Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How can an aluminum airplane punch through a steel building...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 05:25 PM
Original message
How can an aluminum airplane punch through a steel building...
...Troothers ask? It's all about the kinetic energy.

A loaded 767-200 traveling at 500 MPH packs 2.83*10^9 Joules of energy.

That's a lot of energy.

If you divide that up into the number of columns severed, it's more strain energy than the column can absorb without failing in transverse shear.

BUT BUT BUT aluminum is less dense and much softer than steel, right?

It sure is. So is a pumpkin. Click this link to watch a pumpkin punch right through a steel car door.

It's the kinetic energy.

http://www.geocities.com/zbig10inch/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. Wow
A pumpkin hurled over 4,000 feet at 500 odd miles per hour. That's truly a wonder to behold. Sometimes I wonder what old Sir Isaac would make of something like this. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. Link is presently no good because
bandwidth has been exceeded. Energy, smenergy I can assure you it is impossible for a pumpkin to punch through steel, so it must be a fake video. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. And
How did it get so close to a protected building? Oh... they forgot to turn the protection on that day, eh?

And kudos to the guy flying that plane... he was about the bestest pilot ever.

But knowing what we know, a missile would have done what it did and the wings wouldn't a'had to fold up like they did.

Imagine that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. That is quite the news flash
The Pentagon was protected from commercial aircraft flying into it? Dang, that is quite the statement, got any proof?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I don't see how a missile could do the damage seen
1. the hole is too large - a Tomahawk is less then 20 inches wide.

2. There is too much external damage - a missile is designed to punch through a thick wall before exploding. All you would see is a small hole and a lot of internal damage.

3. How can a missile create over a 100 feet of horizontal damage to the facade?

I would have to hear much more detail about the type of missile and warhead before you could convince me it was a missile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Do you have an explanation for what knocked down all
the light poles?

Did you see this animation?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
24. Ridiculous
Is the OCT's explanation. If an airplane had hit those poles the poles wouldn't have been laying over almost intact. 500 miles an hour and contact with a light pole would have been like smashing pumpkins.

Believe what you will.... I couldn't care less. But just think of all those poor souls in Iraq dead 'cause Iraq flew the airplanes according to bushco. How do you explain that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. And you know this... how exactly?
You're gonna have to bring some physics to this party to convince me.

In God we trust, all others must bring data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yes2truth Donating Member (278 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. Smashing Pumpkins

Is that your theory?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. No, but I do love that band... especially the Mellon Collie album
I posted this in response to the nonsense about an aluminum aircraft not being able to slice into a steel-framed building, as you know very well.

Do you acknowledge that a pumpkin can penetrate steel under certain conditions?

Do you acknowledge that water can penetrate steel under certain conditions?

Or is this all part of the conspiracy as well?

In completely predictable fashion, you will not address the post. and instead ask some ridiculous non-question. Or you will ridicule the OP so as to not have to defend your indefensible position.

Either way, you are as predictable as my cat, but not nearly as much fun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. What say you, Flatulo?
Am I as much fun as your cat? :7

BTW: Though I disagree with your position that aluminum aircraft can slice through steel buildings I agree with you about Mellon Collie being an espeecially noteworthy album: it's probably one of the all time greats, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CGowen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
6. you can get people for a petition to ban water aka H2O
Edited on Sat Jul-07-07 08:20 PM by CGowen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw


I have never encountered people who say the plane can't penetrate the building.


I hear often Frank DeMartini's comment about the screen netting and that the building could sustain multiple airliner hits (Interview in January of 2001.)
Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management died on 911

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scQPx539c7M
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Here's a link to a different video (short) - car is demolished by pumpkin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
yes2truth Donating Member (278 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. My username is Yes2Truth. This is your

only notice/warning that if you continue calling me anything else, I will click on the alert button and ask that your post be deleted and that DU give you a warning about failure to comply with DU forum rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Can pumpkin penetrate steel?
Can alumimun penetrate steel?

I'll bet anyone that yes2truth will not answer either of these questions.

He never answers any questions.

He is a fraud, exposed for all to see.

Enjoy life in fantasy land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CGowen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. You just need bigger pumpkins
Edited on Sat Jul-07-07 09:20 PM by CGowen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
40. it went through the window! duh! eom!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yes2truth Donating Member (278 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
13. Here's a fine, brief overview of the evidence for no plane

at WTC2.

It's the second article.


http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Now, was that so hard? Thank you for finally providing a pointer.
I will certainly read through all this material and comment on it later.

Dude, people have been ripping you not because of your ideas, but because of your refusal to provide sources.

If you play nice, we will play nice too.

That's how it works. Intelligent folk want to hear why you think what you think. We're not mind readers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Please use the permanent links when linking to blog entries.
Edited on Sat Jul-07-07 09:53 PM by Make7
The entry you are referring to may be the second entry right now, but as soon as more entries are posted it will no longer be second. The permanent link will always go directly to the entry in question.

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/07/brief-overview-of-evidence-for-no-plane.html

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. OK... let's go over some of this...
Edited on Sat Jul-07-07 11:03 PM by tinrobot
3) Impossible crash physics upon contact with the tower
a) no slowing as plane enters
b) no explosion as plane enters
c) no part of plane breaks off despite fact that entry hole doesn't accomodate all of wings and tail
d) no deflection in the plane's path as it enters
e) no deflection/distortion of wings as they impact the tower
f) almost no deflection of debris backwards
g) impossibility of plane acting indestructible as it enters but then undergoing complete destruction after it goes in


3) Please take a physics class (and pass it) before you tell us what's impossible.
a) The plane has tons of kinetic energy, so the slowing is negligible.
b) The fuel is moving forward at 500mph, so it explodes forward of the impact.
c) The entire plane is moving forward at 500mph, so all parts of it will continue to move forward, not break off and drop like a stone.
d) Kinetic energy. see (a)
e) Again, kinetic energy. see (a)
f) What part of "the entire plane is moving forward at 500mph" do you not understand?
g) It's totally possible. Even the pumpkins in the above videos perform similarly.

Please enlighten us and tell us scientifically how all of this is not possible.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-07-07 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. My adventures in Troother-land...
I followed a some of the links to Morgan Reynolds' site, where he, in great detail, spouts a lot of theory about the impossible physics of the crash of 93, then proceeds to present absolutely no physics at all, just a lot of diagrams that make no sense to anyone familiar with free-body diagrams. Pure gibberish. Sorry, but it's the truth. Reynolds knows absolutely NOTHING about physics.

I then visited Spooked's site, where he states the airframe debris recovered was planted, but offers no evidence of this that I could find.

What seals the deal for me though is really pretty simple: we have a friend who lives in Lower Manhatten who saw a jet crash into WTC2. No holograms, no faked video, she saw it with her own eyes. She was sitting at her pantry window as WTC1 belched smoke, and saw 175 (or some other large plane) plow into tower 2.

Moving on,

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/evidence.htm

This site makes reference to an... "upward fusion flashlight-like beam of destruction" Please, we now have nukes that focus like a beam? Groan...

I'll keep looking at this stuff, but so far I haven't seen anything but pseudo-techno babblel with absolutely ZERO math or physics to support it. If I have missed something, I would be happy to review it if someone wants to point it out for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CGowen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 05:28 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Morgan is something else, but as a former Bush administration official in good company
Edited on Sun Jul-08-07 05:37 AM by CGowen
* Because people inclined to accept that the attack was an inside job tend to be more open-minded in general, they are more likely to entertain a range of ideas, and are somewhat handicapped in appreciating the potency of ill-founded or poorly presented theories in discrediting good research.
* Many working on social justice causes like 9/11 are reluctant to admit that there are saboteurs in their midst. The idea that the struggle to expose the crime is just a contest between the official story and alternatives is comforting in its simplicity. Recognizing that the struggle is a two-or-more-front war of ideas can be intimidating or even overwhelming.
* Hoaxes come in many levels of sophistication and subtlety. Whereas few people have ever taken the hologram plane theory seriously, and the pod-plane theory was long ago rejected by most aspiring 9/11 activists, the Pentagon no-jetliner theory continues to detract from substantive evidence implicating insiders in the attack.



In mid-2005 a former Bush administration official, Morgan Reynolds, gained notoriety by publishing an essay that sandwiched grandiose ridicule of the accounts of the crashes of the four jetliners between imprecise summaries of evidence for the controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7. Titled Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?, the article was widely promoted, for the most part, without any comment on its embedded no-jetliners message. Reynolds did not respond to the substance of the 911Research critique of his article: A Critical Review of Morgan Reynolds' Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? , and went on to promote his flawed analysis of the plane crashes on venues like Coast to Coast and the Boulder Weekly. His Boulder Weekly interview is the subject of Boulder Weekly Trots Out Morgan Reynolds' Trojan Horse.

http://www.911review.com/disinfo/index.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 04:38 AM
Response to Reply #21
349. No
"Because people inclined to accept that the attack was an inside job tend to be more open-minded in general"

They tend to be more gullible. Incredibly gullible.

I'm completely open minded. Just give me proof it was an inside job. That's the problem. THERE IS NONE. Not a single shred of proof to any of the theories. Just a lot of innuendo, questions, and mostly made up stuff by people who don't have a clue what they are looking at. There has never been a major event in history in which every i could be dotted and every t crossed. There are simply way too many variables. But the truthers insist on the dots and crosses else it must be the big bad gubmit.

I'd wager that 98%+ of the people complaining about the 9/11 Commission report haven't read it. They read something on a web site picking apart a single thing in the report and dismiss the entire thing as junk science. Fact is, that report is far and away the most exhaustive study into the events of 9/11 ever done. (Yes, even more exhaustive than loose change)Is it perfect? Does it answer every single question? Of course not. Nor could ANY study accomplish such a monumental task.

The "truth" movement BEGINS with the assumption it was an inside job then works from there to prove it. They aren't "inclined to accept it", they begin with that as their basic theory. The reason I say this is there has never been ANY actual PROOF of an inside job. Without proof to the contrary, it only makes sense (to me) to start with what is known, and search for answers from there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #13
22. Fine?
Edited on Sun Jul-08-07 09:00 AM by Sweet Pea
Did you say "fine"? A "fine" overview of the evidence? Spooked911 or whatever his name is seems to relish in creating his own ideas about how material matter should act when a mass of that size and weight and composition is accelerated to such a speed and slammed into a structure such as the WTC.

There's nothing "fine" about that post. It is pure ignorance and malarkey and bears no resemblance whatsoever to the physical properties of mass and momentum.

edited to add a line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #13
107. Right -- and astonishing, I've been looking at some of those links/videos!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HDHNTR Donating Member (244 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
19. The no plane crap is garbage
The truth movement as a whole is NOT in alignment with the "no planers".

Thank you for the pumpkin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Hello, HDHNTR!
Edited on Sun Jul-08-07 12:23 AM by boloboffin
Welcome to DU from Loose Change Forums!

Yes, we read your "come on over, the water's fine" thread over there. I was so sorry to hear about the sad reception you've been getting at 911blogger lately. What could be the cause of that, I wonder?

No matter. We scrubbed the place up, picked up the kid toys, and put a nice big watermelon in the refrig to cool off!

I hope you enjoy your stay! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-08-07 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. So are the "no planers" partly true?

Or is a part of the truth movement not true?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
28. Not That Simple
As far as I am aware, it is not "all about kinetic energy." This seems to me to be a simplification of what is in actuality a complicated calculation.

When assessing the ability of a projectile's ability to penetrate any given target it is just as important to consider the momentum of the projectile and also its sectional density. Also, it is necessary to assess the relative mass, density and elasticity of the target along with other factors such as the heat of fusion.

A pumpkin, though obviously having a lower density than steel, if it has enough mass and is projected with enough velocity will, as the video links demonstrate, penetrate a certain thickness of steel sheet. Water, similarly less dense than steel, when sent through an ultra-fine nozzle at very high pressure, will be able to penetrate steel because of its high sectional density. These two occurrences are explainable and to be predicted within the confines of the current understanding of physical laws. No knowledgeable scientist would argue this point.

However, neither of these occurrences are equivalent to passenger airliner jets completely penetrating steel frame buildings. Such an aircraft is largely composed of thin aluminum sheet that covers a light plastic composite frame. Its Sectional Density is extremely low for a projectile. It is also vastly less massive and dense in comparison to its target, which in this instance is composed of multiple and densely placed heavy steel beams and multiple reinforced concrete floors of vast dimension.

Within the boundaries of known physical laws and expectations, It is not plausible that such a projectile would be able to completely penetrate such a target. It is possible that the plane's high density engines would penetrate to some extent, but the delicate structures of the fuselage, wings and rear stabilizers would not be expected to shear through the steel frame and reinforced concrete floors of the WTC towers as they were alleged to have done on 9/11.

In this regard, I'm afraid it would appear that the No-Planers have science firmly on their side
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. but missiles are better at penetrating buildings
strange how the Pentagon saw this 'thing' as friendly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #29
299. How?
What are the dynamics that support the statement "missiles are better at penetrating buildings". And define "missile" please. thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 07:18 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. No-Planers and Science?
"I'm afraid it would appear that the No-Planers have science firmly on their side"

You must mean "science" like that dude in that Thomas Dolby video.

Cause there ain't no way your "science" makes any sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. On The Contrary
It is interesting that you brought the "Blinded Me With Science" video up because the "science" of the Thomas Dolby kind, i.e. video gimmickry, is most probably what was used to "blind" everyone into thinking that a plastic composite framed, aluminum sheet covered aircraft could penetrate multiple reinforced concrete floors and a wall of steel girders.

On the contrary: the science that I am referring to is the same practical physics that was used to develop the heavy metal warhead missiles (bunker busters) that are the only missiles that can successfully penetrate such targets. Depleted uranium, the warhead of choice for such weapons, is dense enough to raise the sectional density to a value high enough to enable the missile to penetrate such thick steel and concrete. There is real science and basic physics behind such weaponry and it is the exact same science, I hasten to add, that I discussed in my previous post.

<http://science.howstuffworks.com/bunker-buster2.htm >

No one would manufacture a penetrating missile out of plastic composite and aluminum sheet because it simply wouldn't work. Passenger planes cannot practically be used as penetrating missiles. That is what wouldn't make any sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. Please get the basics correct before posting
Edited on Sun Jul-22-07 09:12 AM by LARED
multiple reinforced concrete floors and a wall of steel girders.

The floors were not reinforced concrete, They were light weight concrete poured onto steel pans. What wall of steel girders are you talking about?

Also as you seem stuck on plastic framed aircraft, can you provide any evidence there are large commercial aircraft constructed using this material.

Thank you in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #34
41. Sorry, I am not impressed with either your engineering or deductive skills.
Edited on Sun Jul-22-07 09:56 PM by Flatulo
OK, objects penetrating each other is a pretty complex physics problem, even more comlicated than Factfinder General posits.

He is correct in that sectional density is a factor. That's one reason why spears are thrown along the long axis, not perpendicular to it. Same material, damping, hardness, velocity, but only the long axis offers any penetrating power.

But there are other parameters involved as well. Several of these are toughness (ability to store impact energy), hardness (ability to resist surface denting), coefficient of friction (slipperiness), coefficient of restitution (amount of energy lost in the collision), and damping factor of the material. The second two are kind of related.

Toughness is the area under the stress strain curve. Ductile steel is tougher than brittle steel because it can absorb more energy per unit volume without failing. Vulcanized rubber (tires) are tougher than steel. If you doubt this, whack one with a sledgehammer sometime. Get back to me when you wake up.

Coefficient of Restitution is a simplifed approach used in elementary physics problems. There's just one problem with it... it is not a constant as it is assumed to be. Its value is a function of the relative impact velocity. In general it goes up at first, then down with impact velocity. That's why real motion simulation software like Pro/Mechanica and Nastran doesn't use it. They calculates the actual contact stresses and restoring forces of the deforming bodies as they collide, and apply material damping factors to decide how much energy is lost.

Let me give you an example of how friction coefficient can play a crucial role... many years ago a friend and I were at the local gun range firing off a few rounds from our AR-15 rifles. These rifles use the Remington .223 cartridge and have a muzzle velocity of about 3200 ft/sec.

I was using standard copper-jacketed lead bullets. My buddy was trying out some teflon coated bullets (now illegal).

We had found a cast iron vise and had set it up on a post at the two-hundred yard mark. I hit it a few times and the bullets just removed small conical chunks from the brittle material. My buddy shot the same vise and his rounds cut a clean hole about 3/4" deep. Same mass, same velocity, same powder charge, just a different surface finish. That's why the feds banned these - they penetrate body armor pretty easily. By the way, the mass of the vise was probably 15-20 lbs - the bullets are a few grams.

The point of all this is that it is absolutely not correct to state that 'science is on the side of the no-planers'. It is a very complex physics problem that I am quite sure that Factfinder General has not analyzed. I haven't either. The problem is far too complex to be dismissed as impossible, or even unlikely, unless one has access to very high-end FEA and a computer cluster.

Like the team at Purdue has. Their simulation shows that the planes penetrated the perimeter columns with ease.

What matters is that the physical evidence is corraborated by many, many witness who saw the planes penetrate the buildings. We have a friend who lives in lower Manhatten who saw this with her own eyes. Hundreds or thousands of other eyewitnesses saw the WTC2 crash because they were watching WTC1 burn.

You can't dismiss the eyewitness accounts, especially when they back up the physical evidence, such as the chunks of airplanes that dropped onto the streets and rooftops of adjacent buildings.

Sorry, but your analysis is pretty unconvincing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #41
49. But I have analyzed this...
at length. I've shown you some of my links. Purdue's simulation is unscientific. The various films of the planes cutting through the WTC buildings are unscientific also. No matter what has been said by witnesses or what film of the events exist, the fact remains that those planes cannot have behaved in the manner the official position declared they did. Science completely backs this up. take an egg and shoot it through a cannon at your car door and see what happens to it. That would be a more valid comparative test. What do you seriously think would happen? Heck, just try and throw an egg as hard as you can through some cardboard. Use a catapult if you want to add velocity. Though I don't say it is the same, the relative impact power of an egg versus a steel sheet door is closer to that which would exist between a Boeing 767 and the WTC Towers.

Aluminum based aircraft cannot penetrate massively dense targets. History, as well as science, backs this up. Never in the whole history of aviation, other than what was alleged to have happened on 9/11, has any plane completely penetrated a dense target. There has been thousands of such crashes in all types of circumstances. Planes have never behaved that way in history. Planes have never before sunk themselves completely into the ground as one was alleged to have done in PA. Fiberglass nose cones have never before penetrated six reinforced, military grade walls as one apparently did at the Pentagon. Planes have never before just been swallowed up whole by steel framed buildings as the ones in New York.

Are you not just a little suspicious that the only time this has happened was on that fateful day, a day riddled with more anomalies than there are gnats in a florida swamp?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. No, you haven't.
You've done a bunch of hand-waving, but I have yet to see any calculations proving your claim that "those planes cannot have behaved in the manner the official position declared they did."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. It is common sense!
It takes a bunker buster to penetrate massive concrete and thick steel. This is well established. The WTC Towers were built of massive concrete floors and steel walls. How on earth is a light aluminum airframe going to completely penetrate such an obstacle?

Yeah, I'm waving my hands :bounce:

We need to see reason here. If I see something happen that is outside the framework of physical laws there is only one thing I'm going to say. In the words of the great Dr. Henry Lee: "Something wrong!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. No, it isn't.
If there is anything that I learned at school, it is that physics and engineering are not "common sense". Why don't you sit down and crank out an engineering analysis (with some numbers) and then we can start to consider your claims?


I have no fucking idea who "Dr. Henry Lee" is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #55
66. Stronger, heavier, more massive objects generally resist weaker, lighter smaller ones
This is common sense. Of course there are some pretty complex calculations to factor in when predicting what will plausibly happen when a projectile is aimed at a target because of all the factors that I have previously mentioned.

You want me to sit down and crank out the engineering analysis that will support my position on what kind of projectile could or couldn't penetrate heavy steel and reinforced concrete - but the military engineers have already cranked out the numbers.

Guess what their answer was to what sort of projectile it takes to penetrate heavy steel and reinforced concrete? Here's a clue: it wasn't an aluminum based aircraft.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. So you're saying...
you can't produce an analysis.

That's what I thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #67
76. I shouldn't need to produce an analysis!
A rational comprehension of the facts to hand should be plenty clear and compelling. Why do the military use bunker busters and not conventional missiles when they want to penetrate heavy steel and reinforced concrete?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #76
78. Yes, you do.
This is typical when discussing technical issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #78
82. I am talking common sense understanding of Fundamental Physics
This is a forum. I've supplied you with the basic physics. I've supplied you with examples to illustrate my points. If you're going to say "well, I'm not going to believe you until you've shown me the calculations" then don't believe me. It's no skin off my nose.

Where are the calculations disproving Criss Angel's ability to saw a woman in half and still have her running around the park? I don't have them either but you know what? That wasn't real!

BTW; Check out the Youtube of Criss Angel doing this if you haven't already seen it. It's pretty wild. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #82
84. I have no idea who this "Criss Angel" person is...
nor do I give a fuck. What I care about is that you seem to be operating under the mistaken belief that

1. Physics and engineering are "common sense

and

2. Your examples are relevant.


Neither of these is true. If you don't care whether we believe you, then why are you posting here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #84
94. Criss Angel
Is a (not very good)illusionist that appeals to the 25 and under crowd with his goth look and hard rock image. I'm not really sure where he's going with this angle, myself.

I love the "bunker buster" thing he keeps bringing up. Bunker buster refers to a bomb the U.S. created to penetrate BELOW GROUND installations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #94
99. Not Quite Right there, MRM.
"A bunker buster is a bomb designed to penetrate hardened targets or targets buried deep underground."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster >

As for where I am going with the Criss Angel angle:

You hit the nail right on the head when you said that he "is a (not very good) illusionist."

Did you take a close look at the footage of the planes allegedly penetrating the WTC Towers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #99
106. The WTC towers...
were neither "hardened targets" nor "targets buried deep underground".

Your analogy is poor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #106
124. What In your opinion constitutes a hardened target?
Three acres of reinforced concrete x 6 doesn't meet the requirement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #124
210. Not this nonsense again
The Pentagon was NOT "Three acres of reinforced concrete X 6". In fact, much of it was BRICK, not concrete. Pictures of the building after the attacks clearly show this. I know you'd like to imagine the Pentagon as some impenetrable building with missile silos protecting it at all times, but thats simply not true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #210
229. Clarification
"Three acres of reinforced concrete X 6" was not a reference to the Pentagon but a somewhat mistaken reference to the WTC Towers. Of course, as has been pointed out: the reference should accurately be "close to one acre of reinforced concrete X 6."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #99
109. I'm not real sure how to respond.
For starters Wikipedia has to be the absolute, bar none, WORST source to use for anything but...

"A bunker buster is a bomb designed to penetrate hardened targets or targets buried deep underground."

How exactly does this differ with what I said? "Hardened targets" would be a BOMB SHELTER, a Fort Knox safe, things of that nature. NOT a sky scraper.

I know all about the planes that hit the towers. Are you claiming the planes hitting the buildings were an illusion?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 03:18 AM
Response to Reply #109
125. An Illusion? Absolutely
Arthur Conan Doyle said "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

BTW; Three acres of reinforced concrete x 6 would constitute a pretty hard target in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 04:21 AM
Response to Reply #125
127. Wow
3 Acres of reinforced concrete?

The entire building isn't 3 acres, but I digress...

Your hero is a card shark? This is who you rely on in times of distress?

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was one of the best slight of hand folks ever. His statement, as you quoted, was in reference to magic. He wasn't foretelling 9/11. He was laughing at the "conspiracy theorists" who thought they knew how he did his tricks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 05:41 AM
Response to Reply #127
130. Wow indeed!
You said:

"3 Acres of reinforced concrete? The entire building isn't 3 acres, but I digress..."

Well actually each floor, according to all official reports measured 43,200 square feet. Now an acre is 43,560 square feet so I concede that my calculation was wrong. My figure for an acre was in yards and I divided it erroneously by three instead of nine to get the amount of square feet in an acre. Each floor is actually therefore a little less than an acre. My apologies for the error, and thank you for pointing it out. Nevertheless, that's still a massive amount of reinforced concrete.

You next said:

"Your hero is a card shark? This is who you rely on in times of distress? Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was one of the best slight of hand folks ever. His statement, as you quoted, was in reference to magic. He wasn't foretelling 9/11. He was laughing at the "conspiracy theorists" who thought they knew how he did his tricks."

Now here, I feel obliged to point out your error. Apart from the fact that I never stated that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was my hero and was not at the time of writing this quote in any distress, I believe you are referring to Doyle Brunson the famous American Poker player and Card Sharp along with being the author of such books as Poker Wisdom of a Champion, 2003 (formerly titled According to Doyle when published in 1984)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doyle_Brunson [br />
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to my knowledge had no expertise in card sharpery other than such knowledge he might have needed to possess when writing his most famous set of books: The Sherlock Holmes mysteries. Yes, the Doyle I was referring to and quoting from was the famous Victorian author and physician from England and definitely not to be confused with Mr. Brunson.

The quote, far from being in reference to magic as you so confidently assert, was contained within the Sherlock Holmes adventure: The Sign Of Four. Sherlock holmes is discussing deductive reasoning with his partner Dr. Watson. "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." The quote is justifiably famous as it is generally regarded to be an insightful statement about finding out and facing up to the truth.

I wonder if you took a leaf out of one of Doyle Brunson's books here and just made your last statement up in the manner of a poker bluff. Just like the bogus business of aluminum planes cutting through steel girders and concrete, It certainly wouldn't seem to be founded upon any facts

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #130
131. erratum
"I divided it erroneously by three instead of nine to get the amount of square feet in an acre". It's late for me and I'm sorry I made another typo. I of course meant "multiplied" not "divided".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #84
97. There are none so blind as won't see.
This particular thread has had an amazing number of hits. My hope is that those reading this forum that have eyes to see and ears to hear will understand a basic truth. As incredible as it might sound and it took me several years of research to get this: science supports the No-Planers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #97
98. Funny you should use
a religious reference to support your theories.

It takes a serious leap of faith to believe the CT theories.

Science in no way supports the No-Planers. Please do provide the references that it does. Stating something doesn't make it true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #98
103. Please read my posts and check the references. This is basic science.
I have gone into lengthy argument utilizing the fundamental laws of physics. I am not utilizing CT theories to support my science. It is the Authorities that are doing this. Conversely, I am stating that science, the real kind, supports the No-Planers CT whether we like it or not. Believe me, this truth was hard for me to swallow. I can understand anyone's resistance to it but there it is: the elephant in the room!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #103
114. What references?!
The only reference you have provided that I can see is the one to this magician. Obviously (at least to the rest of us) this is a poor source for your claims, and not sufficient to convince anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 04:04 AM
Response to Reply #114
126. Take a look.
The references are there within my posts: references to the science behind bunker bombs, the construction of the WTC, the construction of Boeing 767s, I've supplied the formula for working out kinetic energy, momentum and sectional velocity as well as outlining the basic physics principles behind these formulas, etc. Are you disputing my outline of basic penetration science as laid out in my original post? Are you wanting references for the basics? Here's an article that illustrates the scientific principles of penetration reasonably simply and clearly:

<http://www.thudscave.com/npaa/articles/howhard.htm >

A plane hitting a steel framed building is not the same as a pumpkin hitting steel sheet. I believe my references and analysis illustrate why. The feasibility of such a plane completely penetrating a steel frame building with multiple reinforced concrete walls is not supported by the physical principles of penetration. Any object, when faced with an overwhelmingly massive obstacle that is undeniably denser will face resistance from this obstacle.

For an object to penetrate, it has to at least have sufficient kinetic energy, momentum and sectional velocity (there's other factors but these are the main ones regarding the projectile). A dart has high sectional velocity and will easily penetrate a substantial obstacle. An egg has low sectional velocity and will have less penetrating ability. A bunker bomb has high sectional velocity and is similar in this regard to a dart. An aluminum aircraft, taking into account the whole area of it's impacting surfaces of fuselage, wings and rear stabilizers coupled with the lightness of the material it is made from, has a low sectional velocity. In this regard it is the equivalent of an egg. (i.e. bunker bomb is to dart as Boeing 767 is to egg.) This is why planes tend to fall apart when they hit things.

In accord with the official story of 911, the large but comparatively weak surface area of the planes would have had to penetrate through and into the massive obstacle of forty 14 inch welded steel plate girders and six three acre reinforced concrete floors.

Nothing like this has ever happened, other than allegedly on 9/11. Someone show me the science that supports it could.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #103
115. I have no inclination to look for your previous posts
Either provide evidence, or don't. But don't make a claim then say "go look at my previous posts". As if I should go looking for your previous claims. Give me a break.

And believe me when I tell you the "fundamental laws of physics" in no way shape or form disprove the official theory. "My science"? You have no science, you have claims. If ACTUAL science supported your theories don't you think the entire scientific community would be up in arms about this? Or are they all in on the conspiracy?

Now. Either provide actual evidence to your claim, or don't. Provide links to the people who agree with your "fundamental laws of physics" theory, or don't. Provide your "science", or don't. But don't waste my time with the nonsense you posted above.

You are aware that the offical version of what happened relied on LOTS of science, right? Some of the top scientists in the world were consulted. But I'm supposed to search for YOUR previous posts to see what YOUR "science" is? Can you possibly attempt to make yourself any more self-important?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 04:39 AM
Response to Reply #115
129. The science that I'm talking about is all on this thread.
I'm not asking you to scour the Dungeon or anything.

Look, what I'm talking about is pretty straightforward. Reread this thread's original starting post and my initial response (Not That Simple). Pumpkins smashing through car doors simply doesn't refute the inherent implausibility of aluminum planes crashing through steel buildings. All the impartial science that I have read over the last few years has led me to the rather uncomfortable position that the No-Planers might be onto something. I didn't start off thinking this. I resisted the very notion until recently when my research finally forced me to concede the point.

And hey, I'm not trying to waste anyone's time. I'm merely trying to explain something I now am convinced is a simple but very important truth. You are welcome to disagree and open to debate my point of view.

Over these last few years I've studied ballistics (and yes there is a reason why bullets are not normally made of aluminum.) I've studied the comparative density of metals. I've studied the physics of penetration. I've studied the history of aviation crashes, the construction of the WTC buildings, the construction of Boeing 767s, the evidence of the crashes on 9/11, the ability of various projectiles to penetrate steel and concrete, and you know what? It all supports the total implausibility of the official position that Boeing 767s were able to cut through the exterior perimeter of the WTC buildings like butter. The official version actually contradicts all the science I've read. But hey, don't take my word for it, do your own research. My one advice is to go to as many impartial sources as possible.

Now I'm still trying to figure out what all this means in the big picture but I do believe in calling a spade a spade and a fraud a fraud. The claim that aluminum planes penetrated steel buildings on the day of 9/11 is in my belief and according to all my objective research a total fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #129
164. Fine
Then answer on simple question

Where, then, did 4 planes and all of it's passengers go?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #164
175. Good question, MRM
Official flight records from the Bureau of flight statistics show that two of the planes were not even flying that day. Flight 93 was originally reported as landing at Cleveland. I believe the passengers were taken off the plane and it's not clear what happened after that. This stuff is all to be found on-line and quite legit. There are so many anomalies and inconsistencies with the story of 9/11. No one can know for sure what happened but I truly believe the answer to the truth lies in accepting the single most important aspect. The evidence for Boeings hitting buildings on that day is inauthentic. What we have are Bogus 767s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #175
209. Ummmm
"Official flight records from the Bureau of flight statistics show that two of the planes were not even flying that day."

link? did they say those planes didn't fly that day?, or did they say they weren't SCHEDULED to fly that day? or was there a simple clerical error made?

Official flight schedules say they did fly that day. In fact, the people on those flights would almost certainly disagree with your claim they didn't fly...if they were alive to do so.

"Flight 93 was originally reported as landing at Cleveland."

No it wasn't. There was no report of 93. There was an assumption, made by loose change (a movie I've already show was made as a work of fiction), that 93 landed in Cleveland.

"I believe the passengers were taken off the plane and it's not clear what happened after that. This stuff is all to be found on-line and quite legit."

Good of you to believe they aren't STILL ON the plane. Why is it "quite legit"? Because someone said so?

"There are so many anomalies and inconsistencies with the story of 9/11"

There were a lot of anomalies and inconsistencies in the OJ Simpson case, too. Guess what...he did it. EVERY large investigation is going to have many anomalies and inconsistencies. You know why? Because imperfect human beings conduct these investigations, and not every thing can be explained.

"No one can know for sure what happened but I truly believe the answer to the truth lies in accepting the single most important aspect. The evidence for Boeings hitting buildings on that day is inauthentic. What we have are Bogus 767s."

I see. And the dozens upon dozens of video and photographic evidence to the contrary was faked exactly how? And for that matter, why? Why wouldn't it be acceptable to just fly the planes into the buildings as advertised? Why make the conspiracy even larger than necessary?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #209
231. Ummmm indeed
Check out this quote from a very interesting article by an Australian Gentleman by the name of Gerard Holmgren:

"Thus the official figures from the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicate that neither AA 11 nor AA 77 flew on Sept, 11 2001. This solves the question of what happened to them. Nothing. Because the flights did not exist. This is consistent with other evidence which shows that they were not the objects responsible for the Pentagon and Nth WTC tower incidents."

Check out the whole article - " What really happened to American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 on Sept 11 2001
by Gerard Holmgren . Copyright. Nov 13, 2003." It's really quite well put together and thought provoking:
<http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/node/13779 >

You said:
"dozens upon dozens of video and photographic evidence to the contrary was faked exactly how?"

Answer: Easy: CG

You further ask:
"And for that matter, why? Why wouldn't it be acceptable to just fly the planes into the buildings as advertised?"

Answer: If the whole illusion was to get us to believe that the planes caused the Towers to collapse then it was necessary to make it seem as if the planes were exploding inside the buildings. Real planes wouldn't have accomplished this and besides: missiles are far more easy to guide at high speeds with accuracy.

You finally ask:
"Why make the conspiracy even larger than necessary?"

Answer: I'm not the one who made the conspiracy. We are all, of course, left wondering quite how large it must have been. The conspiracy was obviously made to be as large as necessary, and I presume all people operating within it were doing so on a strict "need to know" basis.

p.s. I'll dig out the Cleveland stuff later. It's just as intriguing


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #231
240. Now this is where I start to get a little pissed...
Edited on Tue Jul-24-07 12:30 AM by Flatulo
A coworker's girlfriend stepped onto Flight 11 at Logan Airport in Boston shortly thereafter was brutally murdered by Arab terroists by flying the plane into the WTC towers.

This is real, it is not some game. This woman was a member of a party from TJX corporation. They were all murdered on that day. B y terrorists. By crashing into the WTC tower 1.

It may be fun and even a little sexy to think that you know something that no one else does, but my friend, you are clueless. You are even more dangerous than clueless - you are filled with anti-clues.

Your link to the site on penetration and ballistic science is filled with partial truths written by someone who admits that they have NO formal training in physics. NOWHERE in your 'expert' site is there even a hint on how to compute penetration problems. Here's a clue - it's really, really hard.

Here's a little help - if you want to understand penetration mechanics, check out these guys. It's a research firm with 1200 scientists who use supercomuters and FEA code and experimentaion and hi-speed cameras to figure out what can and can't penetrate objects.

http://www.swri.org/4org/d18/engdyn/penemech/default.ht...

You remind me of the type of person for whom some wag made the following comment - "It's not what he doesn't know that bothers me; it's what he doesn't know that he doesn't know that bothers me."

Now until you can show some skin on how to compute penetration problems, I suggest you refrain from declaring what is possible or impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #240
246. Cool it, bro...
I'm not saying people didn't get murdered on that day and my sympathy goes out to your co-worker who suffered the loss of his girlfriend. I merely question how exactly the people were killed and by whom.

Let me say that my whole interest in 9/11 stems from my horror regarding the callous and manipulative murder that took place that fateful day.

As for the site that I posted on penetration physics, I purposefully chose a layman friendly site, and, as I recall, stated that (or words to that effect) when I posted it. I don't believe that I ever declared it an "expert" site as you suggested.

I have to disagree with you about it being full of partial truths. In so far as it goes, I see it as providing a general overview in a way that is readable. You, however are welcome to your opinion. I will definitely take a look at the site you have posted and I much appreciate you having done so.

You've already conceded (and reaffirm in this post) that penetration physics is way more complex than you at first suggested. Do you remember back in the day, when you blithely declared that "It's all about kinetic energy"? I've already accomplished my main goal which was to correct that faulty reasoning. Thank you by the way for conceding if I didn't already thank you. I am from a background where honor amidst debate is valued.

And as for what I do and don't know: My friend, you do not know who I am, where I am from, or what my experience is, so believe me, you have no clue.

Don't be alarmed though. I merely quest for the truth and that, as it is told, shall set us free.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #246
249. I know what you don't know.
"And as for what I do and don't know: My friend, you do not know who I am, where I am from, or what my experience is, so believe me, you have no clue.

Don't be alarmed though. I merely quest for the truth and that, as it is told, shall set us free."

Your quest for the "truth" doesn't seem to have anything to do with truth. I've yet to see you respond to evidence contrary to a post you've made. Your idea of "truth" is your predetermined conclusions and anything that doesn't fit such MUST be a lie. Who you are or where you are from is meaningless. Your experience is obviously not in any field related to the topic at hand so who cares?

"As for the site that I posted on penetration physics, I purposefully chose a layman friendly site, and, as I recall, stated that (or words to that effect) when I posted it."

OK, here's your chance. Post a site that isn't so "layman friendly" that proves your theory. We can handle it...really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #249
252. On responses to contrary evidence
You said:
"I've yet to see you respond to evidence contrary to a post you've made."

Not true:
Very early on in the thread, it was pointed out that I was mistaken about Boeings having plastic composite frames. I looked into the assertion and conceded that indeed I was wrong and that the frames were made out of aluminum plate. In the process, I learnt something more about this subject matter and appreciated my mistake being pointed out to me.

There has been a lot of talk about my understanding of physics being wrong and I have asked for it to be explained as to how specifically this is so. If any one could do that, I would welcome the chance to deepen my knowledge.

It was asked if I would accept that a plane could have crashed through a steel building if someone could shoot an egg through a car door. I honestly and emphatically declared that I would. No one has done this but if they did, I promise, I would do a 180. Believe me, I have done this before when circumstances have warranted.

Now MRM: I did not mean to suggest that you couldn't handle a more technical site on Penetration Mechanics. Indeed, I could post a vast array of material on the subject of penetration mechanics: Mass Efficiency, Limit Thickness, Defeat Mechanisms, Hypervelocity Impact, Strain Rates. My guess is however, that you would ask me for calculations specific to the crashes on 9/11 knowing that it is impossible for me to provide them.

Now, my position on this is that it shouldn't be necessary. In my opinion, there are some basic considerations that when taken into account, prove my position. But not everyone is going to agree with me.

When I posted a scientific test (Sandia) that I believe fundamentally proves my position that even at high velocity, planes don't penetrate substantial targets, I was met with argument. I am not complaining, this after all is a forum for debating. But my point is that this is a past-time for me, not an occupation and I sincerely believe that this matter can be debated at the basic level. At least first.

I make the appeal again: Certain people have been criticizing my basic understanding of physics and penetration mechanisms. Let's start there. What specifically have I got wrong or what am I misunderstanding about these basic principles? I truly welcome the opportunity to have any gaps in my knowledge filled in.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 05:08 AM
Response to Reply #252
258. Sandia?
"When I posted a scientific test (Sandia) that I believe fundamentally proves my position that even at high velocity, planes don't penetrate substantial targets,"

The Sandia test you proposed doesn't prove a single thing with regard to 9/11. The conditions weren't even close. You showed a video of an airplane being flown into a solid concrete object. The vast majority of mass that was the WTC buildings were NOT solid. 70% of them was nothing but air. Only 10% of them were steel/concrete. 20% of them were other materials ranging from Glass to Gypsum to office furniture. It takes a very special kind of thinking to believe the Sandia example has ANY application to the WTC attacks.

IOW, the WTC buildings were NOT, by any stretch of the words, "substantial targets".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #258
284. Once again...
Six acres of reinforced concrete and steel decked floor and 40 X 14" steel plate girders. Substantial Target. You can try and talk away the massive nature of the Boeing 767s' obstacles but they remain massive, as ever.

Now, I'm not saying the plane would have failed in the same way: the F-4 was more or less atomized. But I am saying that the Boeing will likewise fail at point of impact.

What do you think would have happened if the Sandia guys had a bunch of 14" steel girders set up and a couple of reinforced concrete and steel decked floors stretching back horizontally a ways for the F-4 to impact at 480mph?

Do you for one minute believe that the F4 would cruise completely through and into the obstacle before failing? Or do you think that there would be one sorry heap of a Phantom left for the Sandia techs to clean up, near to the foot of the obstacle?

The Girders would probably take a bit of a beating too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #284
285. Typo: I meant through and inside (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-26-07 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #284
404. 14" steel girders
You MEANT box columns...right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #252
322. "Certain people
have been criticizing my basic understanding of physics and penetration mechanisms."

Add basic understanding of military hardware.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #231
248. I'm getting a bit upset, now.
"Thus the official figures from the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicate that neither AA 11 nor AA 77 flew on Sept, 11 2001. This solves the question of what happened to them. Nothing. Because the flights did not exist. This is consistent with other evidence which shows that they were not the objects responsible for the Pentagon and Nth WTC tower incidents."

Wow, I'm sure the people who boarded those flights would be happy to learn they aren't DEAD. There are FLIGHT MANIFESTS for those flights. There are PEOPLE WHO BOARDED those flights who NEVER CAME HOME. There were tickets issued, luggage loaded, and humans boarding. There was clearance to take off given. They were tracked on radar as known flights. How in Gods name can you POSSIBLY believe a claim they never existed? I don't care about some dimwit who claims to have paperwork to the contrary. Use your freakin head. REAL PEOPLE with REAL FAMILIES boarded those "non-existent" flights. And they never came home. Though their body parts showed up at crash sites. What more proof than THAT do you need to know those flights did, indeed, exist?

"Answer: Easy: CG"

Sorry, I have no clue what CG stands for. You'll have to enlighten me.

"Answer: If the whole illusion was to get us to believe that the planes caused the Towers to collapse then it was necessary to make it seem as if the planes were exploding inside the buildings. Real planes wouldn't have accomplished this and besides: missiles are far more easy to guide at high speeds with accuracy."

Actually, my question was why would it be necessary for the building to collapse but I'll go with this. A missile would likely penetrate both side of the mostly air buildings from the angle they were hit. We never saw any part of a missile come out the other end. Nor were any missile parts found in the rubble, though many plane parts were. Explain why.

"Answer: I'm not the one who made the conspiracy. We are all, of course, left wondering quite how large it must have been. The conspiracy was obviously made to be as large as necessary, and I presume all people operating within it were doing so on a strict "need to know" basis."

But you seem to think you know all the answers. "need to know basis"? You watch wayyyy too much TV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #248
253. please don't get upset
Firstly, I don't even own a TV. I believe that they truly rot the mind.

It is rather my life experience that persuades me that the "needs to know" basis is a fundamental principle underlying all hierarchical governing systems.

CG stands for computer graphics.

You said:
"We never saw any part of a missile come out the other end."

Well actually, the footage shows what is consistent with a D.U. nose glowing white, as one would after penetration, making a graceful parabola out of the WTC tower trailing smoke. Check out Killtown and watch the vids carefully.

The fact that Holmgren has proven that official records show no evidence for the two American Airline flights is a fascinating piece of evidence to throw into the mix and providing you aren't starting with a preconceived notion and trying to shoehorn everything into that notion, it could help lead to the solution of what really happened. It certainly on its face seems supportive of the No-Planer position.

Now I wouldn't discount that there were people that were meant to be flying that day and are now missing, presumed dead. My question is what really happened to them? Did they really board flights that were hijacked by guys with box-cutters and then evaporated as the planes were sliced into steel frame buildings like a knife through butter? Did something else happen to them? Are we holding the right people accountable for the crimes of 9/11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 05:25 AM
Response to Reply #253
261. Computer Graphics?
You are telling me that all of those videos and photos are the result of computer graphics? Dare I ask...how exactly do you come to this conclusion and how exactly was this carried out? Computer graphics were magically put into the air so that all photographers would be fooled? In Hollywoods wildest dreams they couldn't come close to pulling this off.

"Now I wouldn't discount that there were people that were meant to be flying that day and are now missing"

I'm glad you won't discount that. I'm sure their families appreciate your concession, here.

"My question is what really happened to them? Did they really board flights that were hijacked by guys with box-cutters and then evaporated as the planes were sliced into steel frame buildings like a knife through butter?"

Evaporated? The majority of the plane victims have been identified via DNA. Sliced into steel like butter? They weren't running into a steel wall. They were running into MOSTLY air.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #261
272. Bad CG at that
Take a close look at the vids. They mostly suck. Hollywood would have done a much better job. Michael Bay should've been put in charge instead of Rummy!

BTW: Did you check out Transformers? Amazing visuals. Kinda felt it for the Camaro Transformer, Bumblebee, at one point in the film.

The planes did confront a steel wall. Now the wall had narrow windows, but it was made of steel and it was load bearing, i.e. strong. The planes hit forty steel girders apiece, approx.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 03:49 AM
Response to Reply #272
346. Every person who videoed
The planes hitting was in on the plot? All those amateur videos were subsequently doctored? All of the networks were involved? On live TV no less? Hundreds of eyewitnesses were brainwashed after the fact? Not a single video escaped?

How many people have to be involved in a conspiracy before the entire thing falls apart?

How can you possibly not see how completely absurd the scenario you paint is?

The "walls" were NOT steel. They were Aluminum and glass. The GIRDERS were steel, not the walls, which were nothing more than a facade. The only scientific computer analysis ever done showed that all but the wing tips should have entered the building at the speed they were flying. The WTC towers were not built like any other buildings in the world before or since. It was a risky design that was considered severely flawed by many architects and engineers at the time and has never been repeated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #253
306. You mention Holmgren... here's a complete page that appears
to refute the 'no plane' and doctored video theories.

Please check it out with an open mind.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #253
318. D.U. nose glowing white
:mad: WHERE do you get these stupid notions?

DU is NOT used in missiles other than in sabots and shaped charge liners. Both used in creating small 1-2" diameter penetrations in heavy armor.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #318
325. D.U.
D.U. is most definitely used in warheads. There is official denial as to the extent of it's use but it is used. The D.U. head allows for superior penetration because of Uraniums extremely high density. Makes for a very high sectional density value which almost guarantees penetration of even the most hardened target.

If you don't believe me look it up on the internet. You obviously have it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #325
370. I have handled DU weapons
as a armor platoon leader. I dont' need to "look it up on the internet".

DU is used in tank sabots and shaped charge liners. Not in "bunker buster" type missiles. No Need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #370
395. Interestingly enough
DU is also used in commercial aircraft as counter weights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #97
104. Wow, I didn't expect you to go there.
The "No-Plane" theories are the ones requiring the greatest amount of evidence, since they are the most extraordinary (excepting Judy Wood's "energy beam" theory). You have not come close to meeting this requirement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #104
111. It is not Scientifically Plausible That Aluminum Planes Can Penetrate Steel Frame Buildings.
This is a verifiable, scientifically supported fact. All the science that is available supports this. Show me the science that refutes it? I have seen none, and believe me I looked long and hard. I didn't want to believe that the No-Planers might be correct. I will say it again: On the evidence, and in light of all the available science, the official position that on 9/11 aluminum planes cut through steel framed buildings like butter, is a falsehood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #111
112. It is not (as you allege) a scientifically supported fact.
I will note that in your post you turn from claiming that the science supports your theory to claiming that you have seen no science that refutes your theory. Which is it?

I have stated this before and I will state it again: Just because you say something does not make it fact. You will need to produce the science you claim supports your theory before you convince me (and any other rational person, I would hope). Just stating and restating that this is "fact" or "common sense" does nothing but make you look like you have no basis for your argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #111
116. Once again
You claiming "This is a verifiable, scientifically supported fact. All the science that is available supports this" does not make it so.

If it's verifiable, then verify it. If it's scientifically supported fact then support it scientifically. Continuous repetition does NOT make it a fact. Put your keyboard where your mouth is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #111
118. Lay out your theory and provide calculations explaining these photos:
Edited on Mon Jul-23-07 02:29 AM by greyl


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #118
132. You're asking me to theorize
Well I'm loath to do that but I believe your request is earnest so here goes:

Seeing as I contend that Boeings cannot penetrate completely through a heavy steel wall and reinforced concrete floors, I obviously believe that something other than a Boeing 767 had to have caused this obvious and verifiable damage to the exterior of the WTC Tower. It's definitely possible that four separate tomahawk missiles fitted with D.U. warheads were used to penetrate the exterior perimeters of both WTC Towers, the six concentric walls of the Pentagon and the ground in a Pennsylvanian field. Certainly, that would be entirely consistent with the facts of the matter.

Now, if this is the case, there was obviously an intent to commit a fraud and persuade the people at large that planes entered the buildings and exploded once inside them. It would be a relatively simple job to place supplemental explosives at the exterior perimeter of the WTC Towers and coordinate their detonation to create the effect that the damage had been sustained by planes and thus support this fraud.

However, a close look at this evidence of alleged aircraft damage reveals that the holes that have been created somehow (and possibly by supplemental explosives) do not match with the official account and widely broadcast film footage of the planes having completely entered the building. They are not large enough and as is clearly visible from this photograph, the damage where the wings were meant to have impacted is not sheared through at all. This is in contradiction to the film of the event which clearly shows the wings slicing right through the girders and floors without any breakage whatsoever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #132
156. There's a difference between theorizing and fantasizing.
The closest statements to explanatory theory in your post are:

-four separate tomahawk missiles fitted with D.U. warheads were used to penetrate the exterior perimeters of both WTC Towers
-supplemental explosives{{were placed}} at the exterior perimeter of the WTC Towers


You have offered a pathetic and ridiculous account which is contrary to all evidence and the eyewitness accounts from within the buildings and outside of the buildings. You've given zero supporting evidence, still have zero supporting calculations.

What you're doing would best be described as presticogitation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #132
320. I got news for yah
Tomahawk's don't come with "DU warheads" and they wouldn't need them anyway to penetrate the facade of the WTC or any typical skyscraper for that matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #320
355. Are You guys being deliberately naive?
Honestly guys, do you not use the internet. Do you just accept what the news spoon-feeds you. There's concerned people out there doing real research. We can avail ourselves of it and learn:

"On 27 May 1999 Raytheon was awarded a $25,829,379 undefinitized cost-plus-incentive-fee/cost-plus-fixed-fee, ceiling amount contract for the modification of the Tactical Tomahawk missile to the Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant configuration as part of the Second Counter-Proliferation Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration. The Tactical Tomahawk missile will be modified to incorporate the government-furnished penetrator warhead and the hard-target smart fuze. Four Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant missiles will be assembled to conduct the advanced concept technology demonstration testing."

<http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm >

"These guided weapons and their secret warheads are central to US air attack plans for Iraq. The US plan to use 9700 guided bombs and 700+ missiles at the start of the war (New York Times, 2nd Feb). Of these I estimate that at least 30% are likely to be equipped with "hard-target" warheads. These contain a secret, high density metal with powerful incendiary effects designed to destroy suspected chemical and biological targets. Tungsten is high density but not incendiary. Only Uranium has both these properties.

IF this secret metal is Uranium then these weapons are radiological bombs -- which would explain why the Pentagon and NATO have protected such a closely guarded secret.

US Patent records confirm that the most common of these -- the upgraded 2000 lb BLU-109/B guided bomb warhead, and the new Tactical Tomahawk penetrator warhead -- specify Uranium warhead options."

<http://www.idust.net/Letters/Willms01.htm >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #355
373. FAS and Global security are reliable sources
They do not mention DU. In fact they describe the AUP (Advanced Unitary Penetrator) as being made of steel alloy.

The source below is speaking out of his ass. DU would NOT be a good choice for destroying chemical and biological targets. DU does have "powerful incendiary effects" when compared to other metals like steel, but notsomuch when compared to napalm and white phosphorous!

the upgraded 2000 lb BLU-109/B guided bomb warhead, and the new Tactical Tomahawk penetrator warhead -- specify Uranium warhead options."


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munition...

DU can be used in explosive shaped charge liners, but the latest liners consist of nickel-cobalt steel alloy.

The Advanced Unitary Penetrator (AUP) is the next-generation, hard target penetrator munition that provides a lethal capability to penetrate and defeat extremely hard multilayer underground facilities. Sharing an external appearance and flight characteristics with the 2000 lb BLU-109, the AUP has an advanced heavy steel penetrator warhead filled with high-energy explosives that can penetrate more than twice as much reinforced concrete as the BLU-109.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-26-07 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #132
401. Question - how did the 'supplemental explosives' get the
perimeter columns to fail facing inwards? There are no signs of explosives planted on the *outside* of the structure, which would have been required to get the columns to blow inwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-27-07 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #401
409. Impact Pics
<>

<>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-27-07 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #409
413. Huh
I guess it must have been a humungoz block of C-4 shaped into the head on profile of a 767?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-27-07 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #409
417. I think you're looking at the stainless steel covering over the beams.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #111
243. That is pure bullshit. Let me give you some clues...
Edited on Tue Jul-24-07 12:55 AM by Flatulo
Let's look at this as an energy problem. You want to play physicist - OK, lets play.

First, compute the kinetic energy of a 767 travelling 500 MPH. I have shown this calculation in another thread, and the answer is 2.83 billion Joules.

Next, compute the surface area of one face of the WTC. Then compute the net force on this face by using the equation for dynamic pressure using a linear disribution of pressure, which I also did in another thread, assuming a wind velocity of 200 MPH. Here's a hint - it's the air density times the area times the velocity squared divided by gravity. The force comes out to be somewhere between 10,000,000 and 15,000,000 lbs, dependign on what you use for wind velocity.

Next, compute the stiffness of the tower in cantilever bending by assuming some acceptable sway value, say two feet, at the top. Any sway more than this and the people on the upper floors would get sick on a windy day.

You now have all you need to calculate how much energy the tower can absorb.

You can compute the stiffness (spring rate) of the building in bending by dividing the wind load by the allowable sway. Call this K.

Now, in order for a building to survive an airplane strike, it must be able to absorb all the energy transferred into it by the plane WITHOUT the plane penerating. In other words, the plane must simply bounce off of the building, as you claim would have in fact happened.

Set the kinetic energy of 2.83 billion joules equal to the 1/2 K*x^2 that is the bending stiffness of the building. Let X = two feet, four feet, or whatever you feel is an acceptabale deflection (in reality, this deflection would have to be limited to what the perimeter columns can sustain for bending stress).

When you do this calculation, you find that the WTC would have had to be at least two hundred times stiffer than it was in order to absorb the energy transferred into it. Since is it impossible for the tower to be two hundred times stiffer than it in reality was, than there are only two possibilities:

1. No plane hit the tower.
2. A plane hit the tower, but the tower failed to absorb the energy and the energy was dissipated in the destruction of both the aircraft and the tower; ie, the tower broke.

In order for 1. to be true, thousands of witnesses must be liars, or a massive hallucination took place.

Instead of trying to prove a complex penetration was impossible, which I sure can't prove, and you for DAMN sure can't prove, why not try to explain how thousands of witnesses were fooled? I honestly think your time would be better spent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 02:36 AM
Response to Reply #243
250. Hmm, now that is interesting..
... skimming down your overview, taking it as read as it were and cutting to the chase, you declare that there are only two possibilities:

1. No plane hit the tower.
2. A plane hit the tower, but the tower failed to absorb the energy and the energy was dissipated in the destruction of both the aircraft and the tower; ie, the tower broke.

Now, follow me here if you will: It seems unlikely to me that the towers collapsed because of the planes. A single explosion resulting from an impact, spilling fuel and causing a fire never seemed to me to be an event that could pulverize buildings into a fine dust cloud that was visible in satellite photos as a plume leading up into the heavens. (BTW: What's your viewpoint on this? did the planes do it or was it something else?)

Now, that being the case, and according to your scientific calculations, if planes hit the Towers they would have to have caused their fatal collapse "i.e. the tower(s) broke" and seeing as I posit that no planes caused the collapse of the Towers ( a view shared by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people) it therefore follows that the only possibility left is choice number one:

No planes hit the towers.

I'll further clarify my argument with a metaphor: Say, for example, I am accused of ramming a car into a building and destroying it and I say in my defense there was no car. Now, let's say, for all intensive purposes, there were no significant remains of the car to verify its existence one way or the other. Now let's say that the circumstances surrounding the destruction of the building were that it stood for an hour or so and then disintegrated into a cloud of dust and smoke.

Now let's imagine that my defense lawyer hires a legitimate forensic scientist whose calculations conclusively prove that if I had rammed the car into the building in the way that I was accused of doing, that the building would have been destroyed by collapsing on it's side. (This would be the the equivalent of the calculations you have just done. ) Now, let's suppose my lawyer makes an appeal to the jury along the lines of: "if you doubt that my client, having driven a car into the building, would have caused it to be destroyed by disintegration and you furthermore believe I have proven that if he had driven a car into it the building in the way it is claimed that it's destruction would have resulted from the building collapsing on its side from the impact, then I put it to you that, as my client has declared, there WAS NO CAR!"

Any good defense lawyer should thus be able to get me an acquittal on a reasonable doubt basis don't you think.

Mr. Flatulo, it seems to me, that if your calculations are accurate, they point anyone who believes that the planes didn't destroy the buildings, firmly toward the camp of...

THE NO-PLANERS!!!!
:yoiks:

BTW: There is a pretty simple explanation as to how thousands of witnesses could be fooled: It is called the art of deception and it happens all the time. Some trickery here, a few plants skillfully placed, a few stooges, some coercion, some threats, come on, Mr. Flatulo, you're a grown up, you know the way this works and has worked since the dawn of time, on a small and large scale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #250
267. LOL
"Mr. Flatulo, it seems to me, that if your calculations are accurate, they point anyone who believes that the planes didn't destroy the buildings, firmly toward the camp of...THE NO-PLANERS!!!!"

Dude. You believe computer graphics were beamed up to make a missile appear to be an airplane at high rates of speed...twice. And not only to the naked eye, but to the most sophisticated video equipment available. You believe two airplanes full of people never existed.

I have to ask. How many times have you been abducted by aliens?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 06:20 AM
Response to Reply #267
273. Aliens aren't real, MRM
And the computer graphics wouldn't have been beamed up or projected.

The films of the missile striking the WTC Tower would have had the CG planes added to them apart from a few that were broadcast live (with a 17 second delay) and for them the would have used a Wescam to add the plane in. These vids are the ropiest of all, understandably, because they would had to have been developed on the fly, as it were.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #273
290. There is a fatal flaw in the CG theory...
If even one person, just ONE PERSON, out of the hundreds of thousands looking up in lower Manhattan that day, had been able to produce a photograph or video that showed conclusively that a plane *did not* hit the building, then that whole ruse would have been exposed.

No perpetrator could have guaranteed that their ruse would not have been captured by a camera that they did not control. And there were thousands of possible cameras that they did not control.

Can you cite a single piece of factual evidence, ie a photograph, video, or physical debris that would support the conclusion that a missile or missiles hit the towers?

If not, then how can you lend credence to a theory with NO conclusive eyewitness or physical evidence when faced with mountains of evidence (physical wreckage, eyewitness accounts, etc)?

On a related note, there are three ways that I am aware of to launch a cruise missle. Submarine, aircraft (usually B-52) or ship launch. Each of these methods is not very subtle. Cruise missile launches are pretty dramatic and require the cooperation of the ship or aircrew to make it happen.

Not only that, they fly pretty slow. They can easily be seen with the naked eye. Are there any eyewitness accounts that claim that missiles hit the WTC towers? Are those eyewitness accounts backed up by any physical evidence? Yes, some people 'heard' what sounded like a missile. A jumbo jet streaking in full speed at 1000 feet is a noise that most people never get to hear. But let;s focus on eyewitness accounts backed up by physical evidence.

Is there any?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #290
328. Eyewitnesses
Hey, Flatulo

You asked me for references of witnesses to No-Planes. Here's an interesting one.

"UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jim, I don't know whether we've confirmed that this was an aircraft, or to be more specific, some people said they thought they saw a missile. I don't know how people could differentiate, but we might keep open the possibility that this was a missile attack on these buildings.

Ali (ph), I must say that we have an eyewitness who said it was a large plane that crashed first. And then as we were watching the live picture here in the studio, we saw a plane crash into the -- crash into the other tower of the World Trade Center. And again, let's to be sure, there it is. There it is, the plane went right through the other tower of the World Trade Center."

This is from a CNN transcript <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.ht... >

Some context: I've seen the video of this exchange. It's happening on a live news broadcast and the first speaker is the on the ground reporter for the network who is interviewing witnesses. The tone of his voice is concerned and earnest as he tries to reconcile what is being said back at the studio with what he is learning from witnesses. The studio news anchor cuts him off to steer things back to the notion of planes.

Now my question is: how could anyone mistake a low flying Boeing 767 for a missile. The witnesses said they saw a missile. On both visual and sound identification, a Boeing 767 is unmistakably a large passenger aircraft. It's pretty damn obvious to me that this reporter had access to witnesses who definitely didn't see a plane. He was ignored.

Now from the behavior of the news anchor, it is also obvious there is no desire on the part of the network to follow up on witness evidence to a missile. Now this makes sense if there wasn't any planes really and the networks a part of perpetuating the fraud that there was. We see the evidence of missiles being buried right there on live TV. Is it any wonder such evidence is scarce.

That being said there is more evidence - plenty more.

But let's take things one at a time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 04:17 AM
Response to Reply #328
348. Hundreds, maybe thousands
Saw a plane. A kook or two saw a "missile". At least one saw and alien space ship shooting a death ray at the building. Do you know where these people were standing? From what angle they saw the event? Do you know if they were clinically sane? Legally blind? Did anyone ask if they've recently been abducted by aliens? The overwhelming majority saw a plane, so for you to be right, the overwhelming majority would have to have been confused while a kook or two got it right.

"Now my question is: how could anyone mistake a low flying Boeing 767 for a missile."

Much better question: How could hundreds, may thousands of people mistake a low flying missile for an airplane?

I'm not a big believer in eyewitness testimony because of the obvious flaws. But when the vast majority see the SAME THING that ALL video evidence agrees with, it's awfully hard to claim a couple of people of unknown circumstance were right and everyone else is wrong. If I'm a network producer who has already confirmed that planes hit the building, I'm not going to put someone on the air who claims it was a missile (or alien death ray), either.

Let's imagine a police lineup with 100 witnesses to a crime. 99 say the guy who did it wasn't in the lineup. 1 insists they are. In your world, you'd aggressively prosecute based on the one while completely ignoring the 99.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #348
356. What this is evidence of...
is the Media not being interested in and/or covering up the evidence of missiles. Was the on the ground reporter not a professional trusted by the network at the time for a high responsibility job? We'll never know what he was referring to, how many people said they saw a missile, who these people were. But the professional reporter was concerned enough by what he had discovered from them to argue the case on live TV with his anchor.

Like I said, there is more compelling evidence for the possibility of evidence buried within the reporting that day. The recently turned over First Responder tapes show that people were calling it in as a missile strike. etc. etc.

I've seen the footage of some of the witnesses who say they saw a plane. It's pretty damn obvious they are bad actors. You just have to be a half way decent judge of human nature to pick this up. Why not go to some No-Planer sites (GASP! Shock-horror) with an open mind and objectively review their evidence. They have compiled a bunch of original news videos and films that more than adequately support their position.

Like I said, I didn't want to accept what they were saying and refused to for the longest time just like you. I left my mind open though and diligently did some research. Three years of it. Where I am at with it now is that science and the evidence backs their position up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #356
386. So my wife's friend of 30 years, who saw flight 175 hit WTC2
from her kitchen window, is a liar or a bad actor. Interesting, and a bit offensive I'm sure to those who know what they saw.

How do you dismiss that they saw correlates with the physical evidence - landing gear, wheels, turbine hubs, fuselage chunks, etc on the street and adjacent rooftops?

Have you seen the photos that were taken on 9/11 of the debris on the street? How do you dismiss those photos?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #328
385. Two things come to mind...
I assume the account you cited was in reference to whatever hit the first tower. I believe that almost no one saw what hit tower 1. The Naudet video did manage to catch a few frames of 'it'.

What hit the second tower is much mre certain, because tens of thousands of people were staring at the first tower.

lastly, as y ou noted yourself, it would have taken several missiles to precisely perforate the tower wall in the shape of an airplane. No reports of multiple missile strikes.

So you have some people who think a missile hit the first tower, probably because they didn't see anything at all. What do those same people think hit the second tower?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #273
347. Live news broadcasts
Don't have a 17 second delay in the U.S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #347
357. We don't know that!
There was a mysterious 17 second discrepancy between the official time and that recorded by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia.
LDEO: 9:02:54
9/11 Commission: 9:03:11


Look, if there was a fraud there are going to be all kinds of deceptions going on. The only evidence we end up getting for these deceptions are strange anomalies. Lies means cover up also. Getting to the truth isn't easy in these circumstances. You need an open mind, patience, and an ability to cross refer conflicting data.

Like I said before though: the Devil is in the details.

I don't believe we'll ever fully know the whole truth about what happened that day. A good starting point for me, however, is that the central issue of the planes hitting buildings is apparently bogus. It took me years of research to accept that inflammatory fact but I do see it as a fact now. In the real world, planes do not enter steel frame buildings as if they were cutting through butter, meeting no resistance. Science, practical experience and just good old common sense, support that position.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #250
294. Wrong conclusions.
Factfinder general said:

> Now, that being the case, and according to your scientific calculations, if planes hit the Towers
> they would have to have caused their fatal collapse "i.e. the tower(s) broke"

The structural damage precipitated the crash. The building would have survived if the fires had not reduced the strength of the steel. Both events were required to cause the collapse.

> A single explosion resulting from an impact, spilling fuel and causing a fire never seemed to me
> to be an event that could pulverize buildings into a fine dust cloud that was visible in satellite
> photos as a plume leading up into the heavens. (BTW: What's your viewpoint on this? did the planes
> do it or was it something else?)

The dust cloud did not appear until after the collapse initiated. The cloud was millions of pounds of concrete and glass being pulverized as the tower's potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. Concrete and glass can both be smashed down into a fine powder by the application of energy.

The NIST repost concluded that the first floor to collapse had 30X the kinetic energy needed to cause the floor below it to fail. Again, I believe they arrived at this conclusion by using an energy approach. The knew the spring rate of the floor, and the knew how much load it could carry. When the kinetic energy transferred to the lower floor exceeds its energy storage ability, failure occurs.

> BTW: There is a pretty simple explanation as to how thousands of witnesses could be fooled: It is
> called the art of deception and it happens all the time. Some trickery here, a few plants
> skillfully placed, a few stooges, some coercion, some threats, come on, Mr. Flatulo, you're a
> grown up, you know the way this works and has worked since the dawn of time, on a small and large
> scale.

Actually, I do not know how it works. You will have to explain it to me in excruciating detail.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #294
329. You don't know how deception works?
Firstly, we can beg to differ on why the towers fell. Thank you for sharing your viewpoint on it but lets move on.

"Actually, I do not know how it works. You will have to explain it to me in excruciating detail."

Deception is a routine occurrence and nearly everyone is affected by it as they continue down the path of life. You surely must have some frame of reference. As regards large scale deception: Have you not read any history? Have you no knowledge of Watergate? Do you not know about the Mafia? Have you never heard of COINTELPRO?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #329
362. You're confusing deception with optical illusion.
I understand deception. I'd love to hear your theory on how a mass optical illusion could be pulled off that would allow observers from all around lower Manhattan to see a plane strike the WTC.

Plus, you haven't responded to my query as to how the perpetrators could be *certain* that NO ONE in Manhattan had a camera that would have captured a missile or missiles hitting the towers, thereby exposing their ruse. The did not have control of all the cameras in lower manhattan that day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #250
321. pulverize
It seems unlikely to me that the towers collapsed because of the planes. A single explosion resulting from an impact, spilling fuel and causing a fire never seemed to me to be an event that could pulverize buildings into a fine dust cloud that was visible in satellite photos as a plume leading up into the heavens. (BTW: What's your viewpoint on this? did the planes do it or was it something else?)


No the planes nor the fire "pulverized" the buildings. They did that to themselves by the massive P energy stored in them. No steel was pulverized, just everything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #321
330. I was just saying the buildings were pulverized...
I don't believe the plane crash could have led to that, but we can agree to differ on this issue. The topic of the thread is about planes after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #111
319. Jesus H CHRIST!
"This is a verifiable, scientifically supported fact. All the science that is available supports this. "

PLEASE by ALL MEANS support this statement with some FACTS!

"On the evidence, and in light of all the available science,"

Oh my fucking god...WHAT EVIDENCE!!?!

I need another G&T.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #319
331. Make mine a double (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #82
92. You have produced
Nothing close to "the basic physics". You have done nothing beyond repeat a claim over and over. An incorrect claim at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 03:09 AM
Response to Reply #92
122. Why is my claim incorrect?
I have discussed the basic physics thoroughly in this thread. My original reason for entering this on-line discussion was to correct Flatulo's position that the ability of aluminum planes (such as Boeing 767s) to penetrate steel frame buildings (such as the WTC Towers) was all about kinetic energy. His support for this was a video or two of a pumpkin smashing through steel sheet and an article on how a fine jet of high pressure water can cut through steel. I supported the veracity of these events with a discussion of the science of penetration but refuted Flatulo's claim that it was all about kinetic energy. Flatulo was gracious enough to concede that I was right in this regard: "He is correct in that sectional density is a factor."

I stated, and still maintain, that this same complex science does not support the ability of aluminum aircraft to penetrate heavy steel walls and multiple massive reinforced concrete floors.

Where is the science that will actually support the contention that this can happen? The empirical evidence of a long record of thousands of aircraft crashes into various obstacles, has never produced a single example of an aluminum aircraft completely penetrating the object of impact, except allegedly on 9/11, when four such instances were said to have occurred. If a plane, traveling at high speed, so much as hits a bird, the plane will usually fail at the point of impact. Now that is with a plane striking a bird, let alone steel girders and concrete floors!

Yet on this amazing day of 9/11, according to the official position, such a plane penetrated through a heavy steel wall and massive reinforced concrete floors and only failed after the point of impact, thus managing to completely penetrate this substantial exterior perimeter, and this not once, but twice. Another two planes achieved feats of a similarly impossible nature on this same amazing day.

Yes, a pumpkin can bust through steel sheet. Yes, a jet of high pressure water can cut metal, yes splinters of wood can bury themselves into brick but there is good and basic scientific laws at work allowing this to happen. Please show me the science that enabled four planes to accomplish something that is on it's face refuted by empirical evidence and physical law. For reasons that I have gone into at length within this thread, the pumpkins and the water do not, I'm afraid to say, reveal this science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #122
128. That's alot of talk about nothing.
I was expecting some actual science, not a lot of doublespeak.

From what I gather from your nonsense above, you don't believe ANY plane hit the WTC buildings?

Anyhow, when exactly are you going to present your "science"? I don't mean your claims about science, I mean actual, physical, science with cites to back it up? Don't bother to answer. I already know you have no such ability. The next time you scientifically prove what you state will be the first time you do so.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #76
81. The WTC towers weren't heavy steel and reinforced concrete!
Where in Hades did you find that foolish assumption from?

Did you keep the receipt?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #81
83. No, I've done the research.
Please read my previous posts if you want to understand the basis of me stating this as fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #83
85. Stating things does not make them fact.
It is important to learn this. The real world does not cater to your whims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #85
95. Long since realized that my whims are not catered for
I, however, am merely stating things that happen to be facts.

Utilizing your standard here:
The authorities state that on this one day, the laws of physics were suspended and aluminum airframes, for the only time in history, were allegedly able to penetrate heavy steel walls and massive reinforced concrete walls. Now just because they state this, it doesn't make it a fact does it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #95
96. Massive reinforced concrete walls?
At the WTC towers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #96
123. Oops! Typo
I of course meant floors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #123
383. One positive
You aren't another "massive concrete core" professor like Christopheria.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #95
100. We call this a "strawman".
Please inform yourself of the various common logical fallacies and refrain from them in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #100
482. You may call it a strawman...
but then I would beg to differ.

"The authorities state that on this one day, the laws of physics were suspended and aluminum airframes, for the only time in history, were allegedly able to penetrate heavy steel walls and massive reinforced concrete walls. Now just because they state this, it doesn't make it a fact does it?"

This is exactly what the OP is on this issue. I don't mean that the authorities actually put it in those words. Note that didn't use any quotation marks around the sentence. What I wrote is a summing up of what they are basically telling us, directly through their version of the events and indirectly by implication.

For my point to be seen as a Strawman argument I would had to have misrepresented the OP in some ridiculous and unfounded way to make it seem far-fetched. It is the OP that is actually far-fetched not my (accurate) interpretation of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-02-07 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #482
483. This HAS to be a prank.
Nobody is this fucking stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #83
86. Obviously you haven't, if you persist in stating that as fact.
As I posted below, the perimeter columns were made from thinner and thinner steel plates, the higher up you went. They ended up being 1/4 in. thick in the highest floors. The yield strength of those plates also decreased the higher up you got.

Time for more research!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #86
87. But could you shoot a pumpkin through them.
Inquiring minds want to know.


Also, an egg. And an unladen swallow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #87
88. A pumpkin through a car, yes.
A pumpkin through the wall of a WTC tower?

I don't know. It would have to be going really fast. Could we fill it with JELL-O first?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #88
91. If you really must...
but it has to be Grape.


Considering that a fleck of paint can cruise right through the space shuttle, I think our pumpkin experiment will ultimately be successful. We just need to find a big enough gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #87
101. An African swallow maybe, but not a European swallow. ( n/t )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #76
90. Uh, they don't
They use bunker busters when they want to penetrate BUNKERS. For those who are clueless, "Bunkers" refers to UNDER GROUND facilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Popol Vuh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #76
315. Lead Bullet vs Steel
First off I totally do not believe the government's conspiracy theory that the building fell due to the damage caused by the planes alone.

However, your rational is flawed with respect that weaker materials are unable to penetrate stronger ones. Case in point: Last shooting trip friends and myself made out to the Mojave Desert had us bringing with us the typical targets we normally bring with us to shoot at. A few of these targets are one inch thick steel plates (very heavy).

The calibers shot at these plates were: .45ACP, .40SW, 9mm, 7.62 x 39 (AK rounds), .30-06, .223 and .338WIN MAG.

All the pistol shots powderize upon impact leaving no damage besides some molten lead deposits on the surface. The AK rounds produce a very shallow crater about the size of a thumbnail. The .30-06 leaves a crater about half as deep as the thickness of the plate and just a very slight raised bump on the back side of the plate. The .223 burrows a hole deeper than the .30-06 and leaves a pronounced bump on the back side of the plate. The .338 win mag punches a hole clean though when using 250grain bullets or heavier.

The point I am trying to illustrate here is: Its not just a matter of material strength. Its a combination of material strength, velocity, mass and shape. This is why the faster and more aerodynamic but less massive .223 cut deeper into the plate than the .30-06 did. This is also why the more massive .338 win mag punched right through the steel plate even though the bullet is made up of a much weaker material (lead).

This is also why there are machine tools that use super high velocity water jets to cut steel....


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #315
323. I would add that the friction coefficient between the materials is
an important parameter as well. If you can find it in this mess, I posted about some copper jacketed vs teflon coated .223 rounds. The teflon coated bullets punched a clean hole into 3/4" of cast iron.

The feds banned them because they can shoot right through a Bradley's armor (or so I'm told).

Thanks for making an honest observation even though you disagree with the official story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #315
332. No argument from me on this
I have never said during this post that weaker materials cannot penetrate stronger ones. If you've been following the thread from the beginning this would be clear. My point is that kinetic energy is merely a measurement of impact power not penetration power. Also I believe the notion that speed alone can allow anything to penetrate a target is a fallacy. It is important to consider what the projectile is and what the target is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-26-07 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #332
396. Power and energy are two different things
Edited on Thu Jul-26-07 12:50 AM by Flatulo
You betray a rather simplistic understanding of basic physics, or perhaps you just mis-spoke.

Either way, energy is the potential to do work. Power is the *rate* that work is performed.

This is not just nit-picking.

You said:

> My point is that kinetic energy is merely a measurement of impact power not penetration power.

Kinetic energy applied over time results in the dissipation of power. If the airplane took 100 feet to come to rest from 500 MPH, then that kinetic energy performed work for .273 seconds assuming a linear deceleration.

During this .273 seconds, 13,900,000 horsepower was expended, not counting the fuel energy.

To put this into perspective, 1 horsepower is the power required to lift 550 lbs one foot in one second.

So the power dissipated during the crash was 7,645,000,000 ft-lbs/sec. Said another way, it was enough power to apply a force of 7,645,000,000 lbs over a distnace of 1 foot for a period of 1 second.

The perimeter columns were just a little over 1 foot deep.

Are you starting to appreciate how much force was applied during the collision? Bear in mind that the tower was designed to withstand 15,000,000 lbs of wind load distributed over the face of the building, not the frontal projected area of a 767.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-26-07 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #396
405. GREAT POST (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #66
70. So where are
The papers these "military engineers have already cranked out"?

Surely you have a source, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #70
80. Are you kidding?
Are you doubting the existence of the scientific research that resulted in the bunker buster? The many years of military experience showing that regular missiles can't penetrate heavy steel and massive reinforced concrete and that this fact led to the invention of the bunker buster is plenty proof to me that it would take more than a Boeing 767 to completely penetrate the WTC Towers. Couple this with some basic knowledge of physics as it applies to the penetration power of projectiles and It's PDC that there is "Something Wrong." Dr. Henry Lee again ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #80
89. You gotta be kidding
The bunker buster research had absolutely NOTHING to do with free standing buildings. It had EVERYTHING to do with underground facilities. Hence the term "BUNKER buster"

"regular missiles" have been penetrating heavy steel and reinforced concrete buildings for YEARS. Including in Iraq this time around.

I ask again, do you have a source for your claims or do you always make shit up as you go along?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #89
135. They are using D.U. warheads in Iraq
That would be Depleted Uranium warheads, you know the type of warhead they use on bunker busters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #135
324. Depleted Uranium is a metal, not a warhead.
A warhead is the payload, otherwise known as the BOMB! Uranium is just a very dense and heavy metal that makes it easier to penetrate several inches of hardened steel armor (there are far far harder steels than those used in buildings, but they cost $$$$) or several feet of concrete with a small projectile.

You fail to understand this time and time again, but the idea of a bunker buster is to punch into the bunker INTACT to deliver the payload. What good is the detonator if it's ripped to shreds while punching in and can't go off?

A plane on the other hand, while punching into a building, does not remain intact. But hey, why would it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #324
361. "Out of the mouths of babes"
You said:

"A plane on the other hand, while punching into a building, does not remain intact. But hey, why would it?"

But the videos taken on the day of 9/11 show them remaining intact while they pass through floors and girders.

And that is exactly the discrepancy I am talking about, You are dead right in your statement and it is precisely that fact coupled with the anomaly of the videos showing otherwise that first alerted me to a problem with the evidence.

The Vertical Stabilizer, which obviously weighs only a fraction of the total plane, glides through steel girders and floors, likewise the wings. There's no total plane weight backing them up. Their weight and strength is to be considered separately from the rest of the plane.

In a real crash, different parts of planes react differently to the impact depending on their individual strengths and the exact nature of the obstacle. Not on 9/11, though. Watch the videos from that day, the samples in slow motion are best, and then tell me they don't look wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #361
389. Nope! You're wrong again.
Edited on Wed Jul-25-07 05:45 PM by VTMechEngr
The plane left the building fully intact? Show me that video?

You won't notice the plane breaking up on the video because it happened so fast, faster than the brain can comprehend, and even then, that large a mass doesn't stop on a dime. Its like a coal train smashing into a truck.

The plane was ripped to shreds inside the building.

You continue to be full of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-26-07 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #389
400. The entire collisions took slightly over 1/4 of one second.
That would relate to about 7 frames of video, assuming one could see into the building, which one cannot. As far as I am aware, there are no videos shot along the axis of the aircraft that can reveal the state of the plane once inside the perimeter columns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #54
59. Sorry Factfinder, hand-waving isn't very compelling.
Do you know how a anti-tank round works? There are two kinds.

1. HEAT - this round works by burning through the tank hull with a plasma beam. It literally melts its way through the steel and then ignites it.

2. Sabot - an aluminum slug contains an inner slug of depleted uranium. The aluminum casing provides the cross-section for the expanding gas to act on, but once clear of the muzzle, the aluminum falls away to expose the depleted uraniumm core. The uranium is very hard, but it is the kinetic energy of the slug that literally pulverizes the steel. The slug has far more kinetic energy than the steel hull can absorb as an elastic spring. So it breaks.

Somewhere I had a pic of scientists blowing 2X4s thru 2" steel doors. This was done to simulate the missiles created during a tornado.

Is is common sense to you that a piece of timber can punch through a steel door?

Sometimes our intuition fails and we have to rely on emperical evidence and experiment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #59
93. How does your post refute anything I've said?
You say that there are two kinds of penetrating the steel of a tank:

"1. HEAT - this round works by burning through the tank hull with a plasma beam. It literally melts its way through the steel and then ignites it."

I doubt you are meaning to say that the planes were heated up before entering the steel walls so they could penetrate?

2. Sabot - an aluminum slug contains an inner slug of depleted uranium. The aluminum casing provides the cross-section for the expanding gas to act on, but once clear of the muzzle, the aluminum falls away to expose the depleted uranium core. The uranium is very hard, but it is the kinetic energy of the slug that literally pulverizes the steel. The slug has far more kinetic energy than the steel hull can absorb as an elastic spring. So it breaks.

A heavy metal is necessary for the penetration of the thick steel of the tank. This is totally consistent with my argument. What do you think would happen to the slug if it was completely made of aluminum?

"Somewhere I had a pic of scientists blowing 2X4s thru 2" steel doors. This was done to simulate the missiles created during a tornado. Is it common sense to you that a piece of timber can punch through a steel door?

I am not disputing the ability of less dense materials to penetrate steel under certain conditions. I was interested to see the evidence of pumpkins penetrating steel sheet and have at no point doubted the veracity of this evidence. The reason for this is that it is consistent with my understanding of the fundamental laws of physics. The evidence of planes cutting through steel framed buildings is totally inconsistent with my knowledge. I'm afraid that leaves me doubting the veracity of it in much the same way that I doubt the veracity of the evidence for Criss Angel's ability to suspend the laws of physics.

How do you think the 2x4s that you mention would have fared if they'd been fired sideways through the same 2" steel door, i.e. like the wing of a plane?

I'm not relying on intuition here. I am relying on common sense and fundamental laws of physics.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #54
60. Horrizontal Vs. Vertical, maybe??
Underground Vs. Above ground maybe?

If those planes had come straight down onto the WTC rather into their side the damage would have been much less as there would have been much more of the structure to protect it at time of attack.

A "bunker buster" penetrates UNDERGROUND complexes. Last I checked the WTC buildings were above ground and didn't have tons of earth protecting them on all sides to absorb the kinetic energy of any attack. THAT is common sense for anyone who took a High school physics class.

Kick a piece of balsa wood out in the open and you'll easily shatter it. Now imbed the same piece of balsa wood into a bunch of compacted dirt and kick it...the only thing you're going to damage is your foot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #60
105. You Offer a Limited Description of Bunker Busters
As I said in reply to another post:

"A bunker buster is a bomb designed to penetrate hardened targets or targets buried deep underground."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster >

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #105
108. You offer a limited "analysis" of your theory.
When are you going to perform the calculations necessary for proving your claims regarding the impact of an aircraft on the structure of the WTC towers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #108
134. I don't need to do the calculations.
I already understand this simple truth. If you don't get it yet and the calculations will help you, by all means take the time to do them. I wish I did have them, for the sake of completeness, so you'll be doing us both a favor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #134
251. It is not a simple truth...
and that is why you need to do calculations. These are usually done as part of a large-scale numerical calculation, like a FEA. Posting the results from any of the commercially available packages would be acceptable in lieu of doing the calculations by hand. I await your results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #105
117. And as I responded there
1) Wikipedia is the absolute worst source one could use
2) Hardened targets would include BOMB shelters and the Safes at Fort Know. They would NOT include the WTC buildings.
3) None of the WTC building hit were underground

Now, do you want to answer the questions or debate the validity of Wikipedia?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-26-07 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #105
403. You do know that the perimeter columns of the WTC
were hollow 14" square box columns right? Not an reinforced concrete undunderground bunker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #54
146. Then how do you explain this?
Edited on Mon Jul-23-07 09:26 AM by vincent_vega_lives
I lightweight aircraft penetrating a heavy stone facade and reinforced concrete construction?







http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=179

http://www.onwar.com/chrono/1945/jul45/28jul45.htm

jpgs don't show, but the links have the pics of the damage to the ESB.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #146
147. Are we misunderstanding something here?
From the beginning of my posts I have been talking about the implausibility of an aluminum plane COMPLETELY penetrating a massive and sense obstacle. This post of yours merely confirms the truth of what I am saying.

The B-25 Bomber plane smashed into the outer stone wall (8 inch thick indiana limestone) of the Empire State Building and its wings immediately sheared off. Only the cast iron engines and heavy landing assembly completely penetrated the building. The fuselage was stopped by the steel I-beams of the building's frame. Wreckage fell to the street and onto the building setbacks on the 5th floor below, with the remainder of the wreckage remaining stuck in the side of the building.

This was a real crash with messy results. Accordingly, the crash photos look like evidence of a real authentic plane crash, unlike those taken on 9/11 at the various crash sites. In contrast to what was alleged to have occurred on 9/11, on that day back in 1945 there was no clean, complete penetration through and into the Empire State Building. Also, I bet there was a crash investigation procedure carried out, where serial numbers of plane parts were noted and verified as happens with real crashes.

This type of official investigation didn't happen on 9/11, presumably because there was no real plane crash to investigate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #147
292. Apparently so
As you constantly refer to the inability of an aluminum aircraft to "penetrate" a building. Now you are changing that to COMPLETELY penetrate...because as you know, to penetrate does not necessarily mean to pass through completely.

"Cast Iron engines"??? :wtf: Was this an 1940s era aircraft or a steam engine?

Question: What was the velocity of the B-25 when it struck the ESB?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #54
291. There's that word again
"common sense". An egg would certainly penetrate a cardboard box if you could accelerate it to a high enough velocity...in a vacuum. The problem is air resistance.

Try a soda can, full, launched at 800 fps.

When you get into the realm of something as massive as an airliner, the aluminum simply can't get out if the way fast enough. So while it is crushing it still retains much of it's momentum. The light aluminum wings laden with fuel are like that soda can. The wings don't survive the impact, but by the time the wings disintegrate, the damage is already done.

The floors are a different issue. The part of the airframe that impacts them will not get far. It's because of their orientation. By the time the aircraft reaches the core it is fully disintegrated. Anything that hasn't hit the floor head on will retain a great deal of it's momentum, impact the core, or penetrate all the way through the building creating carnage against, desks, drywall, cubicles, human beings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #291
296. Would a beer can work?
Edited on Tue Jul-24-07 12:07 PM by AZCat
That's one of the methods Purdue used to validate their simulations.

Fluid-Structure Interaction Using Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #296
297. Sure but
WHY would you want to waste a purfectly guud adult bevie? :beer:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #297
298. All in the name of science, my good man! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #54
384. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #49
56. This is silly
An egg, at substantial speed, would do the same thing as the pumpkin. It's not the object, it's the energy generated. At a high enough speed, that egg would produce enough energy on impact to blow a hole right through you. So would a feather.

Then you go back to the aluminum can't penetrate....nonsense, again. It's not the strength or density of the objects involved, it's the energy created by the collision.

Surely you are stronger than an egg shell, right? Here's an experiment for you. Take a whole egg (uncracked and unblemished) hold it in your hand and try to break it using only your one hand. Squeeze as hard as you are capable and the egg won't break. In fact, you could easily break apart a pumpkin shell in much the same manner...My point is, the shell of the egg is stronger than the shell of the pumpkin. Your assumptions are inaccurate and have no scientific basis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. I remember...
taking halves of egg shells and placing them on the ground, then putting a book or something similar on top of them. You could stand on top of the egg shells without them breaking, but could break them up in your hands.

It's all about the distribution of forces in that example, but the same thing applies to the nose cone of an aircraft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #58
72. Inaccurate analogy.
Yes, you are right. It is all about distribution of forces. That is what I've been arguing from the get go.

You could get a bunch of 767 nose cones and lay them on the ground and place something really, really heavy on top of them - No question. But you couldn't shoot an egg (or a feather) through a car door and you couldn't fly a fiberglass nose cone through massive steel walls and reinforced concrete floors.

If you could shoot anything through a car door do you think people would make such a fuss of being able to shoot a pumpkin through one? The pumpkin works because it's got enough mass, the right amount of sectional velocity and can present the necessary kinetic energy, and all this relative to the resistant power (or lack thereof) of the car door's steel sheeting. An egg (or a feather) literally wouldn't cut it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. So if I shoot an egg through a car door...
you'll believe that an aircraft could go through the outer wall of the WTC towers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #73
133. Yes!
Yes, yes, yes! Shoot an egg through the steel sheet of a car door and I'll completely reverse my opinion. I will also call myself a monkey's uncle. Oh, and I will eat my hat. Better still. I will eat all six of my hats!

BTW: For the comparison to be reasonably valid It will have to be an uncooked egg.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 02:36 AM
Response to Reply #72
119. For starters
No fiberglass nose cone "went through" "massive steel walls and reinforced concrete floors"

(Out of curiosity which building had massive steel walls?)

No pumpkin "went through" a car door, either. And, by the way, it wasn't the water itself that cut the steel.

That's not how it works, and if you had taken even an elementary High School physics class, you'd know that. There is a REASON you NEVER see a real scientist in these forums...They wouldn't be able to stop laughing long enough to post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #119
136. For seconders
According to the official story, fiberglass nose cones penetrated the steel walls and reinforced concrete floor of the WTC, not to mention punching holes through all six reinforced walls of the pentagon, leaving a nice round punch out hole through wall six. The photos of this punch out hole are easy to find on an image search. BTW: I don't believe a fiberglass nose cone can do this. A missile with a D.U. warhead could though. As far as I know, it is about the only thing that could.

Yes the walls of the WTC Towers were steel, and yes the buildings were massive with the prerequisite massive (steel) walls.

The pumpkin does penetrate through the steel sheet. Check out the video. More info on a web search.

If you read Flatulo's link about the water jet you'll see persuasive evidence that the water cuts through steel. See his other thread specifically about this water jet for more on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #72
295. In the real world
the more massive an object is the more energy it has at the time of impact. Mass matters.

Take a 50 ton egg and accelerate it at 800 fps and see what it does to a building.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #56
62. Try shooting an egg, or a feather, through a car door
Come on - Now who's being silly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. You would think that doing this with a pumpkin would be silly, too.
It's counter-intuitive, just like quantum physics, relativity, or females.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #65
137. Unfounded Accusation
I do not nor have ever found the idea of being able to shoot a pumpkin through a car door would be silly (by this I take it you mean implausible). As I've continued to state, this is totally within scientific expectations. Not so an egg. Neither so an aluminum plane through a steel framed building.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #62
68. You are
It's not the egg or the feather or the pumpkin that causes the car door to give. It's the energy. At a high enough speed any of the above would penetrate a car door.

Hell, this is the entire reason the atomic bombs worked. have you seen replicas of the bombs we dropped on Japan? I have. Neither was as tall as I am. They were smaller than the smallest car ever made. No way you would look at these things and believe they could destroy entire cities. They were designed to provide maximum force on impact. Had nothing to do with their size or weight. The bombs themselves were completely destroyed within a second of impact, but the resulting force continued on for far longer.

The point is, it's the energy created by an object, not the size or weight of it that matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #56
63. yes it is silly....
"Squeeze as hard as you are capable and the egg won't break. In fact, you could easily break apart a pumpkin shell in much the same manner..."

completely silly IMHO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. Your opinion
Is wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. well that....
is a matter of opinion!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #71
102. Actually
In this case it is not. Its absolutely fact.

I said you can not crush an egg by squeezing it in your hand as long as it was whole and had no defects. You called that an opinion. It's absolute, indisputable fact. Try it. Get your biggest baddest friend to try it. It's a great bar bet as one would think it's easy to crush an egg with your hand.

You seem to have a very hard time understanding the difference between fact and opinion. Why do you dismiss things as "opinion" when evidence is given in support? Why do you insist things are "fact" when they are obviously nothing close to factual and you have no factual evidence to back the assertion? These are common themes with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #102
211. but , but, but......
I wasn't talking about the silly egg BS! :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #211
220. chortle...
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #102
241. If you distribute the load on the egg evenly.
If you squeeze just one finger at a small part of the egg, it'll break quickly. Otherwise, yeah, eggs are very strong shapes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 04:29 AM
Original message
Strong Shapes Maybe...
But I still want to see somebody shoot one through a car door! :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 04:29 AM
Response to Reply #241
254. Strong Shapes Maybe...
But I still want to see somebody shoot one through a car door! :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #254
309. GAS under pressure can go through a car door!
I don't mean gasoline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #309
333. So can water...
We've agreed earlier on in this thread that water sent through a fine jet at high pressure can cut through steel. But the issue is can planes crash though steel buildings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #254
326. Put the car and egg in orbit.
I'm sure at 13,000 mph+ we can get that effect. Just pay for the rocket old chum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #326
334. I guess I won't be having to eat my hat any time soon then (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #49
303. "Purdue's simulation is unscientific."
Typically in scientific circles, such a statement is actually backed up with a little explanation, analysis, a reason WHY we should think this is anything more than your "common sense". :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #303
364. Look at their simulation!
It sucks. Nothing on earth would behave the way they have depicted it. All my life experience and knowledge backs up my judgment on that one. Their computer simulation is completely contradictory to all the real life crashes and tests that I have reviewed.

There are laws in physics involving the principle of resistance. It is not evident in the Purdue simulations as the Vertical stabilizers cut through acres of steel amid concrete flow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #364
393. Have you considered...
that maybe - just maybe - your life experience and knowledge is lacking in this case?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #34
196. Well, at least you sound good
Edited on Mon Jul-23-07 08:21 PM by LARED
That's better than many CT'ers that pretend to have the background to discuss engineering and physics.

You're grasp of the physics and dynamics involved with objects penetrating other objects seems to be non-existent. No one with any real experience (real-life or academic) in engineering or physics would post such a bunch of thinly veiled crap, but articulate sounding, and expect to be taken seriously.

Let me guess, you finished up your first year of engineering school, and think you have it all figured out because you pulled a 3.0.

Seriously, finish up your studies, work for twenty years building and designing structures, and analyzing systems that fail, then get back to me.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #196
200. I remember those days...
Strangely enough, I was better at certain things back then than I am now. I barely remember how to integrate a function, much less the nasty trigonometric ones we had to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #200
204. I know what you mean
I could maybe do some calculus again if I could find my old book and spend a few hours reviewing it.

Maybe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #196
202. thanks for the kind words...
but what am I not grasping regarding the physics of the crashes? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #202
203. You have not even posted anything even remotely
substantive regarding the physics of crashes. Posting some first year equations of motion is absolutely meaningless.

What you attempt to state was some simple fact is in reality a highly complex dynamic as kinetic energy is transformed into work energy. It is not trivial.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #203
213. Nothing Substantive?
Isn't that a trifle harsh?

My original post, after the thread had been going on for some time, was the first to so much as mention that the Physics of the crashes was way more complex than Flatulo was insinuating. Where were all you old fart boffos before I showed up to rattle your cages? ;)

I've never said that it is merely about Kinetic Energy, Momentum and Sectional Velocity but they are some basic principles to consider when evaluating implausibility. If an alleged circumstance fails to conform to even the basic physics, that puts its credibility seriously at issue IMO.

For instance: a friend of mine was seriously taken in by David Blaine's ability to levitate. I wasn't, (as I hope non of you were!) for one simple reason. Blaine was failing to conform to the most basic physical principal of all: gravity. That was all I needed to know to spot fraud.

Another friend sent me a video of an alleged qigong master, John Chang, setting fire to a piece of paper by holding his hands above it. Now where was the expected agent of combustion coming from? A common sense understanding that the alleged master was breaking some pretty basic principles of the laws of physics here was enough to have me smell a rat and much to my friends annoyance,, declare the guy a fraud.

I then researched it a bit and found out that there is an old trick where you can ignite paper in this way by the utilization of potassium permanganate crystals (KMnO4) mixed with glycerin (C3H8O3). The video even had the red glow characteristic of when this trick is used. One of my friend's heroes had been debunked but aren't we better off not falling under the spell of charlatans?

You guys are now going to harp on me for bringing up yet another (not very good) illusionist. (First, Criss Angel now this dude, Blaine?)

I will reiterate: I have no respect for these charlatans. Conjuring is one thing; fooling a gullible public that you really do have special powers is another. Similarly, I really see 911 as a bad illusion or conjuring trick. Seriously, guys - now I've seen through the trick it's pretty obvious to me that the footage of the planes is some pretty ropey CG work. Take a really close look for yourself and see if you can't notice what I'm talking about.

How did they make the planes seem to enter steel frame buildings like they were cutting through butter and then explode many seconds after impact, all of which was beyond what I knew to be normally expected? My theory, as I grudgingly have come to adopt (and I thank the bravery of the No-Planers here for letting the chink of light in) the explosions were caused by penetrating missiles and CG planes were added to complete the illusion (in a rush which accounts for their ropey quality).

You see, for my money, a lot of common sense and a basic understanding of scientific principles is normally enough to cut to the chase.

Well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. At least until someone convinces me of something more plausible.

BTW: my grade point average for the Physical Sciences was a 4.0. Though admittedly that was many years ago and to be honest I never took the study of them very far, at least in so far as academic schooling goes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #213
216. Evaluating implausibility?
Is that what you are doing?

What criteria are you using to evaluate the implausibility a large commercial airliner could not have penetrated the WTC and in fact were replaced with missles and CG?

Lets forget physics for just a moment and address that fact that thousands saw and hundreds video taped the second impact. How exactly do you explain that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #216
221. If you do the research...
you find that all the witnesses who phoned in to the news stations to corroborate the planes had serious, high level media links. In contrast, There is an authentic video of an on the ground reporter disputing the TV News anchor, live on air, over whether it was a plane. he says quite emphatically: "Jim, I don't know whether we've confirmed that this was an aircraft, or to be more specific, some people said they thought they saw a missile."

Now you tell me how anyone could mistake a low flying Boeing 767 for a missile by either sound or visual identification? For his efforts, the reporter was shut down by the anchor and the official story was quickly resumed. The Devil is in the details, my friend.

As for the videos; they are sooooooo fake. Please take a close look at the whole sorry bunch of them. Killtown has all or most of them up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #221
237. Let me get this straight.
All the people who witnessed the planes hit the towers were media people, and none were the average citizen.

And second, All the videos are fake - ALL OF THEM, despite many being shot by ordinary people with no ties to the gov't or media.

Come on man. Get real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 04:46 AM
Response to Reply #237
255. Getting Real
Most of the people (I shouldn't say all) that initially phoned in to the news stations to report seeing a plane had high level media connections: wives of producers, producers, editors etc. There were plenty of people saying they saw planes being interviewed by the media on the street. (And believe me they come across as real phony!) Now one way or another, if there weren't any planes, then these people were, one way or another, working for the media.

Now I hear some of you ask: How can that be?

Well, let me pose a question: Will people lie if they have an incentive? What might such an incentive be?

I don't know I'm just asking questions. (Well I know people will lie if they have an incentive - and it doesn't take much if my experience is anything to go by.)

Honestly, the Boeing into Building videos all look fake to me and I've studied them a bunch. There's some videos, interestingly enough, taken by some of those common folks that you talk about, that don't show the planes - just the explosion. Now isn't that interesting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #255
271. Logic only a no-planer could devise
Now one way or another, if there weren't any planes, then these people were, one way or another, working for the media.

There were no planes so all the people that claim to have seen the plane impact the WTC are working for the media.

Wow, that takes pure brass ones or sheer willful ignorance to try and pass that off as logical. So when do you fess up and admit you are really here just to pull your collective chains?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #271
286. I'm Being Quite Logical, Lared.
Yes, i said:
"Now one way or another, if there weren't any planes, then these people were, one way or another, working for the media."
and it's apparently got you all in a lather, but back up a little, bro.

I meant by my phrase that if one hypothesizes that there weren't actually any planes, then anyone saying that there were. was working for the media, one way or the other, in so far as they would be helping, wittingly or unwittingly, the media in their fraud.

It's theory, admittedly but logically coherent IMO. (and it was one of you guys that urged me to theorize earlier on in this thread.)

The only chain I'm wishing to pull right now is the bathroom chain. I've been so busy dealing with youse guys posts that I ain't sprung a leak in half a day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #221
266. KillClown is that you? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #266
274. Been meaning to ask...
Can't work out what n/t means. Can someone let me know? (Bet I'll groan with stupidity when I'm told.) :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #274
276. n/t = no text below subject line
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #276
279. Thanx, Lared. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #213
304. You really think you needed to post this???
For instance: a friend of mine was seriously taken in by David Blaine's ability to levitate. I wasn't, (as I hope non of you were!) for one simple reason. Blaine was failing to conform to the most basic physical principal of all: gravity. That was all I needed to know to spot fraud.


Ahh the "most basic physical principal" of gravity is NOT the correct principle that is being violated.

For example, magnetic levitation is real. The problem is in the application of the energy needed to resist the force of gravity, not gravity by itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #304
335. Hair splitting
Blaine was claiming to be able to defy gravity.

Unaided, humans can't do that, ergo he must be tricking us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #335
363. Altering the qualification
You didn't mention "unaided" before. You simply stated you knowlege of the "basic principle" of GRAVITY led you to debunk the illusion.

By that reasoning helicopters couldn't fly. My point is, limited analyisis leads to limited understanding.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #363
366. not altering the qualification
Are you guys all lawyers. You are so tricky to debate. Not that I'm complaining. But as to your point:

Blaine insinuated he was levitating unaided. This would entail having an ability to defy gravity, which is something I know humans don't possess (and PLEASE don't go pointing to the loony Transcendental Meditationers who say they can levitate to refute me on this one! I've seen the videos of them hopping about on their bums and getting half an inch off the ground.) If he was saying I have a new gizmo that lets me rise up from the ground I would have checked into the validity of the gizmo. He didn't say that so it was easy for me to dismiss him as a fraud merely using my common sense understanding.

What the heck is so wrong with common sense understanding? If basic common sense is being defied we should get suspicious. In my experience though people seem to throw it out the window as they get caught up in the skillful powers of those that seek to deceive. Common sense is our first line of defense against deception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #366
387. The problem with common sense understanding is that
some phenomonen are not intuitively obvious. Like a less dense, less massive object being able to penetrate a more dense, more massive object. Just because it is not clear how this can happen, does not make this impossible. Even worse is claiming that it is not possible because you have a defective or inadequate model.

I've seen things in the disk drive business that at first blush just seem impossible. It sometimes takes years and the efforts of hundreds of engineers and scientists to be able to eventually understand the phenomenon.

As an example, in the disk drive world, about 15 years ago disk spindle engineers started noticing vibration modes of spinning disks that made no sense. Classical models predicted nodal lines and diameters that described the shape of the disk, but we were observing backard traveling nodal lines that no analytical models predicted. FEA models did not predict them. Discrete elasticity models did not predict them. We all thought we knew everything about rotating rigid disks, yet here was a new observation that had absolutely no explanation.

Many people were in denial that they existed, and that we were seeing some aliasing or sampling rate problem with the spectrum analyzers. In other words, they were claiming it was an observer error. They were wrong.

As disk drive engineers started attending conferences to discuss the phenonena, models started showing up. The first models came from Hewlett Packard and were pretty bad and did not explain everything. But over the years better and better models emerged and now we can predict exactly what rotating stacks of disks do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-30-07 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #33
459. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
YoTB Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #459
475. Floors were not structural....
The floor slab was 4" thick non-reinforced 700Mpa lightweight concrete atop a system of steel trusses. Floors were not intended to provide structural strength to building, rather decking surface for tennant/occupants of building.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #31
300. No, not, wrong, incorrect, false
Depleted Uranium is NOT "the warhead of choice for such weapons" ie bunker buster bombs. Isn't, ain't, is NOT!!! You have NO idea what you are talking about, and neither does that site you linked to.

It is used in tank saboted ammuntion to penetrate tank armor. It is a small dart shaped projectile. It is NOT very effective against concrete bunkers.

This is a bunker buster as used by the US Military...

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm

The bomb was fabricated starting on 1 February, using surplus 8-inch artillery tubes as bomb casings because of their strength and weight.


These are all the missiles in the US invetory. Please point out which one has a "DU warhead"?

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/index.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #300
336. Well then...
What do you think that white hot piece of something is that gracefully arcs out from the exploding building, trailing smoke. The fiberglass nose of the plane? A wheel?

That is characteristic of Depleted Uranium, Bud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #336
358. characteristic of Depleted Uranium?
How do you figure. A peice of DU large enough to be seen in the video would not be "white hot" from a simple fuel explosion. It takes somthing like hitting tank armor at 2500 fps to cause it to go pyrophoric.

Hard to tell anything from that video. Could be a portion of one of the engines. Not "white hot" as in melting but just on fire. I would have to see it again.

It is NOT DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #358
367. Yes!
It is white hot, and trailing smoke. Pyrophoric is the correct term and that piece of whatever it is has possibly had to penetrate several layers of steel and/or concrete. That would constitute something like hitting tank armor in my book.

Not sure how fast 2500fps is but Tomahawks travel at about 550mph as I understand! Probably fast enough, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #367
392. Not even close.
Are you really this bad at math? Look, the calculation is very simple.

There are 5280 feet in a mile and 60x60 or 3600 seconds in an hour.

550 miles/hour x 5280 feet/mile x 1 hour/3600 seconds = 807 feet/second.

807 fps << 2500 fps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. More CT junk "science"
First of all sectional density is about the weight of an object verses its diameter. The larger the sectional density the better it is able to penetrate an object. That is heavy thin objects penetrate better than light "fat" objects. A water jet cuts steel because of its high velocity per cross section not it weight per cross section, as the density of water is essentially constant at all pressures. In fact using the notion of sectional density would strongly indicate the relatively small cross section of a commercial aircrafts nose would be good at penetrating objects.

Another thing you should do before posting CT "science" is actually know what your talking about when it comes to the basics. On what planet are large commercial aircraft composed of thin aluminum sheet that covers a light plastic composite frame. Commercial aircraft frames are largely high strength, very hard aluminum.

While I'm one the subject, what about the dense fuel in the wings, Again increasing the sectional density far above a wing with no fuel.

I know your faith in CT "science" is strong, and you should consider an intervention, but science is not on the no-planers side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. Basic Science not Conspiracy Theory Science
First off, let me restate my position. The science I am referring to in my posts is "Basic Science". The principles I am outlining are those of "Fundamental Physics". No part of my argument stems from conspiracy theory or CT "science" as you call it (and I presume you mean this term pejoratively).

You correctly state that: 'heavy thin objects penetrate better than light "fat" objects.'

This, however, merely corroborates my position:

Heavy thin objects such as darts and dart-like missiles have a high sectional density because they are thin and dense. Passenger aircraft have a low sectional density because they are light and "fat".

The sectional density of a high pressured jet of water is extremely high because the jet is extremely thin and you factor the per pound pressure into the weight. This coupled with the high constant pressure and the velocity of the jet gives it its steel penetrating power. The key here is that the stream of water is needle thin and kept coherent. In Physics terms this means that it maintains it's form and is emitted constantly.

Like I said in my first post (Not That Simple) you have to factor in all three calculations.
Kinetic Energy: 1/2 X Mass X Velocity^2
Momentum: Mass X Velocity
Sectional Density: Weight/Diameter^2

A high pressured water jet would have vastly more sectional density than a light aluminum airframe would have and, I repeat, not comparable. A Boeing 767's nose cone is basically a large hollow shell made of fiberglass and thus its sectional density would be low. This low value would preclude it from being able to penetrate thick steel and reinforced concrete.

Of course, seeing as it is alleged that the aircraft completely penetrated through the two WTC Towers' exterior perimeters we have to factor in the total sectional density of the whole of the planes' impacting surfaces which would include their wings and stabilizers as well as their nose cones and fuselages.

I admit I was in error when I stated that the aluminum sheet covers a light plastic composite frame. Large commercial aircraft are, however, largely composed of thin aluminum and light plastic composite, which was my general point. The sheet panels which form the bulk of the plane's airframe, are by definition, thin. That's what sheet means. The buttressing of the sheets is, as you correctly stated, largely achieved by utilizing aluminum bracing (stringers and spars). However, this aluminum bracing, relative to steel girders, is relatively thin, being considerably less dense and massive. Your use of "high strength" and "very hard" are purely relative terms. There is no comparison between aluminum bracing material and steel girders or reinforced concrete floors.

Here's a link to a thorough description of an aircraft's fuselage:
<http://www.answers.com/topic/fuselage?cat=technology >

Check the photo of A Boeing 747 fuselage section which illustrates how slight this bracing material is. (This is the photo that didn't show up in my last post.)

Now as far as Jet fuel enabling the wings to achieve the necessary sectional density for penetration:

Jet fuel is a liquid, and it is generally accepted that most liquids are considerably less dense than solids. The density of Aviation fuel, measured in kg per cubic meter, is roughly 700, compared to the density of steel which is approximately 7,850. Incidentally, the density of aluminum is about one third that of steel, i.e. approximately 2,600.

This being the case, whatever fuel that might be present in the wing of a plane would do little to increase a wing's penetrating power.

In summary I will clarify that my position is that the facts (not the theory) of basic science are in support of the No-Planers with regards to the penetrating capability of a projectile through a target. A Boeing 767, composed largely of aluminum and plastic composite would not be able to penetrate an external perimeter of closely spaced multiple steel girders and multiple reinforced concrete floors. This, relative to the science I have presented, is a position consistent with fundamental physics. Once again, no part of my position stems from conspiracy theory (or CT) "science".

Now of course, seeing as the official account is thus not in accord with basic science, it might be considered germane to posit a reasonable theory as to what did penetrate the walls of the WTC. That, however, would be another post and would involve some conspiracy theory.

So far, the record shows that I have shown restraint and not gone there. In this respect, I would say your concern for my involvement in CT, is misplaced. I hope you'll agree, therefore, that any anxiety on your part that I might be in need of a CT intervention, is unwarranted and I hope I have relieved you of it.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. well said FactFinder...
and welcome to the dungeon! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Thankyou...
... and glad to be here! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #28
157. Oh for petes sake - a Plane punched into the Empire state building.
And that was a slow moving bomber. Far smaller and slower.

Show me where a plane has hit a building and not punched in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #157
163. no complete penetration there
As the plane smashed into the eight inch indiana limestone outer brick wall, only the cast iron engines and heavy landing gear totally penetrated the building. The wings sheared off on contact, debris fell to the street and on to the setbacks below at the fifth floor. The fuselage was stopped short by an I-beam of the the buildings steel frame. Remainder of the wreckage remained wedge in the hole at the side of the building. What happened in 1945 was a real crash and the evidence is authentic. There is little similarity between what happened then with what allegedly happened on 9/11.

Nothing about what happened on 9/11 seemed real or authentic because it wasn't. Have you taken a good look at the footage? Checked the inconsistencies between the different shot. The inconsistencies between the witness reports. The News reporter arguing the case live on air with the news room presenter because the people he was interviewing on the street said they thought it was a missile?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #163
167. Far denser building contruction and far slower plane.
Edited on Mon Jul-23-07 05:31 PM by VTMechEngr
And forget the questions man, the winning by fallacy argumentum ad nauseum got old years ago.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #167
176. One block of concrete more dense than 5 acres?
480mph far slower than the approximate 500mph alleged 9/11 speeds? Oops. sorry. I'm winning by argumentum ad nauseum again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #176
183. RE: "480 mph"
Interesting... if I am remembering correctly, most sources I've seen regarding the B-25's speed report approximately half that speed or less. Perhaps you could provide the source where you found the 480 mph figure. Thanks.

- Make7
www.esbnyc.com/tourism/tourism_facts_esbnews_mar1996.cfm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #183
194. Just addressed n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #183
199. sorry
new to this forum business. mixed by threads. I was referring to the Sandia test. :blush:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #199
201. Not a big deal.
Edited on Mon Jul-23-07 08:29 PM by Make7
Based on the context of the previous few replies, it seemed like that number was meant to refer to the plane at the Empire State Building.


I really like the way the forum software here shows the "chain" of replies, but it can get a little confusing in bigger threads like this with so many smaller discussions going on at the same time.

I doubt if there is anyone here that hasn't posted something in the wrong place at one time or another - it even happens to people that have been here for years.

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #201
208. I had taken it as a response on the Empire State building myself.
Edited on Mon Jul-23-07 09:07 PM by VTMechEngr
Hence my reply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #208
222. glad that's sorted!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #201
223. Thanks for your understanding Make7
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #176
193. B-25 Bomber Hits 78th Floor, July 28, 1945!!
Too late the pilot of the U.S. Army B-25 bomber with three men aboard, saw the Empire State Building loom up before his eyes. At 200 miles per hour, he plunged through the 34th Street side of the building wreaking havoc. The major portion of the wreckage penetrated the 78th floor. An engine hurtled down an elevator shaft igniting a furious fire in the basement. Parts of the motor and landing gear tore through the entire building landing on top of a 13-story ediface across the street and igniting a second conflagration.

Sounds like a complete penetration to me. Not all of the 767 went through either. Its obvious enough of the B-25 did to start a fire on another building.


"Damage to the building and the surrounding area was extensive. An 18-by-20 foot hole was gouged by the B-25, and one of the plane's engines plowed through the building, emerging on the 33rd Street side and crashing through the roof of a neighboring building. Upon impact, windows shattered, and glass fell to the street. When the bomber hit, its fuel tanks exploded, sending flames racing across the 79th floor in all directions. According to Althea S. Lethbridge, a secretary for a trading company on the 72nd floor, 'Everything shook. (At the window), we saw flames below and above us. It was scary; we didn't know how fireproof the building was.'"

"One plane motor went right through the bottom of the car equipment, hitting one of our guide rails (3-1/2 x 5"), doubling it in a 'V' shape. The motor then went through the building, tore a hole 20 feet wide, took the windows and wall down with it (78 floors) and landed in a building across the 33rd Street side. The plane was moving upward when it struck. (The pilot must have seen the building.) Walls between the three columns were torn 40 feet wide, the plane taking bricks and windows from the 78th and 79th floors with it, as well as one 10" I-beam -- eight feet inside the building -- supporting the 79th floor; the 20 foot long beam had a 30" bow. The plane penetrated the #6 and #7 car hatch walls, cutting the cable on the #6 car that was on its way down. Our selector in the motor room indicated the cables were cut when the car was at about the 38th floor."

http://www.esbnyc.com/tourism/tourism_facts_esbnews_mar...


As for the 480 MPH

Performance B-25J

* Maximum speed: 275 mph (239 knots, 442 km/h)
* Cruise speed: 230 mph (200 knots, 370 km/h)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Mitchell

~230 MPH (actually less at that altitude) is FAR slower than 480 MPH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #176
245. You clearly do not know the definition of 'density'
so I'll help you out... it's a material property, so it is not dependant on dimensions. The units are weight per unit volume.

The density of concrete is the same whether it's a cube or a flat sheet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #245
256. Sorry, I mispoke...
I meant more Massive. I think if you cross-refer to my other posts it should be clear that I do understand density. It's the value obtained from measuring weight compared to volume: as in the density of Steel is 8400kg/cu.m

I hope you understand I'm working quite hard to keep up with what is proving to be a pretty lively board. Also, i'm a forum virgin if that allows any of you to forgive any of my slip-ups
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #256
287. NO problem, we all slip up. I'm sure you know what density is.
In the heat of all these posts, it is very alluring to pounce on the slightest error.

Anything to score debating points. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #287
289. ta, mate (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #176
305. Oh boy
Edited on Tue Jul-24-07 12:54 PM by vincent_vega_lives
"Factfinder" huh? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #305
337. Sorry to disillusion you...
But factfinders are human, Bro
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #337
365. Some are not
My cat is VERY intuitive. He finds facts all the time. And mostly eats them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #365
369. LOL
Nice cat by the way :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #163
301. uhhhm what was the speed of the B-25?
Give or take a few MPH?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 04:51 AM
Response to Reply #28
350. Thing is
There are literally tens of thousands of people worldwide with far more experience on this matter than you possess. IF your theory had ANY merit don't you think someone with the ability to prove your theory would have come up with a peer reviewable paper on the subject 6 years later? Don't you think a single one of them would have convinced the rest of the community that it's simply impossible for an airplane to penetrate the WTC towers in the manner they did? Don't you think THAT would trigger the new investigation you seem to want?

No. Methinks you are simply trying to get your jollys posting in here. I'm almost convinced you don't even believe half the nonsense you spew. And here is why I believe that:

"Within the boundaries of known physical laws and expectations, It is not plausible...."

You keep repeating such nonsense without EVER providing any evidence to the claim. If you knew ANYTHING about "known physical laws" in relation to 9/11 you'd be wallpapering it all over the place in here. If you had ANY actual evidence we couldn't stop you screaming it from the mountain tops. Instead you repeat yourself over and over as if continuing to repeat it somehow is going to make it true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
39. are you seriously....
trying to equate a pumpkin going through a couple layers of sheel metal with aluminum bodied planes going through several feet of 4" thick steel core columns? Seriously? :rofl:
Say it ain't so....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. No, I am certainly not. I am proving that...
soft light materials can sometimes penetrate hard dense materials under the right conditions.

It has been claimed by 'no-planers' that this is not possible. They are wrong.

Are you disputing the results?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Sorry, you're assuming again!
You certainly haven't proven anything! You've made assertions thus far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. I have proven that a soft, less dense material can
Edited on Sun Jul-22-07 09:58 PM by Flatulo
penetrate a harder, more dense material.

Do you dispute this? If so, what part of my proof is invalid?

If you do not dispute this, then go run along and bother someone else :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Hey, Flatulo. Easy there...
Yes, pumpkins when shot through a cannon can puncture steel sheet. Yes, water when pressured through a fine nozel at high velocity can cut steel. No, Boeing 767s cannot penetrate colossal steel framed buildings, which is what your thread was originally about.

Dispute me, please!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Go here...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #45
52. I hereby dispute you.
The WTC perimeter columns were fabricated from sheets of steel. You know, sheet metal.

The perimeter column wall thickness tapered with the height of the tower. At the upper levels, the column wall thickness was only 1/4".

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

You said:

> According to the above referenced Fema diagram, the planes would have confronted approximately forty of
> these steel girders. Once again, this represents an incredible mass that the alleged aluminum/composite
> missile-planes would be up against.

Mass is not the problem. My friends' little teflon coated bullet penetrated a blob o of cast iron weighing hundreds of times more than it.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #52
61. A plane is not a teflon coated bullet!
Of course Mass is one of the important factors. That is basic physics.

The girders were not fabricated from steel sheet (like your car door) but welded steel plate!


<http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html >

According to your link (copied above):

Each side of the steel girders presented an independent obstacle of 14 inches end on. That would be 40 x 2, i.e. 80 x 14 inches of steel that the aluminum planes would have to penetrate. That is not mentioning the sizable obstacle of three acres of reinforced concrete.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. The mass is important to the extent that it has kinetic energy.
Edited on Sun Jul-22-07 11:44 PM by Flatulo
Try this experiment:

Drop a lead .357 Magnum bullet on a 1/4" steel plate from a height of 6 inches.

Then have a friend fire the same bullet from a .357 magnum held at the same height.

In each case, the bullet had the exact same potential energy w*h. But when you add velocity, the soft lead bullet has the energy to penetrate the plate.

Steel is much harder than lead. The steel plate has far more mass that the lead bullet (yes, lead is more dense, but if they made bullets out of aluminum the experiment would still end the same way).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #64
138. come on now
"but if they made bullets out of aluminum the experiment would still end the same way"

Are you kidding me? Of course you would get a different result with aluminum over lead
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #138
150. Change the word 'aluminum' to pumpkin, then go to the OP n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #61
74. The perimeter columns were much thinner the higher you went.
Edited on Mon Jul-23-07 12:14 AM by boloboffin
I don't have the figures at my fingertips, but the decision was made to keep the perimeter columns the same visible size all the way up. It was the design.

Therefore, to accomplish this, the perimeter columns were hollow, and as you went up, they were made from thinner and thinner steel plates.

Oh, I've got it. From the NIST report, page 6 (pdf 56):

Each column was fabricated by welding four steel plates to form a tall box, nominally 14 in. on a side. ...The upper parts of the buildings had less wind load and building mass to support. Thus, on higher floors, the thickness of the steel plates making up the columns decreased, becoming as thin as 1/4 in. near the top. There were 10 grades of steel used for the columns and spandrels, with yield strengths ranging from 36 ksi to 100 ksi. The grade of steel used in each location was dictated by the calculated stresses due to the gravity and wind load.


So the higher the column, the thinner the plate and the lesser the yield strength.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #74
139. Putting aside, for now, the 14" welded steel plate girders...
address how the hollow vertical stabilizer and wings cut through acres of reinforced concrete.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #139
153. Would you believe that a sledgehammer with an aluminum head
could fracture a thin sheet of concrete?

Aluminum has a lower hardness and density than concrete, yet I guarantee you I could break concrete with an aluminum hammer.

Concrete is not very tough, toughness being defined as the area under the stress-strain curve, or the strain energy storage capacity of the material.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #153
165. Aluminum sledgehammer?
The only aluminum sledgehammer I could find on-line was a monster truck named the Sledgehammer and made from aluminum alloy.
<http://www.traxxas.com/products/electric/sledgehammer/t... >
Guess that is not what you are talking about eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #153
244. Would you believe
People shatter thin sheets of concrete with their forehead for the hell of it? Yeah, I think it's pretty stupid too. ;-)

Anyone with a concrete driveway or a garage with a concrete floor can attest to how UNdurable it is. Simple exposure to air and water weakens it tremendously.

Construction of the towers was completed by 1973 so they had nearly 30 years for that concrete to weaken. Do we have evidence it was regularly sealed and unexposed to water?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #244
257. OK...
are you conceding that the vast amount of reinforced concrete might be a problem to penetrate but maybe it had weakened allowing the plane to do so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #257
263. I'm conceding nothing of the sort
There WAS NO "vast amount of reinforced concrete" There WAS a vast amount of AIR, some glass, and some steel and concrete, oh, and a few desks and chairs and computers. Maybe some pens and pencils, too. Mostly Air, though. That IS what made up 70% of the WTC buildings volume. 10% was steel and concrete.

What I am stating is that the concrete the planes DID come in contact with was likely much weaker than it was when constructed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #263
275. Puzzled.
The amount of air that surrounds a target would seem to be largely irrelevant to me. There was an unlimited amount of air surrounding the block in the Sandia crash test. That didn't stop the block giving as good as it got!

And surely, five acres of concrete is a vast amount.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #275
351. Puzzeled? You're rubiks cube.
For the last time, the plane did NOT have to penetrate "5 acres of concrete". Nor were the WTC buildings solid concrete. Not even close. The "target" was a building that was 70% air, 10% steel and concrete, and 20% "other" (furniture, carpet, drywall, computers, etc. etc. etc.) Take out the 90% in the middle of the Sandia crash block and what would have happened? It would have been pulverized as the plane went right through it. Still would have been solid concrete walls. Your continued use of a solid concrete block as some sort of proof is insane.

