hot knife through melting butter

[lightbulb]

Hi,

just wondering if the following issue had been addressed.

Any time I have seen footage of a plane crash, the relatively fragile wings are invariably seen to disintegrate upon even minor contact ( I believe G. Bush sr.'s plane lost a wing from hitting a lamppost!)
The wings of the "planes" that hit the twin towers cut straight through large quantities of high grade steel and tons of reinforced concrete,
leaving their clear imprint on the impact areas. (totally unlike the damage done to the pentagram building)
I'm not a scientist but I find it hard to imagine that alluminium, a light and fragile element can cut straight through sreel, however fast it is traveling.
One might be forgiven for thinking that the wings of the craft that hit the towers were in some way reinforced (titanium?) to make them act like the sort of swords you might expect to find in "Kill Bill". (was that the bill of human rights that got the chop?).
If this issue has not been researched I believe it deserves to be!
This investigation might add a little more weight to the already overwhelming body of evidence proving that the official version of events is, without the slightest shadow of a doubt, a badly written Hollywood script (no secondary reference to Kill Bill which is, of course a great movie).

Any thoughts?

Any good new movies? (I'm sick of that new Israeli cowboy film. The outcome is just so inevitable!)

Any way out of this?

Dezzie

[Martin Conner]

[jake]

[Snowygrouch]

All,
I`m not qualified as an engineer yet but will be when my studies are complete so think I have at least a fair level of professional credibility on the subject of what happens "when things hit other things". But you can decide that for yourselves.

How structures behave has alot more to do with how the material is ARRANGED rather than the type: example, get a flimsy plastic ruler and hit yourself hard with the wide flat edge. It hurts but not much....now turn the ruler so the thin edge is pointed at you and attempt the same excersize!!

You will notice a considerable difference in the way the energy is transferred to your body!!!!!!

Aircraft wings may be principally Aluminim alloy which in the grand scheme of things is a fairly soft metal but they are built VERY VERY sturdily indeed, they have to be as they transfer the entire thrust from each engine to the fuselage. Since typical large jet engine may produce 50 THOUSAND pounds of thrust EACH (about 22 tons) their structure has to be able to

1: Transfer tens of thousands of pounds of thrust to the fuselage
2: Withstand Turbulance hammering the wings
3: LIFT the ENTIRE PLANE!!!!
4: Withstand the shock loads from the landing gear.

The wings contain massive spars that pass through the wings and through the fuselage.

Yes they are aluminium but it does not surprise me AT ALL that the cut through the exterior of the building, if you look at the damage you can see that the outer 10 feet or so of each wing did not penetrate but just bent the WTC colums inwards. So not all the wing went in.

Just to digress for a second he odd thing about the pentagon is that yes the structure may have "disintegrated" but lets be careful about this, we aren`t talking down to an atomic level here EVERY part of the plane would still exist just in small pieces or compacted in places too.

I believe a plane hit the pentagon, just not the one they said did!

Calum

[Banish]

What has Einstein's e=mc2 got to do with the Newtonian Laws of Motion?

Welcome Dessie new poster.

The phenomenon you have just described has caused many a headache in the 9/11 truth movement.

Back to Newton --

[freddie]

Bannish wrote:

[Banish]

This is from CNN. Still no sign of a plane though.

http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/first.plane.hits.gp.med.ram

[Snowygrouch]

I think Martin probably meant:

Ek=1/2 x M x V squared

Kinetic energy = half x Mass of object x Velocity of object squared.

Which DOES have alot to do with it!

[Banish]

[Snowygrouch]

I have only looked at a couple of video closeups showing the melting into the building/nose coming out the other side etc.
I dont know about the audio, I`ve never found any good quality audio of the event.
A football hitting a net is from an engineering point of view not an adequate analogy: A net is NOT a ridgid structure, and a ball is not a high velocity object. A net doesnt get punctured because the net can MOVE without failing which absorbs the energy of the ball, if you were to wet a net and freeze it so that it was ridgid you would probably find it may well fail if you kicked a ball at it.

The building exterior is not a "net", its ridgid steel, it can only absorb energy by deformation not moving (because it cant move).

A plane cannot be decellerated as such from 500mph to zero in 1/100th of a second. If you flew it into a vast solid lump of steel the size of a building it would simply be pulverized into small peices not decelerate. The energy required to declerate an object of that mass and speed would be tremendous, much more than the energy required to shear some steel box columns.

