an aluminum plane can't slice through a steel building
Bullshit. It is simple physics. At the moment of impact there is a huge amount of energy being transferred. If that energy is enough to cause the steel to fail, then it will fail, no matter if the projectile is made of steel, aluminium, or feathers.
Put simply, if there is enough mass traveling fast enough, then even jello can penetrate steel. That's why we can use water jets to cut thick steel plate with ease.
If fast moving water can cut steel, then so can fast moving aluminium. All that matters is how much and how fast.
I could believe that significant rebound would occur if I didn't expect the building points of impact to yield some. However, I expect the points of impact to yield, and, as such, the net direction of velocity should be in the direction of the plane's impact.
You clearly never paid attention in physics, just let the class in by "osmosis". This is the problem with that thought process, namely being unable to support your hypothesis and obviously unable to realize that fact.
Bro, all you've proven is that there's more than one definition for a word. Language is imprecise, and you're a moron. I mean that in many, but not all definitions.
What calculation is there that says an aluminum-allow plane wing going 500 mph wouldn't cut through the steel perimeter wall units? Also, why are the wall units bending inward on the plane impact hole?
The velocity of the collision is irrelevant in any calculation.
Force equals mass times acceleration.
Elementary physics, my dear retard.
The force of an aluminum plane wing impacting the steel exterior columns will never exceed the force of the steel column against the aluminum plane wing.
No shit, Sherlock. Ever heard the phrase "equal and opposite reaction"? Every newton of energy that is used to crush the aluminium is also felt by the steel. If the force is high enough, the steel breaks.
This is because aluminum compresses and distorts easily regardless of velocity.
So... the Navy are wasting their money on that railgun?
The shot, fired on December 10th, broke the world record for the most powerful shot, as the 23-pound aluminum projectile rocketed out of the Navy’s electromagnetic railgun at a reported speed of Mach 7, or seven times the speed of sound.
Steel armour will always defeat that railgun... right?
An empty 757 (no fuel, no passengers, no cargo) weighs 5,652 times more than that aluminium railgun projectile. Mach 7 is 5190 miles per hour at sea level. The cruise speed of a 757 is 530 miles per hour. The railgun projectile is only 9.7 times faster than a 757.
5,600 times heavier, 1/10th the speed. That means a 757 at 530mph hits harder than a railgun projectile by a significant margin.
The acceleration is the short period of time between 500 mph and 0 miles per hour. During the WTC impacts over 130,000 pounds of jet slowed from over 500mph to 0mph in the space of 65 metres. The acceleration was incredible.
Your tiny brain would literally explode if it was subjected to anything near that sort of acceleration.
The function of those giant engines on a Boeing 747 is to provide the acceleration to push through air.
So what? That has nothing to do with the fact that 130,000 pounds does not stop in 65m without releasing a huge amount of energy.
The acceleration of the engines sustains the velocity of the plane.
Jesus, go back to school you moron.
In classical mechanics, linear momentum or translational momentum (pl. momenta; SI unit kg m/s, or equivalently, N s) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object. For example, a heavy truck moving rapidly has a large momentum—it takes a large or prolonged force to get the truck up to this speed, and it takes a large or prolonged force to bring it to a stop afterwards. If the truck were lighter, or moving more slowly, then it would have less momentum.
Educate yourself. Your parents must be so embarrassed.
The acceleration of the "plane" as it is supposedly hitting the Towers is virtually 0.
Actually it was huge. Over 500 mph to 0 mph in under 65m and a fraction of a second.
The force that would be generated in such a collision would be a result a transfer of momentum from the plane to the building.
No shit, what do you think cut that steel? Jesus, now you're proving yourself wrong. Even you subconsciously know how stupid you are.
If there is a transfer of momentum there must be a decrease of velocity aka a deceleration of the plane as it impacts the building.
Unless the building gives... and let's not forget that as you said aluminium is very pliant. The front half of the fuselage can be flat as a pancake while the tail is still doing hundreds of miles per hour.
Have you ever crushed an aluminium can? You know how the bottom of the can can be motionless on the floor while the top moves down towards it, compressing the can into a fraction of its size?
Turn that can on its side and you have a jet airliner fuselage.
Give up, moron. You're wrong, and only other morons don't know it.
