme. But some visible shock or oscillation should have been caught on tape I'm sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
The plane had to SMASH through the line of perimeter columns. It did not cut it's way in because aluminium does not cut steel. That would be tantamount to the bread cutting the knife- right ? So to smash it's way in there must have been one heck of an impact....150 spread out tons of aircraft impacting steel columns braced against the concrete floors at 12-foot intervals. In WTC2 33 columns were severed and even more in WTC1. But where was the visible shock and correspnding oscillation of the building ?
Click to expand...

Why not ask any persons that escaped from the towers and were on floors close by? When the planes impacted, the towers suddenly moved 0.5-1 m sideways (more higher up) + any persons inside; then the towers swing back 1-2 m and any persons also ... unless they fall to the floors like somebody pulling a rug below you or are thrown into a wall. Then they swing back again!
Then it is time to get out! Not wait for instructions!
 
Bill enjoys having his ass handed to him over and over again at JREF

bill smith said:
The plane had to SMASH through the line of perimeter columns. It did not cut it's way in because aluminium does not cut steel. That would be tantamount to the bread cutting the knife- right ? So to smash it's way in there must have been one heck of an impact....150 spread out tons of aircraft impacting steel columns braced against the concrete floors at 12-foot intervals. In WTC2 33 columns were severed and even more in WTC1. But where was the visible shock and correspnding oscillation of the building ?
Click to expand...

Einstein. Even water can cut steel. Reality debunks your personal incredulity.

http://www.flowcorp.com/waterjet-resources.cfm?id=335

Ryan Mackey showed you the math that proves that even the fuel alone in the wings was sufficient to cut through the perimeter columns.

from here
http://911myths.com/index.php/Physics_of_9-11

P911Slide21.PNG




the oscillation has been reported by the people who were in the building. and documented

Read the book
http://books.google.com/books?id=-Ctk6LxDDR8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=102+minutes

Also NIST
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session3/3Fahim2.pdf
 
bill smith said:
It did not cut it's way in because aluminium does not cut steel. That would be tantamount to the bread cutting the knife- right ?
Click to expand...
And Lead (Pb) doesn't cut steel either but somehow bullets made of Lead fired from a gun penetrate steel. Wow, how does that work Bill?

Lead is softer than Aluminium. :confused::confused::confused: I'm so confused Bill - a softer material than aluminium can penetrate steel but aluminiuml can't? Mmmmn - can you help me Bill and explain why?
 
Sunstealer said:
And Lead (Pb) doesn't cut steel either but somehow bullets made of Lead fired from a gun penetrate steel. Wow, how does that work Bill?

Lead is softer than Aluminium. :confused::confused::confused: I'm so confused Bill - a softer material than aluminium can penetrate steel but aluminiuml can't? Mmmmn - can you help me Bill and explain why?
Click to expand...
When I say small, dense and heavy I am not referring to you. Most lead bullets flatten and do not penetrate even modertely thick steel. A steel jacketed bullet will.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
When I say small, dense and heavy I am not referring to you. Most lead bullets flatten and do not penetrate even modertely thick steel. A steel jacketed bullet will.
Click to expand...
And so will a copper alloy FMJ.

E=1/2mv2 - the velocity is very important.
 
Sunstealer said:
And Lead (Pb) doesn't cut steel either but somehow bullets made of Lead fired from a gun penetrate steel. Wow, how does that work Bill?

Lead is softer than Aluminium. :confused::confused::confused: I'm so confused Bill - a softer material than aluminium can penetrate steel but aluminiuml can't? Mmmmn - can you help me Bill and explain why?
Click to expand...

Shuck--Isn't air and water softer than concrete and steel?
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1306/pdf/c1306_ch3_d.pdf


We can provide lots of examples.
Birds are softer than aluminum, but thy cause lots of damage to airplanes--and engines!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom