Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

[ozeco41]

Regarding the wings snapping off: As a pilot (including 757s and 767s), I don't think so. The wings are virtually "one" as they are "tied" together through/underneath the fuselage with the wing spar. And even if the wing spar were to "snap," the wings of the airplane would already virtually entirely be in the building in a swept back fashion within a nano-second longer than if they had not snapped at all, i.e., it would make no real difference.

Given that the wings and their fuel load have a lot of mass - i.e. wings will do much if not all of their own cutting through the perimeter columns - the actual differential force to cause wing separation/shearing will be much lower than some folk seem to be expecting.

Get your qualitative model of the free body physics right people.

And - no I'm not about to do the maths. I said "qualitative".

 

[JSanderO]

Yankee,
I find it curious that aside from the sarcasm of some posters here, much of your theories have had the rug pulled out from under them... with sound science and engineering. Yet you refuse to accept these explanations.

Why?

Do you dispute the science?

Do you understand that the columns were not fluid to be parted by the impacting jet parts and wedged east and west (even equally) as you assert?

Do you understand how the bolts would be sheared from the lateral forces of the end plates moving past one another. You got one point correct.. the 4 bolts per column connection were inadequate to keep them together when subject to the impact of a fast moving plane.

Have you seen the panels and perimeter columns in the debris pile? Where are the bolts? How did they get removed from thousands of perimeter columns? You don't think someone removed them as part of a CD prep do you?

They were sheared... heads or shanks... or pulled through the column end plates... from forces of the column leverage. The weak link in the assembly.

You are making up nonsense. Stop it and get real.

 

[Iamme]

I figured the such...regarding pilot david.watts explanation regarding penetration.
Now for some enjoyable reading that could maybe help shed som light on the physics of this, google: Mythbusters episode 61 - deadly straw - mythbusters results
Google those exact words, and click on the site of those exact words.
Very interesting.
Plus the second myth listed made me laugh. (The chicken)
And the one about plants might be worth a thread of its own in our paranormal section!
Be sure to read viewers comments regarding the straw test, as some of the comments like the one ones about being wet, the newspaper, etc are most interesting.
This might help you when contemplating the wings penetration.

 

[SpitfireIX]

This is where you go off. You have not calculated the area of impacts ability to arrest this motion. NIST and Perdue did but, you don't believe in physics so you don't believe them.

<cough>

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is sad to the point of hilarity.

"What caused the plane shaped hole in that building that just got hit by a plane?"

Yeah that's one of the mysteries of the ages. You don't exactly need Occam's Razor to work through that one. Occam's Dull Butter Knife will suffice.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Swept back in this case will not cause a wedge shaped damage. The force was enormous and normal... it was not parting the material like a bow of a ship.

Your analysis is flawed on this point.

Just to expand on this, Yankee, do you know why a guillotine blade is angled?

 

[DGM]

<cough>

I know, noticed too late for edit.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

This is sad to the point of hilarity.

"What caused the plane shaped hole in that building that just got hit by a plane?"

Yeah that's one of the mysteries of the ages. You don't exactly need Occam's Razor to work through that one. Occam's Dull Butter Knife will suffice.

This thread demonstrates once again that even feeding a truther facts with Occam's Spoon doesn't have much effect.

 

[I Ratant]

Regarding the wings snapping off: As a pilot (including 757s and 767s), I don't think so. The wings are virtually "one" as they are "tied" together through/underneath the fuselage with the wing spar. And even if the wing spar were to "snap," the wings of the airplane would already virtually entirely be in the building in a swept back fashion within a nano-second longer than if they had not snapped at all, i.e., it would make no real difference.

This is not to say you do not make some interesting points. And what I say does not disprove what is shown in you video.

.
The center wing box on the L-1011 Tristar. Each wing half is bolted to this structure with fasteners along the depth of the spars, and through the wing skins top and bottom to flanges along the opening.
When this is assembled, it is ASSEMBLED!
One of our Tristars had a wing on one side overpressured during a pre-acceptance fuelling test due to a relief valve remaining closed, and the wing pooched, and leaked all over the place. The customer turned down the option of a few cans of Stop Leak, and said they'd prefer a complete new part.
And so it occurred!
The airplane was placed in a special fixture, and the broken wing was -sawed- off just outside the fuselage. There was no other way to remove it!

 

[ozeco41]

I know, noticed too late for edit.

Perdition for you sir?

 

[Justin39640]

Are we done?

My money is on "not even close to" lol

 

[DGM]

My money is on "not even close to" lol

Yeah but, now he can't say we didn't address the OP. The ball's in his court to advance the discussion.

 

[ozeco41]

Yeah but, now he can't say we didn't address the OP.

Agreed but - just to make sure:

This was the OP question:
"What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole?"