Again, I ask, why has NO ONE with any experience in such matters submitted a peer reviewable paper on the matter? If it's such common sense, it would be EASY to prove by the experts, no? What would stop them from doing so? Are THEY all in on the conspiracy, too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #351
371. I'm a Rubik's cube?
Is that a compliment?

Whoever suggested that the buildings were made of solid concrete? Though if they had been, Osama would have been well and truly foiled, huh? Maybe we should fill all buildings with concrete from now on, well at least the important ones, to protect against those nasty terrorists.

but seriously: The planes did have to confront the floors, six of them that stretched before the plane for a little under an acre apiece. The floors were made of steel and reinforced concrete. Doesn't seem relevant to me that there is air surrounding the floors. Air surrounds everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #371
390. 6 floors??
How on earth do you come to this conclusion? The floors were 12ft apart from ea. other. are you claiming these planes were 78 feet tall? The actual height of a 767 is 52 feet including landing gear. It also holds 24000 gallons of fuel.

Those acre "of concrete" floors were designed to hold weight and stabilize the steel beams. They were NOT designed to resist a major impact. We are talking about a few inches of concrete in height, not a massive, solid, concrete block. And, again, the outer walls were Aluminum and Glass, not solid sheets of steel as you claimed.

What "seems" relevant to you is meaningless. Answer the question: If this is such common sense and so easily proven then why has not a single expert in the field submitted a peer re viewable paper on the subject in 6 years? If an amateur internet sleuth such as yourself who isn't an expert in any field related to the crash can figure it out, then why on earth hasn't a single expert come out to show the same thing?

Glad to see your "3 years of research" has amounted to approximately 0 evidence to make your case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #45
53. Why can't they?
Do we have evidence somewhere of a 767 attempting this feat and failing? It isn't the aluminum shell of the plane itself that penetrated the buildings, just as it wasn't the weight or composition of the pumpkin that penetrated a car door. It's the kinetic energy of the things inside the plane, including the fuel, that provided the energy needed. Several computer simulations have been done on the matter. Surely you've seen some of them?

What flatulo is doing is destroying the theory that aluminum can't penetrate steel when even a pumpkin or water can do exactly that.

Not only that, it appears a number of engineers and scientists marveled that the buildings stood as long as they did.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/0207100822...

Science Daily The hijacked jetliners might have come close to toppling the World Trade Center Towers on impact on Sept. 11, according to new calculations by a Swarthmore College physics professor.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc6.htm

"Amazingly, the initial damage to the support structure was not enough to topple the building. The report, as well as a number of prominent engineers, have claimed that the majority of skyscrapers on the planet would have collapsed within seconds of such a collision."

http://www.rit.edu/~smo5024/papers/wtc /

"Still, it is amazing that the towers survived the initial impacts at all�even if they were designed to be hit by aircraft�considering the fact that the Boeing 767's involved in the terrorist attack were notably larger and traveling much faster than the 707 considered in the design of the World Trade Center. The 707 was assumed to be coming in for a landing when it would hit one of the skyscrapers (707's were the standard airliner at the time when the World Trade Center was built). This meant that the plane would be traveling at a low rate of speed�about 180 miles per hour�and have minimal fuel. On the other hand, the 767's were carrying enough fuel for transcontinental flights (about 10,000 gallons each) and were flying far faster. The airspeeds of the jets as they impacted the buildings were estimated at about 470 and 590 miles per hour, approximately 2.6 and 3.2 times faster than the 707 (FEMA 1.17). In addition, the 767 is about 25 percent larger than the 707, with a wingspan of 156 feet, a length of 159 feet, and a height of 53 feet (1.19). Considering the size and speed of the airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers, it is remarkable that they stood at all."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #53
140. No 767 has done anything remotely similar to what allegedly happened on 9/11
A 767 traveling at 500mph is going to pack a punch. I'm not saying it won't do damage, heck, it would probably knock some buildings keen over, but what I'm saying is implausible is that it would penetrate the building completely and then explode once inside. Aluminum Planes fail at point of impact. always!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #140
230. Then where did it go?
Hundreds of pictures, dozens of videos show those planes flying into those buildings. Holographic technology is pretty amazing, but...No where near THAT amazing. How did they fake it? And, more importantly, why would they? Actual planes flying into actual buildings was more than enough to horrify the public.

"what I'm saying is implausible is that it would penetrate the building completely and then explode once inside. Aluminum Planes fail at point of impact. always!!!!"

You speak as if you have a reference point. Duh, you don't. IT'S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE where an airplane was flown into a skyscraper at 500+MPH full of fuel. Nothing close has ever occurred, so to claim "Aluminum planes fail at point of impact" is nothing more than speculation based on what you THINK should happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 05:15 AM
Response to Reply #230
259. Planes are built to fly...
They're vulnerable. Everyone knows that. If they hit things they bust up, pretty easy. Every plane that has ever crashed, failed at point of impact because of the properties of the materials used to build aircraft. A-I-R craft. Light, airy, fragile. Now they're tougher than some objects, but generally weaker than buildings.

The relative strength of a target factors into the behavior of the projectile aimed at it. What is so mystifying about that simple and basic statement.

Oh, and please, if my statement is wrong, please point out to me how. i think I've proved by now that i don't bite when someone shows me I've made a mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #45
302. "colossal" steel framed buildings
Is that a new construction technique?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #302
338. Dumb question on purpose?
You asked: "colossal" steel framed buildings" Is that a new construction technique?

Do you really not know that colossal means extremely large?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #338
360. Interesting choice of a qualifier
Edited on Wed Jul-25-07 09:12 AM by vincent_vega_lives

Boeing 767s cannot penetrate colossal steel framed buildings


Am I to imply that you think 767s can penetrate non colossal steel framed buildings?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #360
372. So you do understand the meaning of Colossal.
You asked:
"Am I to imply that you think 767s can penetrate non colossal steel framed buildings?"

I answer:
No, but maybe they can penetrate a wooden barn.

Even then though, and unlike what the videos show from 9/11, they would meet some resistance.

Watch the videos. Look at the "Official" simulations. No resistance as the planes glide through steel girders and steel and concrete floors. The whole plane, mind you. Wings, and rear stabilizers and all. Truly unbelievable!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-27-07 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #338
411. Colossal Steel Framed Building Pic
<>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-27-07 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #411
414. You know that those corner crane derricks are temporary
and not part of the colossal structure...right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. If you can't take the heat as they say....
Or in other words....
I'll run along when I'm good and ready! Yes I'll agree your pumpkin did smash through both sides of the car through the windows! What's the point of that? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Hey Bill, I love ya man...
You keep me young.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. I read that are unconvinced by my analysis...
but it seems that your main reasons are because of witness testimony and a few pieces of plane debris. Please read my above response to your above post and furthermore, the evidence of the debris is completely unscientific. A piece of fuselage is claimed to have penetrated right through the whole of the WTC Tower and landed on the roof of building 5. This is simply impossible. A sizable piece of thin aluminum cannot pass a wall of steel and or a reinforced concrete floor and then another wall of steel. Think about it.

And guess what, Criss Angel didn't really saw a woman in half!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #51
57. Perhaps if you shared your calulations with us we could better
Edited on Sun Jul-22-07 11:25 PM by Flatulo
understand them.

I posted elsewhere that the KE of the plane at impact was 2.83 billion Joules, or about 3/4 ton of TNT.

We have emperical data that indicates that the Murrah Federal building was a heavily reinforced concrete/steel structure and was pretty much blown to shit McVeigh's 2 ton yield truck bomb.

I believe that similitude would suggest that steel columns fabricated from 1/4" sheet metal would certainly fail under the application of the energy of that plane impact.

Please tell me why you feel that nearly 3 billion joules of energy dissipated over a few milliseconds would not be more energy that a box-column could absorb?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #57
75. I don't need any calculations to see the truth here
It's plain and simple. The buildings were built to resist such stresses. Hurricanes, planes, explosions, you name it.

Such a force would affect the building, yes indeed. But it would not, when delivered by an aluminum aircraft, allow the aircraft to completely penetrate steel walls and reinforced concrete floors. Why do the military use bunker busters as opposed to a conventional missile when they need to do this? Not even a conventional missile could penetrate heavy steel walls and reinforced concrete. Why would anyone believe that an aluminum plane could do this?

Incidentally, you remind me of another interesting fact. There is some footage taken with the aid of a tripod of the WTC Tower being allegedly hit by this vast 2.83 billion Joules force. What do you think happened to the building's vertical axis at point of impact? Did the building sway back as it bore the brunt of this supposed Boeing 767 and it's 2.83 billion Joules of force?

The answer, strangely enough is that it didn't even move. Yet another strange anomaly from the day of infamous anomalies.

(The video can be found if you google Scott Myers on Youtube.)

As for the Murrah Federal building: do you really want to open that can of worms?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #75
77. No, they weren't.
The buildings were not designed to handle the impact of an aircraft. Analysis was done afterwards regarding such an event, but has not been recovered so we can't check the assumptions of the analysts. Nor were explosions factored in, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #77
141. You are misinformed on this
The buildings were built to withstand an impact from a large airliner and all kinds of potential stresses. They over-conformed to building code according to the architects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #141
160. Bullshit.
But I've come to expect that from you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #160
166. Huh?
Did you check the architects' reports? Obviously not. This is all pretty accepted common knowledge. Don't make me go scurrying for the references.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #166
171. I'm not making you do anything, remember.
But if you want to convince others of your points it is important to have supporting evidence, like some indication that the WTC towers were designed to withstand the impact of an aircraft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #171
177. An accepted fact of 9/11
You know, I'm working hard enough here. Check the references on google yourself.

Someone already brought up the fact of this about the buildings' design right here on this thread. Not going to point that out to you either. Find it yourself if you want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #177
180. No, it isn't.
Let's see what the NIST report says about this.

The following is excerpted from NIST NCSTAR 1.
5.3.2 Aircraft Impact
The accidental 1945 collision of a B-25 aircraft with the Empire State Building sensitized designers of high-rise buildings to the potential hazards of such an event. However, building codes did not then, and do not currently, require that a building withstand the impact of a fuel-laden commercial jetliner. A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft flying at 600 mph was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of the occupants not in the immediate area of impact." Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultants and contractors to perform such an analysis in the 1960s would have been quite limited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #180
182. No, it isn't?????
Your own reference post states that:

"A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft flying at 600 mph was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers...
(the document contained) the assertion that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of the occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

What part of this does not refute your previous statement that:

"The buildings were not designed to handle the impact of an aircraft. Analysis was done afterwards regarding such an event"

Huh???

And how is this not:

"some indication that the WTC towers were designed to withstand the impact of an aircraft."

riddle-me-ree

:crazy:

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #182
186. Yep, that's right.
There is no evidence of said analysis being performed by the architects of the WTC towers. It is likely that any analysis performed was by The Port Authority itself, and as the NIST report states any such analysis would have been limited in its predictive capability. Do I need to explain to you the developments in numerical methods over the intervening forty years that allowed the NIST investigation to examine the impacts in far greater depth than would have been possible during the design of the towers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #186
188. No need to explain anything to me...
I'm perfectly capable of understanding the written word.

Do I need to point out the self serving nature of the 911 Commission?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #188
192. Do I need to point out...
that it is the NIST report, not the 9/11 Commission that we are discussing? Get a fucking clue before you post next time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #180
184. And of course...
The 9/11 commission investigators (oh, those of self serving and incredibly vested interests) would conveniently fail to find the proof that would undermine the plausibility of the fraud that they were trying to support (just like the blueprints for the buildings were reported lost, hmmm):

"the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion"

Natch!

And of course that same weaselly Commission would state that there pseudo science designed to confuse and obfuscate was superior to that used by the WTC's august body of original designers, architects and engineers:

"Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultants and contractors to perform such an analysis in the 1960s would have been quite limited."


Uh-huh...

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #184
185. Can't you fucking read?
It wasn't the 9/11 Commission, it was the NIST. Get it fucking straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #185
190. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #190
195. Well maybe you should have read...
where I said "NIST" (twice, mind you).

Who gives a fuck that they are a federal agency? Do you think the people who make up that agency would be less likely to tell the truth than if they were in the private sector?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #195
215. well, let's see...
...

;dilemma:

No, not going to go there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #215
217. dang. I meant: Well...
...

:dilemma:

No - I'm not going to go there!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #185
225. Thanks...
I misunderstood "investigators" to mean 911 commission. My bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-26-07 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #225
398. Why would you misunderstand that?
The 9-11 commission didn't investigate anything. They took information from the investigations to draw a conclusion. They were the prosecutors, not the detectives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #177
235. An accepted fact of 9-11?
There was one guy who worked on the construction of the WTC complex who stated to the public that the buildings were designed to withstand multiple airplanes hitting them. No evidence supports this nonsense. The best I've seen claims a study was done to approximate a 707 (largest plane in existence at that time) hitting one of the towers at a low rate of speed (because of their proximity to a major airport the possibility of an accident was figured in). This, of course, is a far cry different from what happened on 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #235
260. The fact is though...
That Plane Collision Was Factored Into WTCs' Design. An accepted 911 fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #260
293. How many times do I have to fucking repeat this?
It is most certainly not a fact. All we have is The Port Authority letter and that is not enough to determine whether the analysis was factored into the design, nor whether the analysis was competent or thorough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #260
327. What a crock of shit.
"That Plane Collision Was Factored Into WTCs' Design. An accepted 911 fact."

You know, my car has frontal impacts factored into the design at 30 MPH against another car. Why don't you drive it head on into an 18 wheeler and show me how the 30 MPH car to car rating applies in this extreme situation.
What type of plastic bag would you like inside your casket?

Man the bullshit you spew is out of hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #327
374. Was it or was it not?
You guys said there was no such factoring. There was. You were wrong. Admit it.

BTW: Sorry to group you all as a collective here, but you do seem to be ganging up on me. Not that I'm complaining. I'm a big boy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #374
388. Still a crock of shit.
I called bullshit on the premise that a design to survive a 707 impact at low speed and low fuel, consistent with a lost plane searching for the airport, compares anything to a fully loaded 767, which did not exist then, fully loaded with fuel smashing into the building at 500 MPH.


Its exactly like you saying, well my car is designed to keep me alive in a 30 MPH head on collision with another car, and then concluding, well obviously I'll survive a head on collision with an 18 wheeler at 110 MPH because they factored in frontal collisions.


Your full of it, and you know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #166
307. Did you read the NIST report?
I believe they claimed that they could not find the calculations in question. They also note that the tools available at the time to study ballistics were pretty lame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #307
375. Yes!
NIST is a Federal Agency. No surprise to me that they couldn't locate the calculations. Those calculations, however, might very well have undermined the feasibility of the official story IMO. But we'll never know now because, woops, what do you know, they went missing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #375
394. Because the NIST is a federal agency...
you're arguing that the individuals that make up that agency are more likely lie than those in the private sector? What leads you to this conclusion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #75
79. Oh, my, yes, the building certainly did move and sway!
http://911stories.googlepages.com/comparisonofwitnessac...

"A powerful shock wave quickly radiated up and down from the impact zone. The wave bounced from the top to the bottom of the tower, three or four seconds one way and then back, rocking the building like a huge boat in a storm.

"We got to get the hell out of here," yelled Greg Shark, an American Bureau of Shipping engineer and architect, who was bracing himself in the swaying while he stood outside Mr. McIntyre's office."

Another:

"The explosion sends the tower shaking furiously, lurching back and forth with sickening vengeance for maybe five or ten seconds. I think we may die. The building may topple over, or crumble. Finally it stops. The building is still standing. Everybody stares at each other, no idea of what happened or what to say. Speculations about an explosion, a bomb. No, it was a plane, our boss says. A commercial jet."

Another:

"After the plane collided with Tower One, it then exploded. The explosion seemed to have come about 10 seconds after impact. However, things were in slow motion and my mind was now in overdrive. Im sure the explosion happened right after impact. The explosion was massive it only magnified the rumbling, swaying and shaking of the Tower, things began falling off my desk."

Another:

"On September 11, 2001, at about 8:48 A.M., I had just signed on to my computer at the office of the Inspector, suite 7767 at One World Trade Center. At the moment that the plane crashed into Building One, there were two rapid explosions, most likely the plane slamming into the building and the subsequent fuel explosion. The concussive shock knocked me from my seat onto the floor. When I rose to my feet, the building was rocking like a boat at sea."

Another:

I was nearly knocked to the floor by the impact of the first plane, which slammed into the north side of Tower One more than 20 floors above me. I heard a loud thud, followed by an explosion. The building felt like it swayed about 10 feet to the south. It shuddered back to the north, then shimmied back and forth.

Another:

"At 08:48, as I was sitting in my chair, I felt a tremendous jolt. My office chair rolled in one direction and then the opposite direction. During the sway, I could hear the grinding of concrete and steel.

A second jolt hit as I was standing on the ramp leading down to the reception area. Again, the building leaned one way and sprang back the next. This was also accompanied by the sound of an explosion."

Another:

"The whole building began to sway about six of seven feet each way. It was like being rocked around in a boat."

Another:

"I remember this so clearly. It started as a rumble in our seats, and then grew into vibrations from the ceiling to the floor. It moved the building so much that our desk drawers popped open. We all stood up immediately, but couldn't move. The building was shaking from side to side, and we froze just to keep our balance."

And that was just accounts from people in the North Tower.

Maybe you should get more specific in your factfinding missions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #79
142. Waddya know?
And all this witness evidence in direct contradiction to the Scott Myers' Tripod Video when no sway at point of impact is detectable. Look for yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #75
120. Wait...I thought you had indisputable scientific proof?
"It's plain and simple. The buildings were built to resist such stresses. Hurricanes, planes, explosions, you name it."

Actually, the claim was made, at the time they were build, that they could withstand a single plane hitting it at low speed (the calculations were made on an accident from a plane at a nearby airport). And that was a plane that was much slower and much smaller.

"Such a force would affect the building, yes indeed. But it would not, when delivered by an aluminum aircraft, allow the aircraft to completely penetrate steel walls and reinforced concrete floors."

For starters, planes aren't made of aluminum. They are made of an alloy that INCLUDES aluminum. Secondly, you claimed to have "scientific proof" it's impossible, yet all we get is your word. Where is the scientific proof??

"Why do the military use bunker busters as opposed to a conventional missile when they need to do this?"

When they need to do what?

"Not even a conventional missile could penetrate heavy steel walls and reinforced concrete. Why would anyone believe that an aluminum plane could do this?"

Um, conventional weapons did EXACTLY this in the first days of the Iraq war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:53 AM
Original message
calling it a night (or morning) soon but...
You said:

"For starters, planes aren't made of aluminum. They are made of an alloy that INCLUDES aluminum. Secondly, you claimed to have "scientific proof" it's impossible, yet all we get is your word. Where is the scientific proof??"

once again: 767 planes are largely made of aluminum and graphite composite.
<http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jawa/boeing_7... >

You ask:
"When they need to do what?"

Penetrate steel walls or massive amounts of reinforced concrete.

You declare:
"Um, conventional weapons did EXACTLY this in the first days of the Iraq war."

Hate to break it to you but they've been using D.U. warheads in Iraq since the last Iraq war in 1990.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #120
143. calling it a night (or morning) soon but...
You said:

"For starters, planes aren't made of aluminum. They are made of an alloy that INCLUDES aluminum. Secondly, you claimed to have "scientific proof" it's impossible, yet all we get is your word. Where is the scientific proof??"

once again: 767 planes are largely made of aluminum and graphite composite.
<http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jawa/boeing_7... >

You ask:
"When they need to do what?"

Penetrate steel walls or massive amounts of reinforced concrete.

You declare:
"Um, conventional weapons did EXACTLY this in the first days of the Iraq war."

Hate to break it to you but they've been using D.U. warheads in Iraq since the last Iraq war in 1990.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #57
149. "Murrah Federal building...blown to shit...truck bomb." Not quite....
Edited on Mon Jul-23-07 10:36 AM by Ezlivin
Explosive experts and eyewitness testimony destroy the argument that a single bomb did the damage to the Murrah building.

Brig. General Partin, a munitions expert with 31 years of experience ( Resume ) wrote a report on the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in which he proves that a single truck bomb was incapable of inflicting the damage.


Add to this the numerous accounts of bombs being found and removed from the building.

Even FEMA admitted that there "a second and third bomb located in the building." The DOD stated that "A second bomb was disarmed, a third bomb was evacuated."

It's ironic that after the Murrah Federal Building bombing the government had some important legislation to pass: The Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #149
152. Oops - the worms are out of the Murrah Federal Building can!
Not being straight about the Murrah Federal Building. Not being straight about 9/11. Not being straight about 7/7. There's a lot of worms crawling around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #152
162. LOL, worms....
Your name reminds me of the movie Witchfinder General

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchfinder_General_ (film)

And in the USA, its called The Conqueror Worm.
Intentional, or just Ironic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #162
168. That would be me...
good movie too! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 02:00 AM
Response to Original message
110. This is kinetic BS from beginning to end --
Not only that but the Pentagon walls had just been REINFORCED -- !!!

Obviously, it was a missile dressed up which probably gave it some additional bulk --

Further, the Pentagon's systems would have had to have been turned off --

Some who have worked at the Pentagon suggest there were at least two systems to STOP INCOMING.

The idea that the world's superpower had an unprotected Pentagon is BS.

Oh, shucks, folks -- no anti-missile system at our Pentagon and cameras which don't take pictures.

Failure on that level has to be planned --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #110
113. You do realize...
that a 757 packs a whole lot more kinetic energy than a missile, even when considering the energy contained in the explosive warhead?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #110
121. Really?
"REINFORCED" how?

Which "systems" would have to be turned off?

Who at the Pentagon has "suggested" there were "at least two systems to stop incoming"?

The rest of what you say is pure conjecture.

Please do explain the claims you make.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #110
144. I'll ask, too
Edited on Mon Jul-23-07 07:57 AM by Sweet Pea
Because I'm curious.

What "systems" are you referring to that had to have been turned off?

"Two systems to stop incoming" what?

edited for typo

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #110
161. Me thinks you watched starwars too much. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
145. Last post
For all those that have asked for more scientific backing for my claim of the implausibility of a plane penetrating a massive obstacle:

The following fairly well known video comes close to replicating the circumstances of 9/11.

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/inde...

It was a scientific test conducted at the Sandia facility with an F4, on a rail, impacting a large concrete block at 480mph. According to the official results of the test, the only part of the plane to penetrate the wall more than 2cm was the engine and this penetrated to a depth of only 6cm. The rest of the plane atomized at point of impact. No entering through the wall here!

<http://radlab.nl/radsafe/archives/0111/msg00132.html >

Sandia states, "The primary purpose of the test was to determine the

> impact force versus time due to the impact of a complete F-4 Phantom onto

> a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target." You were

> correct to state that the F-4 Phantom had intact engines. The penetration

> depth by the fuselage was 2 cm, as you stated; the penetration depth of

> the engines was 6 cm.

> However, the massive concrete block, weighing almost 25 times the

> weight of the F-4 Phantom, absorbed almost all the impact. The 469 tonne

> block was floated on an air cushion and moved 1.83 m until it hit the

> backup structure and rebounded.

> Our calculations for concrete penetration do not assume the

> structure moves. As must be clear to you, one cannot infer from the

> Sandia test that a 767 engine moving 500 mph will penetrate 6 cm of

> concrete. If the building or storage cask were stationary, the

> penetration depth of the 767 jet engine is closer to 4 feet...

Night all - :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #145
148. Nice reply!
I suppose I could reference the impact that a pile of moose turd has when it drops from 6 feet or however high a moose's ass is above the ground and that would have about as much relevance as your Sandia lab test referral has.

But I won't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #148
151. regarding moose turds
Did the moose turds bury themselves completely into the ground like the plane allegedly did at Shanksville, PA? :wow:

Of course this Sandia test is relevant. It is an example of a plane flying at a speed roughly equivalent to the speed the alleged Boeings were flying at and directly targeted toward a massive obstacle. What is more, the results were scientifically documented and filmed in slow motion. The airframe caused a mere 2cm of penetration. This result totally supports the position that the complete penetration of a passenger jet right through the exterior wall and floors of the WTC buildings is implausible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #151
154. You're not seriously comparing the WTC construction to a solid
cube of concrete?

The WTC towers were 95% air by volume. The ratio of steel to concrete was 60/40, whereas 40/60 is the ratio for the Empire State Building. It made relatively sparse use of concrete.

The WTC towers were designed to be very lightweight and stiff. Nothing at all like a solid brick of concrete.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #154
169. Buildings designed to be Lightweight and stiff?????
:rofl:

I suppose you get those type of buildings at the same place you get the aluminum hammers.

BTW: The alleged Boeings had to confront over five acres of reinforced concrete. A touch more than they used as an obstacle at Sandia wouldn't you say?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #169
236. Look up for yourself the design criteria for the WTC.
And do you believe that a flat, thin sheet of concrete behaves the same as a solid cube?

