Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

[HotRodDeluxe]

You're the one making a claim of fact in direct contradiction to the null hypothesis. You should be able to provide evidence supporting your claim. I believe you've been asked this on more than one occasion.

He'll just direct you to that puerile video (again).

 

[Robrob]

He'll just direct you to that puerile video (again).

I suspect drumming up page hits is his primary reason for posting here.

 

[Stamuel]

Details of the plane's construction have been provided by others. One thing you will notice about the wings is that beneath the outer surface, the wings are not smooth, uniform pieces of metal. There are metal supports with gaps in between. This affects how columns behave during the collision with the wings. Consider a column struck on one side by a support and on the other by a gap. The differential force applied to each side of the column can result in a torque capable of deflecting the column to either side, depending on the details.



As an analogy, imagine a car traveling directly North striking a stationary car head-on. The stationary car could not possibly go east or west, could it? Of course it could, if the other car hit it off center. Same can happen with columns.



This is but one possibility out of hundreds of trillions that are more plausible than lack of a plane.

 

[Hans]

So much for his claim of wanting a technical discussion

Lol

 

[yankee451]

Tell you what. You give me you're simple physics and I'll spend the few minutes it takes to post the data.

After all, this simple physics is the back bone of your claims and you have never actually presented it.

Deal?

Come, give me the link to Purdue's calculations. I'm just a simple layperson, too stupid to do math, but you, you're a physicist who can understand it. Point me to their calculations and I'll do my best.

 

[yankee451]

So much for his claim of wanting a technical discussion

Lol

It's you lot that keeps demanding the "math". I keep trying to point to the directional damage that proves a jet striking in a southerly direction could not have caused the westward bends visible in the gash.

If any single one of you could point to any calculation that proved your claims or disproved mine, produce it. You can't because they don't exist.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

I suspect drumming up page hits is his primary reason for posting here.

I think you're right.

 

[yankee451]

Details of the plane's construction have been provided by others. One thing you will notice about the wings is that beneath the outer surface, the wings are not smooth, uniform pieces of metal. There are metal supports with gaps in between. This affects how columns behave during the collision with the wings. Consider a column struck on one side by a support and on the other by a gap. The differential force applied to each side of the column can result in a torque capable of deflecting the column to either side, depending on the details.



As an analogy, imagine a car traveling directly North striking a stationary car head-on. The stationary car could not possibly go east or west, could it? Of course it could, if the other car hit it off center. Same can happen with columns.



This is but one possibility out of hundreds of trillions that are more plausible than lack of a plane.

Last time I checked cars don't have 156 foot wing spans. You sure you don't want to use a straw through a tree analogy? No wait, a better analogy would be the straw cutting down the tree. Nevermind.

 

[DGM]

Come, give me the link to Purdue's calculations. I'm just a simple layperson, too stupid to do math, but you, you're a physicist who can understand it. Point me to their calculations and I'll do my best.

I'm not a physicist, I'm a carpenter.

You start with the easy stuff you said you already had. It's starting to look like you can't back up your claims.

We're waiting.

 

[Robrob]

Last time I checked cars don't have 156 foot wing spans. You sure you don't want to use a straw through a tree analogy? No wait, a better analogy would be the straw cutting down the tree. Nevermind.

How wide was this wingspan?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Use the NIST figures. I've cited them a couple times since my answer to you was moved.

You have not cited a scalar for speed, that I have seen, in this thread. If you have done so, I would appreciate it if you would link to the post in which you did (even if the scalar you claim to have posted got moved to AAH, you should be able to link to it, or, better yet, quote the scalar from it. I am not in the least bit interested in having you pretend that you may disagree because numbers you do not endorese were used.

I ask again, as I have been politely doing:

What was the speed of the leading edge of the wing of the 767 that was observed to impact the tower,at the point that it was observed to impact the tower?

You have not responded to my questions about launching JASSMs from the Woolworth Building, either.

 

[Hans]

It's you lot that keeps demanding the "math". I keep trying to point to the directional damage that proves a jet striking in a southerly direction could not have caused the westward bends visible in the gash.

If any single one of you could point to any calculation that proved your claims or disproved mine, produce it. You can't because they don't exist.

You've just admitted to having no idea what you are talking about. Despite constant claims that you did, lol

Thanks

Thread ended

 

[Stamuel]

Last time I checked cars don't have 156 foot wing spans. You sure you don't want to use a straw through a tree analogy? No wait, a better analogy would be the straw cutting down the tree. Nevermind.

I am talking about components of the wing interacting with an individual column. The wing would not behave as an indestructible, uniform unit after hitting the wall.

 

[DGM]

Did you find the link for the Purdue cartoon calculations yet?

Did you post your "simple physics"?

 

[yankee451]

I am talking about components of the wing interacting with an individual column. The wing would not behave as an indestructible, uniform unit after hitting the wall.

Oh, my apologies.

This is the most sense I've seen anyone make on this board yet and I'm sorry for brushing you off.

True, the wing is just the sum of it's parts as is the wall it was impacting. The wing section impacting a column would behave entirely differently from a section impacting a window, or a spandrel plate backed by an acre of steel truss-supported concrete floor. But in the second strike videos we see Flt 175 melt like butter into the building as if it wasn't there.

 

[yankee451]

Did you post you "simple physics"?

I did, knowing full well none of you will produce any, and it was BenjaminTR who nailed the reason why:

I am talking about components of the wing interacting with an individual column. The wing would not behave as an indestructible, uniform unit after hitting the wall.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It's you lot that keeps demanding the "math". I keep trying to point to the directional damage that proves a jet striking in a southerly direction could not have caused the westward bends visible in the gash.

If any single one of you could point to any calculation that proved your claims or disproved mine, produce it. You can't because they don't exist.

Part of the problem, of course, is that you do not understand the "simple physics" involved. Nor will you ever, if you continue to make the same fundamental mistakes I have taught 7th graders to identify and avoid.

What was is the velocity of the leading edge of the wing of the 767 that was observed to impact the tower, at the point that it was observed to impact the tower?

Whence were the JASSMs you claim were launched, launched from?

 

[DGM]

Can you produce the Purdue calculations?

How about the MIT ones?

R. Mackey?

Bueller?

Not the Bueller but the others I can. I'm just waiting for you to give me a reason to.

You obviously have no idea about simple physics. If you did you would have supported your claims back on page one.

We're still waiting.

 

[Robrob]

Oh, my apologies.

This is the most sense I've seen anyone make on this board yet and I'm sorry for brushing you off.

True, the wing is just the sum of it's parts as is the wall it was impacting. The wing section impacting a column would behave entirely differently from a section impacting a window, or a spandrel plate backed by an acre of steel truss-supported concrete floor. But in the second strike videos we see Flt 175 melt like butter into the building as if it wasn't there.

When the wing impacted the spandrel plate, what do you expect it would have done?

Bounced?

 

[yankee451]

I'm not a physicist, I'm a carpenter.

You start with the easy stuff you said you already had. It's starting to look like you can't back up your claims.

We're waiting.

Purdue calculations please.