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

[000063]

It is a dishonest comparison. The mass and energy of a jet is spread out over it's length and width, just like a bullet. But a jet's impact would not focus it's energy on a tiny point - it would spread it out over 160 feet of wingspan.

Except for the tiny fact that the columns they struck weren't 160 ft wide. Please provide math as to how much force the wing would strike with, in total.

Note that the front edge of the wing is, in fact, a curved area, which would focus the energy. Also, the wings are some of the strongest parts of a plane. Above a certain speed, whether the wings were pointy or not is no nevermind.

It is for this reason MIT threw in the towel and Purdue won't show their data behind their cartoon.

Still lying. MIT clearly goes into the math in section 3.3, called "Engines and Wing Damage". See also 4.2, and 5.1. I'm pretty sure this is the first you mentioned Purdue.

If you're a troll, you're supposed to evade or ignore the things you're proven wrong on, or make up some sort of rationalization, not maintain the same lie.

 

[yankee451]

Someone feel free to correct me but the steel broke at the joints, did it not?

Fitz

Consider yourself corrected.

 

[MileHighMadness]

For the forum's information...yankee451

What's you technical/education background?

 

[000063]

Here we go with the ignorance of physics........free hint. whether it is water, a bullet, or an airplane wing, it all goes back to Newton. But I am sure you will find a way to handwave that away as well in order to support your belief in woo.

Handwave? Like you just did?

They gave up on calculating the interaction between the wings and the columns - they rolled up all the aluminum in the wing and reformed it into a thick machete but even then they gave up on trying to explain how it cut the steel.

They did, however, go through a fairly detailed analysis of how much force was exerted, which you have not referred to even once.

Page 32:

Appeal to impossible perfection. Also, "at this stage of the analysis". You do realize their "uniform plate" would actually be stronger than the beams were?

And, gosh, still with your studious avoidance of demonstrating any actual physics knowledge or math.

For the forum's information...yankee451

What's you technical/education background?

None of our business, despite his questioning of ours, he said a few pages back. Then he abruptly stopped talking about it, mostly.

 

[yankee451]

For the forum's information...yankee451

What's you technical/education background?

Self-taught with most things. What does that have to do with the evidence?

 

[Animal]

Small point of impact focusing energy and mass at a small point ensures maximum penetration. Guess what causes more drag? More surface area. This is why penetrating missiles are shaped like spears and not like a jet wing.

Like everything else you have posted, you thinking is backwards. The reason for shapes like spears is to reduce the mass required for the desired damage / impact. It is called efficiency in engineering. It does not change the basic physics like you are trying to tap dance around to protect your woo beliefs.

 

[Animal]

Self-taught with most things. What does that have to do with the evidence?

you need a refund on your educational expenses.

 

[yankee451]

Handwave? Like you just did?



They did, however, go through a fairly detailed analysis of how much force was exerted, which you have not referred to even once.



Appeal to impossible perfection. Also, "at this stage of the analysis". You do realize their "uniform plate" would actually be stronger than the beams were?

And, gosh, still with your studious avoidance of demonstrating any actual physics knowledge or math.



None of our business, despite his questioning of ours, he said a few pages back. Then he abruptly stopped talking about it, mostly.

They did not calculate the interaction - an honest person would stop claiming they did.

 

[yankee451]

ou need a refund on your educational expenses.

Seems to me I'm in good company. So what's your excuse?

As a college student, you may sometimes wonder how valuable your formal education really is. Your tuition doesn’t just pay for classes, though: you’re also receiving valuable career training and the opportunity to explore different subjects before setting out on a professional path. These inspiring figures, however, accomplished a great deal with minimal or no formal education, becoming U.S. Presidents, well-known journalists, writers and scientists. Read on for our list of 10 incredibly inspiring self-taught scholars.

...

Edited by LashL: 

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text available elsewhere. Instead, cite a short quote and provide a link to the source.

http://www.onlineuniversities-weblog.com/50226711/10-incredibly-inspiring-self-taught-scholars.php

 

[LSSBB]

Small point of impact focusing energy and mass at a small point ensures maximum penetration. Guess what causes more drag? More surface area. This is why penetrating missiles are shaped like spears and not like a jet wing.

so, what you are saying is you can drive a spike through soemthing, but an axe of the same cross section will bounce right off?