I know you are far too smart to think this, so we'll juet let that one go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 05:26 AM
Response to Reply #236
262. Um, hold on there...
I know that five acres of reinforced concrete floor and steel deck approached horizontally easily presents a more massive target than the concrete block used for the F-$ Sandia test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #262
288. You may believe it, but I don't think you can know it.
Edited on Tue Jul-24-07 09:11 AM by Flatulo
The planes did not approach along a line perfectly perpendicular to the face of the towers. They were in a slight dive, so there would have been a significant component of velocity normal to the concrete floors. In that case, the floor would have looked (to the plane) significantly like a flat plane, not a long deep sheet approached on edge.

I'll repeat my previous claim - concrete is not very tough in impact situations, where lots of energy has to be absorbed in seconds or milliseconds.

Plus, concrete has virtually NO tensile strength. This is offset by some degree to the preloading rods embedded in reinforced concrete, but when subjected to bending stresses, one usually only includes the material on the compressive side of the neutral plane. At least according to my brother, who is a civil engineer.

We used to look under bridges where all the concrete had fallen from the underside of the support beams. He'd say 'Don't worry, all the load is carried by the compression side."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #288
339. I have seen all the evidence I need
I took me a long while and a lot of evidence review and study to accept what I believe is the truth. Speed does not imbue any projectile with the ability to penetrate any obstacle as some people on this thread seem to have suggested. Planes can't behave the way they do on the 911 vids. There's all kinds of science to support that. The planes glide through steel girders and steel and concrete floors.

While I think of it, we shouldn't be forgetting that the floors weren't just concrete but concrete over a steel deck. Six of these floors, each one of them nearly an acre.

Do you really believe that the planes could glide through these in order to completely enter the building? That is what the videos show them doing.

I say it's impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #339
352. This is your basic problem
"I have seen all the evidence I need"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #352
376. I've done three years of research on this issue alone.
I think that's giving the official story a fair shake. It's not as if I made a snap decision on this. After patiently reviewing all kinds of data, as objectively and thoroughly as possible, I don't have a problem with finally being able to conclude something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-26-07 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #376
397. Unfortunately, and I do not mean this as an insult, your
understanding of physics and engineering seem to be too cursory to qualify you as an expert in collision and ballistic science. Did you visit the site I referred you to? It takes supercomputing clusters to model collisions with any accuracy.

I hasten to add that it is also beyond MY skill set to model this with great accuracy. I'm a degreed mechanical engineer with 30 years experience, and the best I can do is a very simplisitic conservation of energy approach to the problem, as I have outlined in other posts.

Gut feeling and common sense are NOT qualifications for an informed decision on such a complex physics problem, nor is spending years on conspiracy boards run by people with even worse qualifications than yourself. I don't care how long you pondered this... people pondered the solar system for centuries and came up with the exactly wrong conclusion of how it worked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-27-07 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #339
408. Steel Wall and Floor Pics
<>

<>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-27-07 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #408
412. You realize those columns are hollow...right? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #169
238. Where do you come up with this stuff?
"The alleged Boeings had to confront over five acres of reinforced concrete."

Now we are at 5 acres of reinforced concrete? Where exactly was there room for PEOPLE in such a construction?

FACT is 70% of the WTC buildings were AIR. You act as if these were solid concrete buildings that were steel reinforced throughout and with solid steel walls. You couldn't be more wrong. The largest mass of the exterior walls was GLASS. The largest mass of the interior walls was Gypsum. Materials you could easily penetrate with a sling shot.

How, exactly, does a plane flying into those buildings "confront 5 acres of reinforced concrete"? At most they encounter a handful of steel beams, and a single concrete floor. Don't forget that 70% of the space they were flying into was AIR and the majority of the wall they were initially penetrating was GLASS. Simply hitting steel or concrete and breaking apart doesn't stop the forward momentum to the rest of the plane, most of which was moving into AIR.

To be more clear. Even if the Plane hit a steel pillar or a concrete floor HEAD ON, the majority of the plane would STILL end up inside the building. That initial collision doesn't stop the forward momentum of the entire plane. It would simply cause the plane to start breaking apart, but the pieces would keep moving inward.

Here's another egg experiment for you. Take an egg and throw it as hard as you can at a 1/4" X 1/4" piece of wire netting. Obviously the entire egg can't penetrate the wires and will break apart. But the vast majority of the egg is going to end up on the other side of the wire netting simply due to forward momentum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #238
264. I scrutinize the evidence
You said:
"At most they encounter a handful of steel beams, and a single concrete floor."

Check the Fema diagrams of the plane impacts. The planes confronted approximately forty girders and five to six floors apiece.

You said:
"To be more clear. Even if the Plane hit a steel pillar or a concrete floor HEAD ON, the majority of the plane would STILL end up inside the building. That initial collision doesn't stop the forward momentum of the entire plane. It would simply cause the plane to start breaking apart, but the pieces would keep moving inward."

So you are beginning to agree with me.

Following on with your statement: The plane should have broken up at the point of impact with the pillars and the floors. This is a catastrophic multiple failure at the outside of the building. yes parts of the plane would have made it thru the gaps between the girders and floor and the engines and landing gear would have probably penetrated into the building even through the pillars. A great deal of the plane would have fallen to the ground below. None of the wreckage, except maybe the engine and possibly landing gear would have made it all the way through the building to the other side in order to land on the roof of building five, especially not a piece of the fuselage.

Ty the egg experiment and let me know what happens. Some of it might bounce back. Interested to see. Either way I bet the whole egg wont penetrate the netting intact.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 05:35 AM
Response to Reply #264
353. How exactly
Do you come to the conclusion that the entire plane had to penetrate the building? Parts of the planes were found a block or more away. OF COURSE the ENTIRE plane didn't penetrate the buildings. Almost immediately upon impact in the videos you have explosions and huge smoke clouds obscuring what happened to the entirety of the plane. Not to mention it broke up into small pieces almost immediately and wouldn't show up on video taken from a distance. So, no, the ENTIRE plane did not enter the building.

You are aware of all the plane parts found, right? And the pieces of passengers? and various debris from inside the planes?

This is also good for the "controlled demolition" crowd. Controlled demolitions don't spread debris for several city blocks. They certainly don't result in several inches of powder a block away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #353
377. Do your research
Those parts were officially said to have traveled "through" the buildings. They were all found on the other side of the impact. No scrap was found below the impact sight. Look it up for yourself!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-27-07 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #377
410. Post Impact Plane Debris Map
<>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-27-07 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #410
415. Interesting
That three out of the four pieces of the aircraft that made it completely through the open floor plan "colossal reinforced fortified bunker" were most densest, most robust parts on the airframe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-28-07 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #415
418. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-28-07 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #418
419. Photo Showing Structural Detail of Boeing Aluminum Fuselage
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-28-07 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #419
420. That Versus This (Colossal Steel Frame Building) - Photos







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-30-07 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #410
434. And a hijacker's passport -- !!!! ???? !!!!! ????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-30-07 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #434
461. Oh, yes...
The passport :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Pea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #151
155. Flatulo beat me to it
Two *completely* different structures - the *solid* piece of concrete in the Sandia test and the wall of the WTC (or even, for that matter, the Pentagon).

Different. Completely. Totally. Utterly.

Like an F-4 and a moose turd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #155
170. Flatulo beat you to it?
Then I guess I'll give you the same response:

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #145
158. That was a barrier designed to resist a plane.
Edited on Mon Jul-23-07 03:28 PM by VTMechEngr
Reinforced concrete 5 feet thick! Designed to protect Nuclear facilities.

This is not a new concept, the Nazis built the U-Boat base at Saint Nazaire to be bombproof with a roof of thick reinforced concrete, and guess what, it was bomb proof! The problem is that is way too heavy for a highrise. Your argument is a joke.

You guys are incredible. Go work for Fox news or Snow job with that spin ability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #158
159. Yep.
I don't think they can or should be taken seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #159
173. Your choice, my friend.
Honestly do appreciate the opportunity to debate the issues though :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #158
172. So was the outer wall of the WTC...
You not check the Architects' reports either?

Over 5 acres of reinforced concrete resisted the alleged planes of 9/11

"You guys are incredible."

Gee, thanks for the compliment

:blush:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #172
174. alleged planes?
5 acres? OK, that is an area. How thick was the Concrete?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #174
178. Excellent Question, VTMechEngr
I see you are deserving of your username.

Each of the 43,200 sq ft floors comprised of four inches thickness of reinforced concrete over a deck of fluted steel with steel bridging trusses and steel main floor trusses. The trussed steel was thirty three inches deep spanning all the way to the dense steel inner core. (times all this by five which is the amount of floors the Bogus 767s allegedly encountered.)

Quite a substantial and hardened target IMO. Definitely a job for:

:applause:

Penetrator Missile!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #178
189. Trusses do not count as reinforcement.
Its the Re-bar that gives reinforced steel its strength, by distributing the load in multiple directions and allowing the structure to flex its tension stress through the steel.


As for that test:

The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom including both engines onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test established that the major impact force was from the engines. The test was performed by Sandia National Laboratories under terms of a contract with the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Tokyo.

3.66 Meters! That's 12 feet of reinforced steel, in one solid block that could move backwards freely. Versus 4 inches on the floors of the building. I note that impact calculation must take into account how far the impacted object or surface travels. The more rigid the structure, the higher the energy imparted.

Also, 4 inches in multiple separate layers isn't a "hardened" target. The U-boat pens the Nazis built were hardened targets, at ~ 15 feet thick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #189
205. We have a rather unusual missile here.
When the missile is essentially 55 feet tall and 170 feet wide we have to take the resistance of those multiple floors into account now don't we.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #205
207. Not the entire floor.
The planes hit perpendicular to the area involved. If anything, the floors helped channel the debris right into the core columns. Sure, some of the debris punched through, but 4 inches of concrete is not a whole lot. The floors were made that thick to properly encase the re-bar, and provide a solid surface for heavy office equipment. The floors were not made to withstand an impact, just support the needs of offices above and hanging pipes, ducts, and cabling below.

The columns did the work of supporting the building, the floors just support a floor of stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #207
212. Yeah, but it's reinforced concrete floors
You know it's got that 1/8" dia hog wire on a 6" by 6" mesh buried in the 4"s of light weight concrete, with the vermiculite aggregate.

Shoot given all that concrete I'm surprised the plane just didn't bounce off the building. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #212
219. Interesting that you say that...
cause that is what more or less happened in New York in 1945!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #219
226. Wow, we gots a winner
Lets replay that winning answer one more time:

"cause that is what more or less happened in New York in 1945!"

DING DING DING :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

Why yes, the B-25 just bounced off the building, and did not punch a hole right through it and send an engine onto another building on the other side, while sending the other engine right into the elevator shafts and embedding the rest of the slow moving plane into the floor.

Nope - Never happened.

And as your prize, Alice here is going to take you off to wonderland. Watch out for that tea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #226
234. Yes, I win coz..
Nearly everything but the engines bounced off the building or got jammed in the hole made in the eight inch limestone brick. Read the reports. No plane completely gliding into the building like a knife through butter here.

I've been saying all along that if anything were to enter the WTC it would have been the engines. That is because they are cast iron and density does count! ALWAYS!

BTW: I prefer mint tea if I have a choice!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #234
239. The WTC planes didn't go through the buildings like knives through butter.
They came out in tiny pieces save a few engines.

The WTC is also mostly air inside. Not much to stop debris going perpendicular to the floors unless it hits the core.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #239
265. Figure of speech, VT
I don't mean that they cut clean through. I mean that they slid inside real easy without seeming to decelerate at point of impact. Most unusual behavior for a plane or indeed any object impacting a substantial obstacle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #234
268. Cast iron jet engines - who knew (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #268
280. My Bad
It appears I'm showing my age. Cast iron engines indeed - they went out with the horse and cart.

Yes, well - it appears that modern engines are built with fancy Titanium and Titanium Alloy. The main point is they're solid and heavy and thus can penetrate things more easily than the other parts of the plane.

Thanks for the pointer, Lared
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #207
214. Come on VT (can I call you that for short?)
In simple terms: the large and relatively flimsy, cross section of the stabilizers and wings was directly opposing a mass of reinforced concrete and steel that stretched back 43,200 feet. That is a significant obstacle my friend. if, as I assume by your username, you are an engineer, you of all people should know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #214
218. Those are not simple terms, they are just plain made up (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #218
228. Huh?
Which of the terms used are made up in your opinion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #228
270. These
the large and relatively flimsy, cross section of the stabilizers and wings

Flimsy stabilizers and wings? You want people to take you seriously? Stop the bs.

directly opposing a mass of reinforced concrete and steel that stretched back 43,200 feet.

That mass of concrete was 4" thick very lightweight concrete that maybe had some hog wire in to for reinforcement. It can't even fathom what "stretching back 43,200 feet" means.

you are an engineer, you of all people should know that.

I am an engineer, and what I do know is I'm going to need hip boots soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #270
283. get your boots on, Lared
No B.S. here - I said "relatively" flimsy. That would be relative to the steel girders and reinforced concrete floors.

it's not the thickness that counts because the plane wasn't descending down into the floor last time I checked. it was approaching the floors horizontally. This is why the 43,200 feet value is significant. That is how deep the floor was, stretching backward. That value, and whatever its corresponding mass, is what is facing the plane - not the four inches.

BTW: Do all engineers wear hip boots?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #283
310. 43,200 feet. Uh-huh.
Edited on Tue Jul-24-07 06:23 PM by AZCat
You really need to start double-checking your numbers before you post them. You seem to have difficulty keeping various units straight. It appears you are trying to reference the depth of the floors of the WTC towers (~208 feet), but instead are using the figure for the area (~43,200 square feet).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #310
311. At some point one has to ask themselves is it
for real or is it a prank. Is it possible that anyone could be so spatially challenged that it's for real?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #311
312. I'm not surprised about that.
Instead I'm surprised he thinks he has a good grasp of physics, considering what he's posted here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #311
314. Indeed. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #311
341. I am not a prank
I am a real human being. Maybe you could take the fact that I make mistakes as proof of that. I don't believe any of my slips have undermined my argument though. The depth of the floors are still vast and that is what the planes were meant to be gliding into without resistance. That vast depth is what is most significant. Would they have been even harder an obstacle if they were thicker than 4", yes, of course, but there was a steel deck underneath the concrete and there were six of them that the planes would have encountered.

The vids show the planes gliding through these floors and completely entering the building without meeting any resistance. Now you can imagine that speed and weight can help them do that but that position is not scientific. Every object striking another object meets some kind of resistance. When the object is an acre of concrete and steel you can presume the resistance will be substantial. Ask a Penetration Mechanics expert to verify that if you don't believe me.

BTW: Make sure he's not affiliated to the media ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #310
340. My Bad
You are so right. of course 43,200 sq feet does not mean 43,200 X 43,200.

It was late and I'd been posting for several hours, and you guys are tough. No excuses though - Double checking numbers before I post is a good suggestion. Thanks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #214
224. Aircraft have a lot of strength to them.
They may not look it but they are quite durable, and it's the mass, particularly the engines, fuselage, and fuel that do the damage.

Once again, feet is a pathetic measure. I can have 43,200 feet of paper thin concrete and steel "tinfoil" 1 foot wide (so as to provide 43,200 square feet) and punch holes in it with plastic spoons.

It is not that significant an obstacle to a fully fueled plane traveling almost 500 MPH.


And yes, I'm an engineer in shipbuilding. I deal with steel and other metals and loads and welds daily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #224
227. well then..
You understand that four inches of reinforced concrete over steel decking is plenty strong enough to support the massive tonnage that would have been placed on it. this is not an acre of paper thin concrete and tin foil. That wouldn't be much of sa floor now would it?

Of course it's a strong and significant mass and represents an impenetrable obstacle to the largely hollow structures of the 767s' rear stabilizers and wings.

The speed of the object is only going to help it overcome it's obstacle if mass, density, and sectional density are on its side. Otherwise it's going to end up as a catastrophic failure like the F-4 in the Sandia vid. This is the whole point of my first deciding to post.

Flatulo was claiming that it was merely about kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is only the measurement of the impact's force not what the result of that force is going to be on either the projectile or the target. If it was merely about Kinetic energy, as you guys seem to be suggesting, and speed somehow turned anything into an efficient and deadly penetrating projectile, then why would we need munitions factories? War would be held using peas and lentils. Hey that's an idea!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #227
233. I posted several posts on the validity of the F4 crash.
Simple point is, its not a valid example to compare to 9/11.

Also, the wings are not hollow, and contain a lot of structure, something you continue to neglect. Think about it, the wings carry the entire load of the plane in flight. They are not that fragile.

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/structures/structuraldesi...


My joke on the tin foil was so you'd get the point to stop using length and area to define volumes. What good is area when depth is what is needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #233
242. From what I recall...
When ascertaining volume, a critical value as I believe, you need to factor in length (and width of course also) as well as height or did I miss something in Math 101? In fact when discussing penetration one most often uses the length, i.e depth, to quantify the success. A bullet penetrating through a depth of six inches of concrete tends to carry a meaning independent of how high the target was.

"My joke on the tin foil was so you'd get the point to stop using length and area to define volumes. What good is area when depth is what is needed."

Now you seem to be confusing height with depth here. You keep on about the depth of the concrete being four inches but when the trajectory is horizontal this is technically the height. Height is not the most critical value when assessing the success of a penetration. Of course "depth is what is needed" but not in the sense of height as you were meaning it For instance: there is a big difference in something having to penetrate four inches deep as opposed to four feet deep.

In the instance of the WTC 9 (and this is why I keep harping on about this) the missile had to confront a continuous depth of nearly and acre. A vehicle, when crashing into a building, might easily bust through a vertical wall but not a horizontally presented ceiling. Too much mass!

As for aircraft wings: aircraft wings are relatively fragile when compared to reinforced concrete and steel girders. This is a critical point. Jeez, they're relatively fragile compared to a bird as anyone knowledgeable about the bird strike hazard to aviation full well knows.

As for the F-4 vid: it's way valid. Here's a plane, more compact and solid than a 767, hence with a higher degree of sectional density, aimed directly toward a less massive target than the WTC Towers overall represented (both actually and relatively), at an equivalent speed. The result: apart from the engines, there was just 2cm of penetration into the obstacle. The Obstacle stayed intact the plane completely disintegrated. No cutting though the walls like butter here.

This test was done to assess the safety of nuclear reactor walls against attack from plane strikes.

If any plane stands a chance of penetrating a massive target it would be something like our good ol' F-4 Phantom here. It failed.

Of Course it's Valid!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #242
247. Dude, how can anyone take you seriously.
But before I finally get to bed,

The test was launching a plane into a solid 12 foot thick block of reinforced concrete. Its like smashing a plane into a mountain. Solid stone!

The WTC is no where near that strong. If you continue to illogically think so, provide the mathematical basis for this bullshit. I'd love to know how a facade of glass windows and steel columns compares to a fucking mountain.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #247
269. Bear with me, VT
That's forty girders, made from steel plate, each fourteen inches thick, and six reinforced concrete, steel decked floors, impacted horizontally.

That's a substantial target by any account, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #269
278. Not really.
The columns are not solid steel, and columns do not resist side loads well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #278
281. Still up, VT?
Never said the girders were solid. Just that they were 14 inches thick. Forty girders, eighty sides of which are presenting themselves laterally to the projectile. Each wing will have to contend with eighty 14 inch pieces of steel plate, plus a couple of reinforced concrete floors. Ain't a wing in the world built to withstand that type of target upon impact. Those wings are gonna get sheared off just like when the plane hit the ESB in '45. I would bet good money on that!

But I bet you're going to ask me to come up with my proof of that. huh! :7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #281
282. My bad
it's late. I meant each wing is gonna have to deal with about thirty 14" pieces of steel plate.

The rest is as written.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #281
316. Once again - Wings are not that flimsy. They support the entire airplane weight in flight!
Those columns were not that strong to stop a massive wing with internal strengthening and fuel tanks from punching right through.

I'll gladly take that bet. I love winning free money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #316
342. Take your knee boots off and do the research
There's an Airline test video that I have watched over and over again. In it. a plane wing encounters a wooden post and the post tears right through it, immediately igniting the fuel tanks. Immediately, note. Not seconds later after the plane has magically disappeared though it.

Watch the 911 vids. They defy common sense. Some of them show obvious CG composite bleed. They are inconsistent with each other describing different flight paths: some show steep descent, some completely horizontal. They are ropey, ropey ropey CG. Take a close look with your engineering eye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #178
317. WTF is a "Penetrator missile"
Just for the record please. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #317
343. Don't you guys know who to do a word search?
But here, I guess i'll do your work for you:

On 27 May 1999 Raytheon was awarded a $25,829,379 undefinitized cost-plus-incentive-fee/cost-plus-fixed-fee, ceiling amount contract for the modification of the Tactical Tomahawk missile to the Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant configuration as part of the Second Counter-Proliferation Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration. The Tactical Tomahawk missile will be modified to incorporate the government-furnished penetrator warhead and the hard-target smart fuze. Four Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant missiles will be assembled to conduct the advanced concept technology demonstration testing.

<http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm >

Now here's your homework: Go to Google and type in the words "penetrator" and "missile" if you want more info
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #343
368. Yes I do
I just wanted to see what you think you were talking about as you provided no frame of reference.

And apparently so do you, but you stopped short.

Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant with Advanced Unitary Penetrator.

The Advanced Unitary Penetrator (AUP) is the next-generation, hard target penetrator munition that provides a lethal capability to penetrate and defeat extremely hard multilayer underground facilities. Sharing an external appearance and flight characteristics with the 2000 lb BLU-109, the AUP has an advanced heavy steel penetrator warhead filled with high-energy explosives that can penetrate more than twice as much reinforced concrete as the BLU-109. Performance is enhanced by a void-sensing Hard Target Smart Fuze that detonates the AUP at the optimum point in a target to inflict maximum damage.


No DU.

The Advanced Unitary Penetrator hard target penetrator, designated the GBU-24 C/B (USAF) and GBU-24 D/B (Navy), features an elongated narrow diameter case made of a tough nickel-cobalt steel alloy called 9430M.


Similar in size and shape to the BLU-109, the AUP warhead consists of a steel case penetrator filled with high explosive and enclosed by an aluminum shroud.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munition...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #368
378. I didn't stop short...
I am aware of what you've posted and then I went further. After al,l the military need to keep things from the public and I don't have a problem with that. I just bear that in mind when I'm reading official reports. Here's what I found when I went further:

"These guided weapons and their secret warheads are central to US air attack plans for Iraq. The US plan to use 9700 guided bombs and 700+ missiles at the start of the war (New York Times, 2nd Feb). Of these I estimate that at least 30% are likely to be equipped with "hard-target" warheads. These contain a secret, high density metal with powerful incendiary effects designed to destroy suspected chemical and biological targets. Tungsten is high density but not incendiary. Only Uranium has both these properties.

IF this secret metal is Uranium then these weapons are radiological bombs -- which would explain why the Pentagon and NATO have protected such a closely guarded secret.

US Patent records confirm that the most common of these -- the upgraded 2000 lb BLU-109/B guided bomb warhead, and the new Tactical Tomahawk penetrator warhead -- specify Uranium warhead options."

<http://www.idust.net/Letters/Willms01.htm >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #378
382. I replied to that elsewhere
In another post.

I find the source's accuracy suspect.

the military need to keep things from the public


Use of DU in munitions is not one of them. If the Advanced Unitary Penetrator consisted of DU, it would say so.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m829a1.htm

"The M829A1 is a depleted-uranium long-rod kinetic energy penetrator round capable of defeating heavily armored vehicles."

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/20mm.htm

The 20mm Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS), Depleted Uranium sub-caliber penetrator was changed to Tungsten in 1988.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/pgu-14.htm

The PGU-14/B API Armor Piercing Incendiary round has a lightweight body which contains a sub-calibre high density penetrator of Depleted Uranium (DU).

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m919.htm

The decision was made to pursue a depleted uranium long rod for use in the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

These are the only DU munitions used by the US Military.

20mm MK149
25mm PGU-20
25mm M919 APFSDS-T
30mm PGU-14/B API
105mm M774 APFSDS-T
105mm M833 APFSDS-T
105mm M900 APFSDS-T
120mm M827 APFSDS-T
120mm M829 APFSDS-T
M67 Area Denial Anti-personnel Mine
M72 Area Denial Anti-personnel Mine
M86 Pursuit Deterrent Munition (PDM)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munition...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #158
179. Another important point to consider
The F4 of the Sandia test is obviously military grade and more solidly and compactly built than a passenger jet with extensive use of Titanium in its airframe. This increases the Sectional Density of the projectile leaving it much more similar in this respect to a missile than a 767 would be.