The plane went into the building because the outer wall was not able to absorb sufficient energy to provide an EQUAL reaction and so failed, the plane (or what was left) then hit the next set of objects which again absorbed some energy until the energy of the moving bits of plane were absorbed fully. Although in some cases this didnt happen hence bits of plane being projected through the building and out the other side.

Equal an opposite reactions only occur when the reacting object is ABLE to supply an equal force.

If you drive a car into your average housecat the cat doesnt provide an equal and opposite reaction just because you hit it. Consequently the car isnt stopped by hitting the cat and continues on at a marginally slower speed. Not a very good analogy of the WTC impact but not a bad analogy of newtonian laws of motion.

Looking at the numerous photographs of the holes in the WTC superstructure I cannot envisage any event other than a plane impact that could cause such damage, note the beams bent INWARDS as well as a profile matching that of the plane very closely.

Explosives placed inside the building would have had one hell of a job to simulate damage like that. Unless you suggest these photos too are fake?

Perhaps they are but it doesnt sound likely to me.

Or if like me you read through the 500+ emergency workers testimonies at he NY Times website, many of whom saw the planes. (they also saw what looked like explosions in the towers).

I cannot believe the planes were faked becuase it appears to me to be far more complex & risky than just using real planes!

Maybe I`m wrong, who knows; but I personally do not find the case for no planes a compelling one, logically or theoretically.

Calum

[Banish]

[Snowygrouch]

Hi Banish,
I`m afraid I`m going to just have to totally disagree with your view on this subject.

The only point I`d add is that "to an extent" every structure in the universe behaves like a net (flexible structure) in that nothing is 100% ridgid, however working on relative comparisons stress redistribution and the fact buildings sway in the wind has IN MY VIEW very little relavence to the suggestion the side of the building should somehow have BENT inwards like a meniscus without being the surface tension being broken.

The vision I have of your suggestion is similar to a scene in the matrix where neo fails to jump the gap, plunges hundred feet hits the concrete which then bends like treacle on impact as its a fantasy construct.

I just cannot possibly envisage any engineering structure comprised of steel and concrete somehow yelding in almost a liquid fashion to a massive localised impact, somewhat distinct from the forces produced by a wind which naturally involves a small but constant force over an entire face of the building.

The bending bahavior of a building in wind cannot in my view be reasonably compared to that produced by a 100,000 kg mass impacting on an area essentially about 30 sq, feet.

For a start it totally ignores numerous laws of physics.

1: Elastic and Inelastic collisions: Elastic colisions are ones like two snooker balls colliding and kinetic energy is conserved.
Inelastic collisions are such like a car crash where kinetic energy is NOT conserved (as it has been expended deforming the structures of the vehicles)

2: Stress = Force/ Area. In other words the smaller the area of application for the same force the greater the stress (indicating the difference caused by application of wind or a plane impact based on the area of application of force. Hence an aircraft impact having a small area would produce a vastly higher localised stress than that caused by wind even if the total forces were equal.

3: Yeild strength of structural steel: Structural steel is actually quite a soft steel, and sensibly so. Given an impact it deforms permently very easily but does not shatter. In other words it can only behave elastically over a small range of stress loads. Above those stress levels it deforms thus absorbing energy and does not behave elastically hence will provide an inelastic behavior in the case of large stress levels (like being hit by a plane at several hundred mph.

4: Inertial mass, it takes TIME to get anything of mass to move. Suggesting that the building could sway several feet in the fraction of a second during aircraft impact and thus redistiribute the forces involved is totally unrealistic. The force required to move a quater million ton building any appreciable distance in a fraction of a second would be so gargantuan that they would probably destroy the structre.

Picture hitting an oil supertanker with a sledgehammer and expecting it to shoot backwards!!!

This is another illustration of the unsuitability of comparing wind force behavior. Given TIME the structure will naturally move about alot but the time frame needed to transmit the almost instant forces applied by an airliner impact to the structure is just not sufficient by several orders of magnitude.

The theory you are suggesting is IN MY opinion totally contradicted by virtually every relavent formulae and data known to the world of physics and materials science (that I have been taught).

I`m afraid that neither of us is going to be persuaded by the views of the other!

I stick by the statements I`ve already given and I imagine you do likewise.

I think it would be intelligent of us to realise we are both very committed to our own views and that any further discussion is likely only to fill the servers hard drives!!!!

Calum