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

[yankee451]

That's not what I said. I said they modeled systemic impact and column failure, not the minutiae you were trying to draw from it.

You stop right there with your arrogance. I was being fair and providing the links for your edification so that you could have a chance to teach yourself more about the Purdue studies. Information that would've kept you from making the mistakes about their work that you did in the post above.

You can that arrogance and talk respectfully from here on out, or you will go on ignore.

No. You were answered directly. I told you that you didn't understand the Purdue modeling. I also told you that any damage patterns you saw could be nothing more than the result of nonuniform distribution of wing elements and fuel, a point you yourself were trying to make above with your misunderstanding of Ryan's presentation.


Answered. See prior paragraph.


The simple answer is that the plane hit them. Why you think columns bending inward towards the fuselage of the plane is unusual is strange, and I have no explanation for why you think it's significant. Why you think one side of the column should be undamaged is similarly beyond me. Either way, there's nothing about your observations that disputes the jetliners impacts.

You offered their models as proof that the impact dynamic has already been established. They do not do that so either you didn't read your own material or you are being deliberately misleading. Two can play the ignore game.

 

[yankee451]

"One at a time", eh? Okay Einstein, what therefore was the elapsed time between the wing root hitting the first column and the wing tip hitting the last?

From that, what was the time interval between each column being hit?

For bonus points: What direction was the net vector of the force on the columns? The answer to this provides the answer to your photos with the blatant misdirection/mislabelling.

I don't know, maybe we should make a new model, or maybe someone should just conduct a test to get right to the point.

 

[Kid Eager]

I don't know, maybe we should make a new model, or maybe someone should just conduct a test to get right to the point.

Given that is your answer, the photos and the captions aren't worth squat.

 

[beachnut]

I don't know, maybe we should make a new model, or maybe someone should just conduct a test to get right to the point.

Test was done by 5 idiots fooled by a spoiled rich Saudi, twice. Your claim was found to be nuts.

Here is the model you tried, but failed to debunk. What did MIT say about your comments. Did the reply, "LOL"?
ttp://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Chapter-IV-Aircraft-Impact.pdf
I like your comments, they confirm your expertise in physics.

When will you publish your comments in a journal to set MIT straight? Straight, is like math, do you need help?

Hey dude; did you know the wing had actuators, and other components that are made of steel? Did you know the wing is not the same all along the wing. Do you understand this? Each time you post a photo of the damage by the wing, it proves it was a 767; but you don't understand why. I gave you a hint. Where did you plagiarize the photos from? Are you going to give credit, or are they your photos? Source please.

 

[yankee451]

Given that is your answer, the photos and the captions aren't worth squat.

Okay Einstein.

 

[beachnut]

Okay Einstein.

Your comments on the physics that debunks your claim.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Chapter-IV-Aircraft-Impact.pdf
How far down the wing did the steel break for the first time.

What was the energy at impact, and how much energy could the WTC stop in the shape of a aircraft? Hello?

What did MIT say about your comments? Hello?

 

[thebicyclist]

No Planer calls for scientific study

I see the ROOSD in a tube/funnel mechanism paradigm in action.

I don't think the 767 passed through a tube or funnel before it hit the tower.

And conversly the ping pong ball was not driven by multiple high powered jet engines

How the velocity was achieved does not affect the energy from a collision

 

[beachnut]

I see the ROOSD in a tube/funnel mechanism paradigm in action.

I don't think the 767 passed through a tube or funnel before it hit the tower.

I missed this nonsense. Why does an aircraft have to pass in a tube? An aircraft can reach speed without help from compressed air. You made a mistake in logic, and science.

The real question is, why can't you do the physics to understand why a hollow ping pong ball can punch a hole in a ping pong paddle.
Then, why can't you do the physics to understand how an aircraft can punch a hole in a thin steel shell designed to withstand a 180 mph impact of an aircraft, when it is going 470 to 590 mph?

I assume you never took physics, Clayton. Bad for you.

And conversly the ping pong ball was not driven by multiple high powered jet engines

How the velocity was achieved does not affect the energy from a collision

 

[Oystein]

I'm marveling why you think it doesn't - the "flanges" are the whole sides of the columns protruding beyond the face plate which acts as a lateral brace for the two sides. None of the models address the fact that the wing would be striking sequentially, from the right corner to the left corner, one laterally braced knife at a time. Your "work" didn't prove anything.