So what we have here is a projectile with way more penetration power than a Boeing 767, flying directly at a less massive target and yet still failing to even remotely penetrate. And all this dutifully recorded by the skilled engineers and technicians of Sandia Research. Scientific enough for you? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #179
181. "More solidly and compactly built"? No, it isn't.
You really need to read up on this stuff before making such ridiculous remarks. Fighter jets are built of light construction because speed (and acceleration) are of high priority to the customer. A while back I was touring a Boeing plant that had re-tooled from producing fighter jets to 747 sections, and one of the engineers told me that their production methods had to change significantly because with a fighter jet, if it got hit by a missile they just figured it wasn't coming back but for a commercial aircraft the a compromised airframe would occur not because of external forces (with a few exceptions like birds) but because of fatigue or flawed components, so it was more important to ensure that the structure of the 747 was sound than the structure of the fighter jets they were previously manufacturing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #181
187. Yes, it was.
How is a twin seater fighter jet not more compact than a Boeing 767 passenger jet?

How is having an airframe with substantial amounts of titanium not more solidly built than one made from aluminum and graphite?

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #187
191. You do realize that titanium is used...
not because they want to "armor" the airframe but because since it has such a high tensile strength for its density. They don't use it on commercial aircraft because it is fucking expensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #191
197. Yes.
What's your point? I never suggested the titanium was used in the F-4 was for armor.

I should also be noted that titanium is almost twice as dense as aluminum.

Now how was I not right about the F-4 being more compact and more solidly built than a Boeing 767?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #197
198. So guess what...
they use less titanium than they would aluminum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #198
206. By my research...
at least the whole central section of the F-4 was titanium. But then you're probably going to accuse me of bullshitting again. BTW: Why are you such a potty-mouth? :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
232. Wow!
Ain't this thread picking up a lot of views lately: 3,341 and counting! way to go guys :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #232
277. Still cooking...
4,000 views and counting. (You can tell I'm new to this, huh?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
308. tennis balls through car windows & plastic soda bottles through plywood-
There was a guy on Letterman last night with a tennis ball cannon. Rehearsal tape was shown where a ball was shot through the side glass of taxi cab and through the front of a small television. The guy ended up breaking the cannon out of frustration because it wasn't performing during the show's taping.

Jberryhill offers this video of plastic soda bottles being shot through plywood: www.liveleak.com/view?i=e03_1184495309
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #308
344. Hmm...
Now I wonder why he didn't shoot the ball through the car door?

Likely Answer: because it wouldn't have gone through,

Also, note the bottles are being shot through plywood and not metal sheet. Every projectile has it's limits a to what it can penetrate. Speed is not a magic ingredient turning everything into a penetrator. It's all subject to the laws of physics. That is common sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
313. I love the empty vs full beer can analogy. Wish I'd thought of that one.
The fluid both stiffens and adds mass to the flimsy can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #313
345. So you're saying the planes were full of beer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #345
354. Nope
They WERE full of fuel, though. That's why they were chosen. Cross country flights and all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #354
379. I see...
"They WERE full of fuel, though. "

Full of fuel: must have made it damn uncomfortable for the passengers. Hey maybe that was why the planes were so easy to hijack. Maybe everyone had drowned, including the flight crew and the nasty terrorists had scuba gear. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #345
359. If they were full of beer I'd fly more often.
The wings were filled with jet fuel though. I don't understand the geometry of the wing tanks. Do they use bladders? Does the fuel storage extend right of to the inside face of the wing sheetmetal?

If it does, that would be a pretty good analogy to the beer can.

PS: I have taken a full beer can off the noggin and it really smarts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #359
380. ouch.
But now I'm confused. Why didn't the beer can just glide right through your head? Suppose it wasn't going fast enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MRM Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-26-07 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #380
399. Hey, you might be catching on
Nah. You've been thoroughly brainwashed by the most extreme of conspiracy theorists. The folks who willfully ignore 100 instances of common sense in order to believe 1 instance of their "common sense" (made up shit).

Ya know, you keep throwing the same nonsense out there over and over. "science says" is one of your favorites, yet when asked to provide this "science" you revert to "it's common sense" and "acres of concrete and steel". You keep repeating the mantra of the few who still cling to the belief of no-planes. You've been confronted with all sorts of scientific data that disproves your theory, yet you have approximately ZERO scientific data to back your own claims of scientific implausibility. For someone who has spent "3 years researching" you don't seem to know much about the science you claim proves it couldn't have possibly happened that way. But you're "open minded". So open minded that you refuse to even consider the VAST amount of evidence against your position provided just in this thread alone. So open minded that you stated "I've seen all the evidence I need to see".

I don't know you, but I can confidently state that your behavior in this thread alone exhibits a very cult-like mindset. You are very easily manipulated as long as the manipulator is forceful in word. That's not to say you are stupid. On the contrary, you are likely quite bright. The problem lies in the fact that you are a follower by nature. Once you latch onto something, you willfully put all of your energy into it and nothing or no one can sway your belief. This happens in cult religions all the time. What amazes me is I've never seen this type of extreme behavior from someone only using the internet. Sure, lots of nuts on the internet spew their nonsense, but I've never seen your kind of dedication to a disproven cause. Are you part of a real-life 9/11 group? Honest question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
381. Interesting Vids
Before I sign off for the day (probably be back tonight) here's some vids of a crash test (with a real plane) done at NASA's Dryden facility:

http://www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Movie/CID/index.html

Here's some more info on the test:

http://www.fromtheflightdeck.com/Stories/720CID/CID.htm

And before you guys start giving me a hard time about it not being the same as 911, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah:

I know that, obviously, but it shows how wings get easily cut by steel and how this causes a near instantaneous fuel explosion. These are real wings not CG, which of course can penetrate through multiple steel girders and multiple steel and concrete floors without failure of any kind until they are neatly inside the buildings they are aiming at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VTMechEngr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-25-07 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #381
391. Notice the wings stay attached?
http://www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Movie/CID/Medium/EM-0...

The posts were designed to cut the wings open, to spill fuel, but the wings still remained attached, even after hitting the ground wing first. The skin of the wing was cut open, but the internal structure still held them on.

Like I said earlier, wings are not as flimsy as troofers think. They support the entire weight of the airplane in flight, and also deal with dynamic loads while in flight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-26-07 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
402. Fare Thee Well!
Hi, People - the Debate has been vigorous and most enjoyable and for my part, quite educational on many levels. Thank you all for allowing me to participate.

As I said before, this is a pastime and not an occupation for me and a first time experience at this pastime at that, maybe not a last-time one, we'll see.

Well anyway, before it begins to occupy too much of my time, I just want to round things off and deal with a few loose ends here.

This lively little thread was started on July 7th by Flatulo (props to you, brother, for piquing our interest so.) Here's his opening statement:
"How can an aluminum airplane punch through a steel building" Troothers ask? It's all about the kinetic energy."

Now when I came across this a couple of weeks later, as I scoured the net randomly one day, I was moved for the first time to join a forum and contribute. Here's my initial statement from Jul 22nd along with a quote from further on in the post:
"Not That Simple: As far as I am aware, it is not "all about kinetic energy." This seems to me to be a simplification of what is in actuality a complicated calculation."

"Within the boundaries of known physical laws and expectations, It is not plausible that such a projectile would be able to completely penetrate such a target. It is possible that the plane's high density engines would penetrate to some extent, but the delicate structures of the fuselage, wings and rear stabilizers would not be expected to shear through the steel frame and reinforced concrete floors of the WTC towers as they were alleged to have done on 9/11."

Flatulo replied, quite eloquently and graciously, on Jul 23rd, and within his post stated:
"He is correct in that sectional density is a factor. That's one reason why spears are thrown along the long axis, not perpendicular to it. Same material, damping, hardness, velocity, but only the long axis offers any penetrating power."

Now, people accused me of being ignorant of the laws of physics and misunderstanding the evidence and everyone is welcome to their viewpoint but after all this lengthy debate, (over 400 posts and 6,000 views) I still haven't seen any convincing rebuttal as to what I had wrong about the science here.

Let's take Flatulo's correct statement about only the long axis of a spear having any penetrating power. This is a general principle within penetration mechanics and holds true with most all projectiles. If they approach the target laterally instead of longitudinally, they will fail to penetrate. It's the basic principle of sectional density at work.

Now how does that principle factor in when considering the alleged penetrations of 911?

Quite simply, everything other than the fuselage of the 767s was essentially approaching the target laterally: i.e. the wings and rear stabilizers. No matter what penetration of the fuselage may or not have occurred, normally speaking, it would be expected that the laterally presented aspects of the projectile would not penetrate and fail at point of impact.

Speed would not help the wings and stabilizers penetrate through the much denser and more massive obstacles of multiple steel girders and multiple steel concrete floors ( and yes, reference to the various FEMA diagrams will show, that because of the alleged angles of entry the planes had to confront approximately 40 girders and six floors apiece.) Kinetic energy measures only the size of the impact, not what happens to either the object or obstacle.

Now, I repeat:

This, as far as i am concerned places the science of the matter firmly in support of the No-Planers.



Now, Flatulo, and others, asked, well if there was no planes, where is the evidence of witnesses not seeing planes? I presented one example of an "on the ground" News reporter arguing the case for missiles with his anchor. This was taking place after the second hit and it is not clear whether the reporter's eye witnesses saw missiles striking the first tower, or the second, or both because the Anchor cuts him off. We will never now, but we do have his (admittedly hearsay) testimony to real people seeing a missile, not a plane.

There are other examples of people arguing the case for "no planes" with their anchors:

Here's Don Dahler arguing with Charles Gibson on ABC:
"DAHLER: Well, we see--it appears that there is more and more fire and smoke enveloping the very top of the building, and as fire crews are descending on this area, it--it does not appear that there's any kind of an effort up there yet, now remember--Oh, my God!?GIBSON: That looks like a second plane has just hit ...?DAHLER: I didn't see a plane go in. That--that just exploded. I..."

And just as intriguing is this exchange that happened live on air on CNN:

"And there's more explosions right now -- hold on -- people are running, hold on. ??UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We should hold on just a moment. We've got an explosion inside...??UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The building's exploding right now. You've got people running up the street. ??Hold on, I'll tell you what's going on.??UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, just put Winston on pause there for just a moment... ??UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, the whole building exploded some more, the whole top part. The building's still intact, people are running up the street. Am I still connected? "??Here is a quote from David Handschuh, a photographer for the New York Daily News who took this famous picture:
<>

"Then out of nowhere came this noise. This loud, high-pitched roar that seemed to come from all over, but from nowhere in particular. And the second tower just exploded. It became amazingly obvious to anyone there that what we all had hoped was a terrible accident was actually an overt act of hostility. I didn'tt see the plane hit, although I was looking at the tower at the time. I have no recollection of pushing the button, hitting the shutter, making the picture that appeared on Page 2 of the Daily News the next day, a picture that was taken milliseconds after the second plane hit that tower."
<http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=4318 >

Now, with all due respects to everyone who claims to have seen a massive, loud, low flying Boeing 767, I find it hard to reconcile their reports with all this compelling and persuasive evidence of there being no plane. I simply do not see how the witnesses above could have failed to notice one. The simple answer to me is that there wasn't one. But I understand debate will continue because of this massive and divisive discrapancy between witness reports. One side has to be wrong, however. I guess we will all make our choices at which that side is.



Other people asked me, if it was a missile, where is the physical evidence for one and I mentioned the white hot object, trailing smoke, sailing out of the Tower after the impact. It was said that this couldn't be a D.U. missile tip, but, honestly, I don't know of anything else it might be. Anyone got any scientifically plausible suggestions?

As for the speed of impact necessary to ignite depleted uranium into becoming phosphoric, here's an exchange that took place during a UN conference in 1999:
ROGER SMITH:"We have a distinguished panel this afternoon to speak on the subject of Depleted Uranium (DU) Weaponry: Technical and Political Aspects.

DAMACIO LOPEZ:"When the Depleted Uranium (DU) penetrator strikes the target it will have what appears to be an explosion. There are no explosives in the slug of DU. It is the mass and speed and the energy from the radioactivity that gives the impression of an explosion." The projectile is referred to as a kinetic energy penetrator. It burns through like molten metal, and as it burns it is giving off smoke."
COLONEL ERIC DAXON: "When the penetrator first hits you see something that looks like a sparkler. That is the pyrophoric nature of the DU. It self-ignites when exposed to high temperatures and high pressures. A tungsten penetrator becomes blunt. A DU penetrator will become sharper as it is penetrating armor, and that is the primary reason that we are using it, along with its density. The self-sharpening effect gives it a significant tactical advantage."

<http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/phy_a2_ab_6.p... >

The experts don't limit the phenomena of D.U. ignition to super high velocity projectiles. The colonel merely talks about high temperatures and pressures which are going to exist during most missile impact situations. This ignition is an across the board phenomenon and IMO would definitely be sustained by a subsonic missile striking at 550mph.

It should be noted that the Military expert explains how when the missile impacts its target, it lets off a brief "pyrophoric" flash. " you see something that looks like a sparkler. That is the pyrophoric nature of the DU."

Is this the reason for the mysterious flash that is evident on the different examples of film footage of the alleged plane hitting the Tower?



Anyway, I hope that all this will be food for thought, guys, at least, and once again, thank you for the debate and I wish you all well on your quest for the truth.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-26-07 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #402
407. Great post as usual FactFinder.......
farewell though I do hope to see more of your posts in the future! Keep spreading the truth and maybe one day the facts will come to light! Thank you!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-28-07 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #402
421. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-28-07 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #402
422. One Final Note: Handschuh's photo shows post IMPACT explosion (Facing East)
i.e. He had a clear view of the plane's alleged approach.



"Then out of nowhere came this noise. This loud, high-pitched roar that seemed to come from all over, but from nowhere in particular. And the second tower just exploded. It became amazingly obvious to anyone there that what we all had hoped was a terrible accident was actually an overt act of hostility. I didn'tt see the plane hit, although I was looking at the tower at the time."

Here's a photo showing the opposite camera angle to Handschuh's (Facing West):



And that, my friends, is once and for all, my last word on this subject.

Valete!





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-26-07 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
406. Short answer.....
It CAN'T! :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-27-07 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #406
416. Aluminum "cant" penetrate steel
Can copper and lead penetrate steel?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
_tk Donating Member (71 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-28-07 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
423. Who's saying planes can't penetrate through steel?
I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone say this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-29-07 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #423
424. D'oh! (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
_tk Donating Member (71 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-29-07 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #424
425. D'oh what?
Really, who's been saying planes can't penetrate the towers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-29-07 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #425
426. A Growing Number of People With Common Sense (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-29-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #426
427. Seriously though, Do A Word Search. Many Links!
"If you run an aluminum plane into that thing (the WTC Tower), the plane is just going to get ripped... Planes don't fold up like accordions do. They smash. They disintegrate. They break apart. The whole thing is stupid when reason is applied to the evidence." Morgan Reynolds
http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/090805/coverstory....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
_tk Donating Member (71 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-29-07 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #427
429. Is he saying none of the plane would penetrate, or...
just not all of the plane?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-29-07 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #429
430. You seem earnest in your questions, so...
I will respect that and take the time to answer.

_tk, he's saying that the multiple steel girders and steel and reinforced concrete floors of the WTC towers would rip the aluminum airframe of the 767's to pieces at point of impact. Penetration Mechanics support his position.

There would be parts of the plane that would penetrate. Fragments would probably make it through the gaps between the girders and the parts of the plane made from denser material, such as the titanium based engines, might even penetrate through the girders. The point is though that the planes could never completely penetrate into the buildings. Furthermore, to add to the absurdity of all this, the videos and simulations show the alleged planes meeting zero resistance as they cut though the wall and floors. This is in flagrant opposition to established Newtonian Law: basic physics is thus being turned on its head (and Newton must be turning in his grave!)

Here's my summary of the overall basic physics relative to the crash:

The weight of the alleged projectiles (i.e. a Boeing 767-200) is approx. 200 tons (maximum takeoff weight) and the construction material of this projectile is largely aluminum.

The total weight of the obstacles (i.e. the WTC Towers) was 500,000 tons. The construction material of these obstacles were largely steel.

The weight of the portion of each tower that each alleged plane impacted was approximately 30,000 tons.

Steel is three times more dense than aluminum.

Major portions of the plane (i.e. the wings and the rear stabilizers) impacted the plane along their lateral axis and thus had a very low sectional density which further decreases a projectile's ability to penetrate: e.g.think of an arrow hitting a target sideways.

Though the kinetic energy of a 200 ton projectile impacting an obstacle at a velocity of 500mph is going to be extremely high, this value does not predict what will happen to either the projectile or the obstacle. The greater strength of either the projectile or the obstacle will determine which of the two sustains the most damage. It is a myth that great speed (and thus high kinetic energy) alone can allow a weaker object to penetrate a stronger one. An egg, projected at a steel plate, at no matter speed, will always smash. The faster the speed, the more scrambled your eggs will be (BTW: I like mine over easy :) )

No plane has ever completely penetrated a substantial obstacle (i.e. more massive than it) in the whole of aviation history, other than the four alleged planes of 911.

On September 11 2001:

Two large passenger planes allegedly cut through and disappeared into steel frame buildings, somehow passing right through walls of steel girders and five to seven floors of reinforced concrete and steel.

One large passenger plane allegedly cut through and disappeared into a military grade building of reinforced walls, the fiberglass nose cone of the plane apparently punching through six of these reinforced walls leaving a large round exit (punch out) hole in the sixth.

One large passenger plane completely buried itself and disappeared into a field.

This is patently absurd. No planes have ever behaved this way upon impact before 911, nor since and if my understanding of Penetration Mechanics is correct then I suspect they never will.

Unless of course, the perpetrators order up a sequel to that dramatic, blockbuster of a day!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-29-07 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #430
431. Let's be clear here.
Your understanding of Penatration Mechanics is not correct. Your grasp of physics is tenuous, at best. You don't even properly use units. Dynamics is not something readily accessible to the layperson, especially when considering the complexity of the events in question. You continue to think it is perfectly acceptable to shit all over the work done by various groups re. 9/11 without having the necessary technical knowledge to comprehend their analyses. This is despicable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-30-07 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #431
433. Please Explain...
exactly how my understanding of Penetration Mechanics is incorrect. I've asked you before to back up this assertion against me and you have thus far failed to do so. While you are at it, would you be so kind as to explain exactly what aspect of my grasp of physics seems tenuous to you. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-30-07 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #433
435. If you can't figure either of those out...
by the responses in this thread, then no wonder you can't understand the events of September 11th.

Get a fucking clue, FG. This isn't a game for little boys who want to pretend they are engineers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-30-07 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #435
442. What a shameless lack of debating skills you possess...
my friend. I challenged you to lay out the basis of your assertions about me, and you failed to meet the challenge.

Talking of little boys, it seems to me that it is you who shows immaturity.

BTW: what is an FG?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-30-07 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #442
443. Who gives a fuck about debating skills?
That's where all you get this wrong. It isn't something to be settled in a debate. The principles of physics are not up for grabs. Debate is about proving your opponent wrong, and that is not the point of science (although certain petty individuals may lose sight of that from time to time). The point of science is the truth, a goal much more worthy than winning a fucking argument.

I have pointed out numerous times in this thread where your arguments or engineering knowledge is weak - go find them yourself. You seem to think that you have the right to make wild statements and then expect others to prove you wrong, yet you have done no work proving your arguments. Engineering isn't done with generalized statements, it's done with numbers - lots and lots of numbers. You can't even convert from mph to fps - the high school students I tutor can at least do that!


FG = Factfinder General
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-30-07 03:02 AM
Response to Reply #443
446. What a Potty-Mouth you are, AZCat.
You said:

"Who gives a f@#k about debating skills?"

Excuse me, AZCat but isn't this a discussion forum?

debate |di?b?t| noun: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

You further said:

"I have pointed out numerous times in this thread where your arguments or engineering knowledge is weak - go find them yourself."

Now you're skirting the issue, aren't you? You asserted that my understanding of Penetration Mechanics was incorrect and that my knowledge of physics was tenuous. When have you ever successfully challenged me on either of these issues.

Oh, and BTW: name calling does not constitute a successful challenge.

Oh, oh and BTW: You aren't dealing with one of your high-school students here ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-30-07 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #446
448. I'm not here to "win" anyone over to science.
Science is there, waiting for those who are interested enough to go looking. This is not a medium well-adapted for scientific discussion, although that doesn't stop it from being a topic.

You can't convert units and your math is horrible. You don't know the difference between power and energy. You seem to think "sectional density" drives penetration dynamics, when it is dependent on a number of variables including kinetic energy. How do you ever expect to do anything in physics with these failings? When you started rambling on about your theory, I asked for the calculations you had done to prove your assertion. You claimed you didn't need them - this is bullshit and will always be so. You need to prove your assertions, not just restate them.


I know I'm not dealing with one of my students - they are more aware of what they don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-30-07 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #448
452. More Baseless assertions, AZCat?
You said:

"You can't convert units and your math is horrible."

I made a mistake in the dead of night regarding the depth of an acre, not taking into account that this figure is obviously not the same as the number of square feet in the area. I acknowledged this slip, quite graciously as I recall.

Now I don't particularly like math (I would hazard a guess that I'm not alone in this) but when I was studying it in high school I used to get straight A's. I would regularly get 100% in my tests for what that's worth.

What was your GPA, Mr. AZCat? (And I'm not being rude or presumptuous here, I'm merely interested.)

You said:
'You seem to think "sectional density" drives penetration dynamics, when it is dependent on a number of variables including kinetic energy.'

I have never said that sectional density drives penetration mechanics though I maintain it is an essential factor and that it has real significance with regards to the alleged penetration through steel by aluminum planes. You might recall, Mr. AZCat, that it was me who first pointed out the complexity of Penetration Mechanics to Flatulo and the gang, when you were all applauding the abilities of a certain pumpkin and reveling in your naive notion that it was "all about kinetic energy".

Maybe you should reread those early posts before I came on the scene and remind yourself of the self congratulatory way you were all rallying around the pumpkin, naively imagining that your belief in the magical properties of high speed aluminum had been affirmed.

As for calculations, Mr. AZCat:

It's well understood that aluminum is less dense and markedly weaker than steel. There was no superior mass to help the planes penetrate, sectional density was greatly minimized owing to major portions of the planes' presenting surface being lateral in orientation and thus this was also no help.

Now, as you should be well aware, kinetic energy is only a measurement relative to the force of the impact and in itself no guarantee of successful penetration so what are you saying is the factor or factors, relevant to the particular properties of the object( i.e. the plane) and or the obstacle (i.e. the WTC Tower), that would allow this object to completely penetrate a vastly more massive and markedly stronger obstacle ?

Present me with this factor or factors and then maybe I will see to having some calculations done.

Is that a deal? O8)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-30-07 04:52 AM
Response to Reply #452
453. Who cares what my GPA was?
It is dependent on too many independent variables to make it an effective comparison across boundaries. If we had been in the same classes at the same time with the same teachers it might have some merit but since it is unlikely that this is true then whatever GPA I had is not relevant to the GPA you had. Besides, you have fucked up math that is less than high school difficulty several times - anybody interested in seeing this merely has to browse this thread for several examples.

You might want to go point out where I was "rallying around the pumpkin, naively imagining that your belief in the magical properties of high speed aluminum had been affirmed." Oh wait, it didn't happen and you're wrong yet again.

You show in your post again why your arguments should not be taken at face value. Not only are you now fucking up physics and math, you just added geometry to your list of butchered subjects. If you want to learn about impact dynamics, go take some fucking classes or buy a book, don't expect me to do all the work for you. I already did my homework, it's time for you to buck up and start studying. You remind me of the guys (and occasional girl) who would frantically run around the day before a test asking others to explain all the potential topics to them. If you want to figure out whether the aircraft had a chance of penetrating the WTC towers, go figure it out yourself - don't use me as a crutch. Besides, you're going to need the practice with that math stuff - there are lots of calculations required in impact dynamics problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Factfinder General Donating Member (300 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-30-07 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #453
457. Rallying Around the Pumpkin!
On July 23 07, in post #91 you wrote:

"Considering that a fleck of paint can cruise right through the space shuttle, I think our pumpkin experiment will ultimately be successful. We just need to find a big enough gun."

I call that rallying around the big orange rotund one.

In an earlier post that same day (post #73) we also find you "Rallying Around the Egg!"

"So if I shoot an egg through a car door you'll believe that an aircraft could go through the outer wall of the WTC towers?"

My response to that question was an unequivocal yes! I am still waiting for the egg to do the necessary. :boring:

You said:

"not only are you now fucking up physics and math, you just added geometry to your list of butchered subjects."

Now this is probably a really pointless question: Care to share how I fucked up geometry?

You said:

"If you want to figure out whether the aircraft had a chance of penetrating the WTC towers, go figure it out yourself."

AZCat, I already figured out that it hasn't got a chance in hell of doing this. (But, here's the kind of Gentleman that I am: you can still prove me wrong by slipping the old egg through the shiny!)

And now, my Dear Mr. AZCat: I am turning in for the night. Sweet dreams :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top