Merged No Planer calls for scientific study / Missiles of 9/11

Dcdrac said:
I am no ballistics expert and do not pretend to be however it strikes me that if you fly two very large planes at high speed, while full of air fuel into big buildings, that is going to make one hell of an explosion, and you do not need an equation to prove that.
Click to expand...

Really this air thing is silly. Yes, a plane fuselage is mostly air (the wings are a different story). So were the WTC towers. Still, the plane weighs over 100 tons. That is not air.

Hans
 
Mikeys said:
It finally decelerated when it hit the inner grid and platforms. In fact, it did what it should have done when it met the outer wall, that is stop and explode. It returned to the real world and started following Newtonian laws, which is something I wish believers did one day.
Click to expand...

And based on which expertice do you profess to know how it 'should' have reacted? Which calculations did you make? What are your sources?

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Really this air thing is silly. Yes, a plane fuselage is mostly air (the wings are a different story). So were the WTC towers. Still, the plane weighs over 100 tons. That is not air.

Hans
Click to expand...
A tornado is 100% air, so we know that a tornado can't destroy a building! :boggled:

Of course, tornados don't even reach the velocity of a jet airplane.
 
Oy... folks, remember that there is no need to resort to analogy or accept a conspiracy peddler's resort to analogy where describing the failure of the steel from the airplane impacts. We already have the math.

The NIST report spends a lot of time describing the modeling of the jet impacts. 1-2B spends time discussing the modeling of the jet fuel's impact on the columns. Sections of it discuss the impulse imparted by the fuel itself.

Ryan Mackey had also given that Hardfire presentation before, remember? http://911myths.com/images/f/f0/911physics_big.pdf

In it, he showed us that the jet fuel - again by itself - imparted enough impluse to fail the tower's core columns. And can do so at 185 MPH (recall, the jets impacted at over 400 MPH). That's before you take into account the jets themselves.

The fundamental issue is the question of momentum transfer - impulse - from the jets to the towers. And the modeling based on the material properties of the towers components and the speed of the jets has shown that there is more than enough momentum there to fail the columns.

The claim that the jets should not have penetrated the towers is based on a severe misunderstanding or outright ignorance of:
  1. The material properties of the building and airplane components involved.
  2. The speed of the impacts.
It's also claim disproven a very long time ago; recall that the Hardfire presentation was from 2009.

Really, the overall point is that the conspiracy peddler is arguing from a point of ignorance about what's known, both specifically about 9/11 and more generally about material behavior in the circumstance being discussed. Many of us here are ignorant about the second, and some about the first, but we pay attention to the information given to us bythose who aren't. And that makes a lot of difference in achieving understanding. That's a lesson the conspiracy peddlers here need to learn.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Oy... folks, remember that there is no need to resort to analogy or accept a conspiracy peddler's resort to analogy where describing the failure of the steel from the airplane impacts. We already have the math.

The NIST report spends a lot of time describing the modeling of the jet impacts. 1-2B spends time discussing the modeling of the jet fuel's impact on the columns. Sections of it discuss the impulse imparted by the fuel itself.

Ryan Mackey had also given that Hardfire presentation before, remember? http://911myths.com/images/f/f0/911physics_big.pdf

In it, he showed us that the jet fuel - again by itself - imparted enough impluse to fail the tower's core columns. And can do so at 185 MPH (recall, the jets impacted at over 400 MPH). That's before you take into account the jets themselves.

The fundamental issue is the question of momentum transfer - impulse - from the jets to the towers. And the modeling based on the material properties of the towers components and the speed of the jets has shown that there is more than enough momentum there to fail the columns.

The claim that the jets should not have penetrated the towers is based on a severe misunderstanding or outright ignorance of:
  1. The material properties of the building and airplane components involved.
  2. The speed of the impacts.
It's also claim disproven a very long time ago; recall that the Hardfire presentation was from 2009.

Really, the overall point is that the conspiracy peddler is arguing from a point of ignorance about what's known, both specifically about 9/11 and more generally about material behavior in the circumstance being discussed. Many of us here are ignorant about the second, and some about the first, but we pay attention to the information given to us bythose who aren't. And that makes a lot of difference in achieving understanding. That's a lesson the conspiracy peddlers here need to learn.
Click to expand...
We already had body, air, blast and now we can add fluid. You know what Hummo, tell your NIST experts to fill condoms with water and whack their foreheads with it.
 
Mikeys said:
We already had body, air, blast and now we can add fluid. You know what Hummo, tell your NIST experts to fill condoms with water and whack their foreheads with it.
Click to expand...

So... you're like what? 12, or so? :rolleyes:

Anywho... At 500MPH, that would probably kill the poor NIST guy. Most likely by decapitation.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Really this air thing is silly. Yes, a plane fuselage is mostly air (the wings are a different story). So were the WTC towers. Still, the plane weighs over 100 tons. That is not air.

Hans
Click to expand...

Not quite true, MRC.

The upper ~60% of the fuselage is mostly air.

For an interesting psychological reason: people hate to be packed together like stacked cord wood. Or a NYC elevator, Japanese train, etc.