You are substituting competent modelling and math with mere imagination: You imagine that modelling the columns with quarter-inch flanges would make a difference. You imagine that the wings' sweep would significantly affect lateral deflection of the columns. Most of all, you imagine that a large, fast plane could not sever columns, when smaller, slower planes can.

But really what we see here is your total failure of imagination.

It takes, order of magnitude, 1 lb of high explosives to break these columns.

A 767 travelling at over 200 m/s (AA11) has a kinetic energy equivalent to 1,300-1,400 lbs of TNT.

Roughly one third of that kinetic energy directly impacted ca. 40 columns. So you have 1,350 lbs / 40 / 3 = 11.25 lbs of kinetic energy applied to each column. So each column would be overwhelmed by an order of magnitude - on average. Not so much at the wingtips, much more at the fuselage.

The columns absorb only a small fraction of that total energy - much less than 10%. The rest, still well over 1,000 pounds of TNT, continues into the building to do much more damage.


Now there's some math to help your imagination along!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You offered their models as proof that the impact dynamic has already been established. They do not do that so either you didn't read your own material or you are being deliberately misleading. Two can play the ignore game.

NIST's model does established what happened during impact, with considerable detail. Ryan's was a simplification to show that the momentum transfer from the jets impacts was far more than sufficient to fail perimeter columns. Purdue's model does the same with a different and deeper computer modeled analysis. They all agree in the broad strokes with one another, and also are validated by matching what we saw in the real world with the column failures.

The core problem is, you haven't demonstrated how any of the models fail. All you've done is raise peripheral objections that don't affect the overall picture. You haven't raised any point that even addresses the energy/momentum expenditure upon contact. Nor have you shown that you understand why your objections don't challenge or invalidate anything about any of what NIST, Ryan, or Popescu et. al. have established. Heck, you haven't demonstrated that you even read any of the material as you claim, let alone comprehended explanations of it.

Again: At over 400 MPH, with the amount of mass available, the exterior columns would have been overwhelmed. The manifestation of the damage you point out - dented and bent edges and the like - is but a small part of the energy expenditure as well as the overall picture. The fact that the columns did not show dents and bends the way you think they should doesn't change a single bit of what's been said and can be written off to a variety of things, two possibilities of which I've already presented in prior posts.

Until you acknowledge that the central issue is energy and momentum transfer, and that it's that issue that NIST, Purdue, and Ryan Mackey were concentrating on, none of your arguments will even be on the same topic as their models or Ryan's simplified analysis. What you've posted so far amounts to nothing more than obsession over irrelevancies, as well as a failure to address the main arguments each model made: Energy upon impact. Until you acknowledge that you understand why that's important and base further discussion on that, there is nothing more to discuss.

 

[Animal]

I don't know..........

That much is obvious

 

[Animal]

The simple answer is that the plane hit them. Why you think columns bending inward towards the fuselage of the plane is unusual is strange, and I have no explanation for why you think it's significant. Why you think one side of the column should be undamaged is similarly beyond me. Either way, there's nothing about your observations that disputes the jetliners impacts.

To me, the photo is more confirmation that it was a plane. The section of damage shown is at near the wing tip. Obvious because the columns are not severed. By that point of the impact, I would expect the wing structure to be starting to fold back, and with the lessened momentum and lesser mass, you see a "tearing" not a "slicing" Simple physics predicts that. Also, the majority of the damage is to the aluminum cladding at that point, not the steel columns. Twisting of some of the columns could easily have been caused by forces on other internal components, (floor trusses, slabs, bracing, etc) Only in troofer land is such predictable behavior a complete mystery.

 

[BasqueArch]

 

[ElMondoHummus]

To me, the photo is more confirmation that it was a plane. The section of damage shown is at near the wing tip. Obvious because the columns are not severed. By that point of the impact, I would expect the wing structure to be starting to fold back, and with the lessened momentum and lesser mass, you see a "tearing" not a "slicing" Simple physics predicts that. Also, the majority of the damage is to the aluminum cladding at that point, not the steel columns. Twisting of some of the columns could easily have been caused by forces on other internal components, (floor trusses, slabs, bracing, etc) Only in troofer land is such predictable behavior a complete mystery.

Yup. Agreed. As I pointed out up above with my "floor pull-in" comment.