And we - most of us anyway - know that one characteristic of a plane is that it is plane shaped.

So the obvious default hypothesis after filtering via Occam is "The plane shaped hole was caused because the building was struck by a plane shaped object. To wit - a plane."

Now Yankee needs to rebut (at least) two premises viz:
Show that a plane is not plane shaped; OR
Show that the towers were not struck by a plane shaped object.

(and the latter, IMO, is the correctly defined "set" - alternate suggestions welcomed)

The ball's in his court to advance the discussion.

It was never out of his court - his claim - his burden of proof - despite the debating trick of framing the OP as "AQing"

 

[Hans]

Agreed but - just to make sure:

This was the OP question:
"What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole?"

And we - most of us anyway - know that one characteristic of a plane is that it is plane shaped.

So the obvious default hypothesis after filtering via Occam is "The plane shaped hole was caused because the building was struck by a plane shaped object. To wit - a plane."

Now Yankee needs to rebut (at least) two premises viz:
Show that a plane is not plane shaped; OR
Show that the towers were not struck by a plane shaped object.

(and the latter, IMO, is the correctly defined "set" - alternate suggestions welcomed)

It was never out of his court - his claim - his burden of proof - despite the debating trick of framing the OP as "AQing"

However we have a language difficulty; we are talking in the terms of science and he belief. The use of those two languages often leads to non- communication and denial by the believer, particularly when they are being willful about the subject.

 

[ozeco41]

However we have a language difficulty; we are talking in the terms of science and he belief. The use of those two languages often leads to non- communication and denial by the believer, particularly when they are being willful about the subject.

So true.

(I did my apprenticeship as moderator on an atheist forum - been there "once or twice" )

 

[I Ratant]

Agreed but - just to make sure:

This was the OP question:
"What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole?"

And we - most of us anyway - know that one characteristic of a plane is that it is plane shaped.

So the obvious default hypothesis after filtering via Occam is "The plane shaped hole was caused because the building was struck by a plane shaped object. To wit - a plane."

Now Yankee needs to rebut (at least) two premises viz:
Show that a plane is not plane shaped; OR
Show that the towers were not struck by a plane shaped object.

(and the latter, IMO, is the correctly defined "set" - alternate suggestions welcomed)

It was never out of his court - his claim - his burden of proof - despite the debating trick of framing the OP as "AQing"

.
In the secret forum here, yank states there were no planes.

 

[ozeco41]

.
In the secret forum here, yank states there were no planes.

Which was one reason for my somewhat obtuse comment about "set" and the terminology of the second premise.

 

[yankee451]

You're right, it is about what caused the holes in the buildings. Considering your opinion is not based on any fact or science you should be done at this point.



All evidence points to two Boeing 767-200 tail numbers N334AA (AA flight 11 into the North Tower) and N612UA (United 175 into the South Tower).

Are we done?

No evidence supports any such thing. If it did you could demonstrate how the east-west damage is consistent with a mostly hollow aluminum aircraft with leading edges as sharp as a basketball traveling north-south.

Until any single one of you can demonstrate that, no we're far from done. But I get that desperate men do desperate deeds, so I fully understand why you'd rather make this about me.

You have the floor, it's clean, I just wiped it with you lot.

 

[DGM]

No evidence supports any such thing. If it did you could demonstrate how the east-west damage is consistent with a mostly hollow aluminum aircraft with leading edges as sharp as a basketball traveling north-south.

I asked you before, who do I need to demonstrate this to? The fact you don't like the evidence does not make it false.

Until any single one of you can demonstrate that, no we're far from done. But I get that desperate men do desperate deeds, so I fully understand why you'd rather make this about me.

You have the floor, it's clean, I just wiped it with you lot.

You first. Start with more than just your lay person opinion.

ETA: Why do you keep saying it's not about you when you are the only one that believes what your saying?

 

[LSSBB]

No evidence supports any such thing. If it did you could demonstrate how the east-west damage is consistent with a mostly hollow aluminum aircraft with leading edges as sharp as a basketball traveling north-south.

Until any single one of you can demonstrate that, no we're far from done. But I get that desperate men do desperate deeds, so I fully understand why you'd rather make this about me.

You have the floor, it's clean, I just wiped it with you lot.

Not mostly hollow, the wings were filled with fuel and impacted the surface at a sweep back slant, and were carried on in by momentum, dragging their surface along the building structure and bending the building structure you are curious about transversely as the wings went in.

If you think the liquid in the wings didn't make a difference by the way, I suggest you hit yourself in the head with an empty milk carton, then try it again with a full one.

This is all I am going to say on this thread, because I don't see any sign of you acknowledging real physics. I won't bother with responding to any snarky replies unless they begin to acknowledge reality.