 

[yankee451]

so, what you are saying is you can drive a spike through soemthing, but an axe of the same cross section will bounce right off?

No, I'm saying a jet would be shredded by the steel columns. Only you jokers are bringing up bullets (and now axes).

 

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch
Dude you debunked yourself. (highlights in document by yankee)
From your link above.
It took 4% and 3% of the kinetic energy of the planes to punch through the perimeter columns.

"Table 3. Distribution of energy lost in the local damage of the TWC Towers
The energy is in the unit of MJ.
Energy (MJ) North South
Airplane 586 23% 586 25%
Exterior 103 4% 122 3%
Floors 1221 48% 1925 53%
Core columns 630 25% 1025 28%
Total 2540 100% 3658 100%"

Page 32:

Quote:
The floors and floor trusses were the next barrier to overcome. The floor trusses consisted of hundreds of beam-like tubular members. At this stage of the analysis it was
impossible to develop a detailed computational model of this complex assembly. Therefore
the entire volume of steel used by the floors was lumped into a uniform steel plate of the
equivalent thickness.

The highlighted portion went over your head. "The floors and floor trusses" not the columns
The chart above is from "6. Conclusions"
page 62

 

[000063]

Small point of impact focusing energy and mass at a small point ensures maximum penetration. Guess what causes more drag? More surface area. This is why penetrating missiles are shaped like spears and not like a jet wing.

Hang on.

It's cute how you pretend to know what you're talking about, but aren't aware that drag is a major concern for anyone who designs airplanes.

The reason wings are shaped differently is because they need to generate lift via Bernoulli's Principle. The fuselage, of course, does not, and is usually shaped more like a missile.

And of course, you still can't prove that the wider edge of the wing would create any significant impediment to it breaking through the columns.



That's strange. The kid shouldn't be able to break the watermelon, right? The bat is "as round as a basketball".

 

[Animal]

Seems to me I'm in good company. So what's your excuse?



http://www.onlineuniversities-weblog.com/50226711/10-incredibly-inspiring-self-taught-scholars.php

And not one of them would I trust to engineer or analyze a building structure.......you more than any.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Self-taught with most things. What does that have to do with the evidence?

Self-taught...congrats

Evidence, what evidence? There is no evidence supporting CD of the WTC buildings.

 

[LSSBB]

No, I'm saying a jet would be shredded by the steel columns. Only you jokers are bringing up bullets (and now axes).

It WAS shredded by the steel columns. It certainly didn't come out intact on the other side.

 

[Animal]

No, I'm saying a jet would be shredded by the steel columns. Only you jokers are bringing up bullets (and now axes).

You say that because you have no grasp of simple physics.

 

[yankee451]

Hang on.


The reason wings are shaped differently is because they need to generate lift via Bernoulli's Principle. The fuselage, of course, does not, and is usually shaped more like a missile.

And yet you believe a wing designed to convert airflow to lift becomes a penetrating missile cabable to slice through dozens of steel box columns if it goes fast enough. This doesn't bode well for the gene pool.

 

[000063]

Self-taught with most things. What does that have to do with the evidence?

You were the one questioning others' experience just hours ago.

They did not calculate the interaction - an honest person would stop claiming they did.

No. You said they "didn't do the math". They did the math, but it wasn't the math you'd like. Now it's that they didn't "calculate the interaction". Any ambiguity in language is on your part.

No, I'm saying a jet would be shredded by the steel columns. Only you jokers are bringing up bullets (and now axes).

Oh, good, so you don't need the experiment after all. So, where's the math you used to determine this? Because you have no excuse now.

 

[yankee451]

It WAS shredded by the steel columns. It certainly didn't come out intact on the other side.

The materials in the wing were thinner, less dense and less massive than those used in the building. This is why MIT gave up on crunching the numbers - because math can't prove a lie.