It's also a point of minutiae on the part of this truther. What else could those be but secondary effects stemming from the structure's reaction to the jets impact? Possibly debris separating from the wing and having a lateral component to their path into the towers, but that's simply not all that important. The important thing - again as Animal here has stated - is that the damage is fully explainable with what is known i.e. that a jet hit the building. And that's part of what I've been trying to get across: That our latest truther is pointing out things that are trivialities in the overall picture. And irrelevancies as far as the multiple models are concerned. But as Animal also pointed out, these conspiracy addicts sure like to make mysteries out of nothing.

 

[Gamolon]

You offered their models as proof that the impact dynamic has already been established. They do not do that so either you didn't read your own material or you are being deliberately misleading. Two can play the ignore game.

The impact damage area, from the forst damaged perimeter column to the last damaged perimeter column, matches almost perfectly with the wingspan dimension of a 767-200ER class jet.

I've asked you this before.

How did the "perps" manage to almost perfectly match the wingspan dimension using the wingtips of your 3 groups of missiles?

Think about that for a moment.

They had to guide the left group of missile with such precision that the wingtips of said missiles creased the aluminum facade while guiding the opposite side missile group with such precision as to have a missile wingtip make a crease in the aluminum facade 156'-1" away.

How did they accomplish that?

Then you want us to believe that a 767 jet wing cannot shear/break/bend a perimeter column, yet you think a smaller, more fragile missile wingtip could?

 

[Gamolon]

Then it shouldn't be too tough to apply the same figures to the 1/4 inch steel edges of the protruding sides of the square, or would that be too accurate? What would happen to the wing as it struck that edge? Anyone want to hazard a guess on that? God forbid, math? Seems to me it would slice through the wing before it impacted the face of the column, but doesn't that change the "uniform density slug"?

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/column-cross-section-page-451.png[/qimg]

How can a jet striking like this:

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Left-Side-Gash-Purdue-small.jpg[/qimg]

...cause damage like this:

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/left-side-dents1.jpg[/qimg]

You think a 1/4" plate will not deform/bend at all if a jet wing hit it?

If the plane wing is at an angle and the jet's momentum is going forward, you don't think it's possible for the plane wing to pull the 1/4 plate to the right at all?

You think the weld between the two plates is going to hold up to that force and prevent them from separating?

 

[Animal]

But as Animal also pointed out, these conspiracy addicts sure like to make mysteries out of nothing.

The vast majority of structural engineers and architects have no problem with the damage, and even expect it. The vast majority of pilots have no problem with the aircraft behavior, flight data etc. The vast majority of military and ex military have no problem with the military response. The vast majority of air traffic controllers have no problem with the radar data and how ATC operated that day. The vast majority of fire and police personnel have no problem with operations and events of the day. The vast majority of accountants have no problem with the financial events (insurance payouts, stock puts etc.).....and on and on.

Then comes the graduate of Google U., aka the school of hard knocks with a tale full of woo, and everyone is supposed to bow to that superior knowledge amassed by a few hundred like minded individuals.

The facts are the facts. All the evidence, plane parts, structural damage, fires started, DNA, seismic recording, radar data, fire department response, video recording, eye witness accounts confirm the plane crashes and the commonly held narrative of the events of 911.

 

[yankee451]

The impact damage area, from the forst damaged perimeter column to the last damaged perimeter column, matches almost perfectly with the wingspan dimension of a 767-200ER class jet.

I've asked you this before.

How did the "perps" manage to almost perfectly match the wingspan dimension using the wingtips of your 3 groups of missiles?

They didn't.

 

[Gamolon]

They didn't.

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/corrected-wall-distance.png[/qimg]

Doesn't address my question does it. From wingtip to wingtip, NOT from wingtip to engine.

If you measure the damage pattern from the beginning of the damage on the left side to the end of the damage on the right side, I get close to the 156'-1" wingspan dimension.

So I'll ask again.

How did the perps in your missile scenario manage to replicate the wingspan dimension of a 767-200ER class jet?

Was it pure coincidence? Did the fly those 3 groups of missile into the north tower, view the damage they had done a proclaim "WHOOPEE!!!! The damage matches the wingspan dimension of a 767-200ER class jet!!! THAT'S what we'll claim hit the tower!!!!!"???

 

[Gamolon]

They didn't.

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/corrected-wall-distance.png[/qimg]

Also, the center of the engine is about 53'. That's almost 16 columns.

You need to slide that circle over some.