But "people density" means profit to airlines, so they go thru the exercise of packing as many people as conceivably possible into each flight.

This is the same reason that the towers were >90% air. But buildings have nowhere near the people density of airplanes. Imagine the hate & discontent if an office (or even a movie theater) packed people together as densely as airplanes do today.

Nonetheless, you're right. The upper ~60% is mostly air.

But the bottom 40% is not. Machines, equipment rack and luggage doesn't mind in the slightest being stacked like cord wood. And below that low density passenger deck is a VERY DENSELY packed volume of fuselage, filled with relatively heavy equipment.

People see the outside skin of the fuselage, and project in their mind what lies below the skin. Their projections are very, very wrong.

I've often thought that it would be useful to produce a diagram of a jet as "Isaac Newton" would see it. That is, as it would be "felt" by an impact, but replacing the contents with a "constant density" substitute.

In this view, the passenger deck would stay the same (because it is the only portion of a plane with which people are familiar. But the lower 40% of the fuselage would be drawn (my guess) 8 - 10 times longer, as would be the engine cores & the fuel tanks in the wings.

The wings themselves, along with the horizontal stabilizer & tail should be drawn (my guess) 2 to 5 times longer.

I've often thought that a plane, drawn this way, would give non-engineers a much better intuitive understanding of how it acts upon impact.
 
Mikeys said:
We already had body, air, blast and now we can add fluid. You know what Hummo, tell your NIST experts to fill condoms with water and whack their foreheads with it.
Click to expand...
Hey Mikey, according to you a tornado can't damage a building, correct? After all, it's just air!
 
Let us not forget that ballon of air ;) is also a verybstron pressure vessel under the skin
 
Mikeys said:
We already had body, air, blast and now we can add fluid. You know what Hummo, tell your NIST experts to fill condoms with water and whack their foreheads with it.
Click to expand...

That is not a substantive response. Address the core of the argument. At the speeds the jets were travelling, mass and momentum is far and away more important than strength and hardness. Your condom joke doesn't apply because it doesn't scale properly. The pressure-impluse curves showing at what points the core columns fail are published in NCSTAR 1-2B, chapter 10. The speed of the jets and the impulse they'd impart on impact is laid out there too, as well as in Ryan Mackey's linked presentation. In summary: The impulse generated by impact were many times larger than what were needed to induce failure. Or in short, there was more than enough speed and mass to break the thick core columns. Which means that this is even more true for the thinner perimeter columns. The instantaneous pressure alone was an order of magnitude more than necessary (if I'm reading things correctly: 800PSI was the figure for failing core columns; the jets generated 4600PSI (FL11) and 6800 (FL175)).

If you do not address those points, you are not addressing the substance of the argument. If you do not address the substance of the argument, there is no rational conversation. Address the substance, please. No, water filled condoms doesn't come close to cutting it. Give us your figures for column failure vs. the impact of the jets. Do that, and then there's a discussion. But until then, you're simply posting rhetoric against facts and figures. And you will always lose the argument doing that.
 
Mikeys said:
We already had body, air, blast and now we can add fluid. You know what Hummo, tell your NIST experts to fill condoms with water and whack their foreheads with it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for once again verifying your lack in (very) basic physics.
 
brazenlilraisin said:
Condoms filled with water would also penetrate the towers if you could whack them at 500 mph.
Click to expand...

I hate to nitpick, but: You'd have to have sufficient mass at that velocity also. A condom cannot hold 700 pounds of jet fuel. (No "Magnum" jokes from the Peanut Gallery, per favor :D:p.)

That said, construct a "condom" capable of holding that mass of fuel and fill it with about 100 gallons of jet fuel, very roughly (or 80 gallons of water, again very roughly), for each column impacted, and you'll have an equivalent situation. Or around 10,000 and 9,100 gallons of jet fuel respectively for the total amounts that FL11 and 175 carried. Either way, that's one seriously outsized prophylactic :eye-poppi (No "My condom says "Goodyear" on the side" jokes, ya pervs :covereyes:p).
 
Mikeys said:
We already had body, air, blast and now we can add fluid. You know what Hummo, tell your NIST experts to fill condoms with water and whack their foreheads with it.
Click to expand...

AND absolutely no concept of application or understanding of anything from you. Oh well.. If you don't care to learn, then meh, it's your problem. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus said:
I hate to nitpick, but: You'd have to have sufficient mass at that velocity also. A condom cannot hold 700 pounds of jet fuel. (No "Magnum" jokes from the Peanut Gallery, per favor :D:p.)

That said, construct a "condom" capable of holding that mass of fuel and fill it with about 100 gallons of jet fuel, very roughly (or 80 gallons of water, again very roughly), for each column impacted, and you'll have an equivalent situation. Or around 10,000 and 9,100 gallons of jet fuel respectively for the total amounts that FL11 and 175 carried. Either way, that's one seriously outsized prophylactic :eye-poppi (No "My condom says "Goodyear" on the side" jokes, ya pervs :covereyes:p).
Click to expand...

:D I had some Firestone ones but..that would be off topic...:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom