What`s going on here?! You asked me a question, where in my original post is a quote FROM SOMEBODY ELSE, that says about `a 767 or reinforced jet`.
Are we talking about 2 different things or what? I couldnt even fathom why you asked me your question in the first place? What was there to question?????? I quoted somebody saying a 767 or reinforced jet. End of story. No more responses about this from me, as i dont know what you are driving at or think i`m driving at. Its a waste of my time.
Oh, I love the apparently unintentional irony of doing "science"-by-youtube, getting schooled in god knows how many different ways, then complaining that somebody else is "not really saying anything".
Yes, I and others are saying stuff - whether there exists the competency to understand it is another matter entirely. The evidence so far is "entirely not".
Some kind of authority? Being able to remember some of my vectors lessons from high school physics classes doesn't normally count as being authoritative....
And to what "model" do you refer? Surely not that ridiculous gif animation?
Anyhow, I'm off to do some stuff IRL. I'll check back later to see if your "model" *snork* has been amended to include any physics...
I didn't ask you because it was obvious you didn't know but you decided to try anyway and failed to answer the question demonstrating your lack of knowledge. Don't worry I'll find the information out from someone who knows the subject.
Oh, I love the apparently unintentional irony of doing "science"-by-youtube, getting schooled in god knows how many different ways, then complaining that somebody else is "not really saying anything".
Yes, I and others are saying stuff - whether there exists the competency to understand it is another matter entirely. The evidence so far is "entirely not".
Some kind of authority? Being able to remember some of my vectors lessons from high school physics classes doesn't normally count as being authoritative....
And to what "model" do you refer? Surely not that ridiculous gif animation?
Anyhow, I'm off to do some stuff IRL. I'll check back later to see if your "model" *snork* has been amended to include any physics...
Puffing up your chest and using big words enthralls me, sure, but I would be in your thrall if you could explain how the southbound jet caused westbound damage. Please use big words.
Puffing up your chest and using big words enthralls me, sure, but I would be in your thrall if you could explain how the southbound jet caused westbound damage. Please use big words.
Did anyone calculate the kinetic energy of the fuel in the wings?
- If it was full of fuel it would have 150,000 pounds of fuel (23k gal @ 6.7 lbs per gallon) which is 68,000 kg.
- 0.5 * mv^2 with m=68,000 kg of fuel and speed = 200m/s :=
1300, 000, 000 joules.
1.3 gigajoules :=
approx qtr ton of TNT.
Seems a bit high to me. Is that correct or where did I go wrong.
I wonder even without a jet rapped around that much fluid what damage it would do colliding with an object like a tall building.
Oh, that....it was utter garbage that didn't prove anything of the kind. It looks like you've wasted your time on a silly story. The video fails for two reasons as pointed out by Ozeco:
1) "Most truthers cannot think"; AND
2) "That is why most of them became truthers".
These are serious shortcomings that are responsible for the banalities inherent within the video.
Go down to your local Wallmart, go the sporting goods section, and buy an aluminum arrow shaft. The arrow shaft will most likely be 7075 T6 aluminum. Cut off an 10" section and break it using only your hands. This will at least give you some grasp of the difference between aircraft aluminum and beer can aluminum.
Aluminium alloys are used extensively in aircraft due to their high strength-to-weight ratio. On the other hand, pure aluminium metal is much too soft for such uses, and it does not have the high tensile strength that is needed for airplanes and helicopters.
Aluminium alloys versus types of steel
Aluminium alloys typically have an elastic modulus of about 70 GPa, which is about one-third of the elastic modulus of most kinds of steel and steel alloys.
One third the strength is more than strong enough to break it under such conditions; there's a FEA proving it. Water can also cut through steel if thrown at a bigger speed and in a thin jet (google waterjet cutting), and it's not even a solid. The principle is the same: kinetic energy.
It adds density to the wing as a whole, thus increasing the mass, and with it, the kinetic energy.
Imagine yourself throwing an empty soda can to a glass. You will probably not hurt it. Now imagine yourself throwing it full. You will probably break it. Same material, different overall density.
And an airplane is much more than the sheeting. Focusing on the cover and forgetting about the structure is a lie by omission. Remember the wings must be strong enough to support the weight of the fuselage.
Surely you can use your math to demonstrate how the east-west bends and twists were caused by aluminum sheeting formed into the shape of a jet with 30 degree swept back wings striking in a north-south trajectory.
These two sheets look like they bent post-impact, due to the load. They bent east-west because it was far easier for them to bend east-west than north-south, due to their orientation and shape (a very oblong rectangle, i.e. basically, a sheet of steel with its faces pointing north and south).
However I think that parts of that picture show that the wing was pulled towards the hole by its own structure as the plane penetrated. Good catch.
Aluminium alloys are used extensively in aircraft due to their high strength-to-weight ratio. On the other hand, pure aluminium metal is much too soft for such uses, and it does not have the high tensile strength that is needed for airplanes and helicopters.
Aluminium alloys versus types of steel
Aluminium alloys typically have an elastic modulus of about 70 GPa, which is about one-third of the elastic modulus of most kinds of steel and steel alloys.
One third the strength is more than strong enough to break it under such conditions; there's a FEA proving it. Water can also cut through steel if thrown at a bigger speed and in a thin jet (google waterjet cutting), and it's not even a solid. The principle is the same: kinetic energy.
It adds density to the wing as a whole, thus increasing the mass, and with it, the kinetic energy.
Imagine yourself throwing an empty soda can to a glass. You will probably not hurt it. Now imagine yourself throwing it full. You will probably break it. Same material, different overall density.
And an airplane is much more than the sheeting. Focusing on the cover and forgetting about the structure is a lie by omission. Remember the wings must be strong enough to support the weight of the fuselage.
These two sheets look like they bent post-impact, due to the load. They bent east-west because it was far easier for them to bend east-west than north-south, due to their orientation and shape (a very oblong rectangle, i.e. basically, a sheet of steel with its faces pointing north and south).
However I think that parts of that picture show that the wing was pulled towards the hole by its own structure as the plane penetrated. Good catch.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