He apparently holds that same idea of acceleration as the majority of people who slept through their high school physics class, acceleration is the change in velocity over the time it took to do so, so to try to explain this to him in the simplest manner, imagine you are making $5000 an hour, and now there is $500 being removed every 6 minutes, you are not increasing your wealth, thus, no acceleration (you are gaining and losing $5000 each hour, so no net change), so there is no acceleration present to "support the velocity" which, honestly, makes zero sense to begin with. I hope this painfully dumbed down version of acceleration helps you to understand how hopelessly stupid you sound, p.s. high school physics should have taught you this, i aced the tests without doing any homework or studying, its kind of sad that you couldn't take the time to understand it before you try to "debunk" the majority of the civilized world... Idk... Maybe your hat isn't on tight enough, try another layer of foil.
Perhaps you should try again, I'm not sure you even understand what we're talking about.
For example, when a car starts from a standstill (zero relative velocity) and travels in a straight line at increasing speeds, it is accelerating in the direction of travel. If the car turns there is an acceleration toward the new direction. For this example, we can call the accelerating of the car forward a "linear acceleration", which passengers in the car might experience as force pushing them back into their seats. When changing directions, we might call this "non-linear acceleration", which passengers might experience as a sideways force. If the speed of the car decreases, this is an acceleration in the opposite direction of the direction of the vehicle, sometimes called deceleration.[4] Passengers may experience deceleration as a force lifting them away from their seats. Mathematically, there is no separate formula for deceleration, as both are changes in velocity. Each of these accelerations (linear, non-linear, deceleration) might be felt by passengers until their velocity (speed and direction) match that of the car.
The moment that aircraft hit the surface of the WTC it began accelerating in the opposite direction. We call this deceleration.
The 130,000 pound jets decelerated from over 530 mph to 0 in a fraction of a second. That is a huge acceleration.
Imagine the same jet accelerating from 0 to 530 mph in a fraction of a second... the humans on board would be instantly killed, and I doubt most of the structure of the aircraft would be able to withstand the forces.
its kind of sad that you couldn't take the time to understand it
Are you talking to me, or the guy I was responding to?
Why are you telling me this? Its nothing I don't ready know, I closed out of physics with a 97 on the final, but I was talking to the other guy, "super"-something
In that money example that is why I called it dumbed down as it would only be like on a line or something so there could only be a left or right movement, it was just a on the fly analogy that isn't a perfect fit but it should tell him that he was wrong
I was specifically referencing that he said "the acceleration of the engines sustains the velocity" but if the velocity is being maintained and I mean im pretty sure he isn't referencing that the plane was dropping because that would be acceleration but wouldn't have much to do with the velocity as neither would turns, therefore my hypothesis that he doesn't understand acceleration
And I'm not trying to pick you apart, but in a physics setting it isn't called a deceleration, it is what you said originally, an acceleration in the opposite direction.
Very true, but just for others reading, an acceleration is more simply stated as a change in speed or direction, because velocity is speed and direction.
Have you heard of momentum? Did you know that during a car collision, the front bumper can be completely stopped while the back bumper is still moving in the direction of travel?
That's how the tail of an aircraft travelling at over 530 miles per hour can compress itself right into the fucking nose of the plane. All that mass compressing into a hardened wad and releasing more energy than a railgun.
That's how an aluminium aircraft can cut through steel.
Not much, it would only be about 160-180 pounds of force, I say only because of the astronomical numbers you gave, and that's given that the mosquito weighs in at 2.5mg which is the average, and I rounded the speed of light by like 700 meters/second in the calculation so sue me.
Idk I aced my physics class with zero effort but these kind of things always trip me up, part of me says if you speed it up enough and it has enough mass then why shouldn't it fuck the beam up, I mean it won't slice through it ( i keep envisioning a knife through butter) idk where u got that from but it could bend it or bust it up or something like that, I mean there is nothing dictating how a force has to be applied, the same way if u flip it around and say if it was a very massive object like say an aircraft carrier it doesn't have to be moving at any kind of large speed to impart serious force, so why shouldn't a tiny object moving with massive speed be able to impart a serious force and therefore fuck up the beam in question?
You've stated that an increase in the plane's velocity will increase the force of the steel column against the plane. That's true, but it also means that the force of the plane will increase against the steel column. Both are true and both the steel and the plane have yield points. Thus, at some velocity, the steel must fail in some capacity. Velocity is not irrelevant. In fact, it's more relevant than mass (Kinetic energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity2).
Surely the plane deforms and decelerates. All of it just doesn't do so at the same time since the plane isn't acting as a rigid object. The plane's nose deforms and decelerates before the tail. Also, isn't it possible for both objects to yield?
What would you expect to see if a plane hit the building?
I think it's quite reasonable for the tail section to appear unaffected by the initial impact until it enters the building itself due to the high speed of impact.
I think you don't see the fuselage crushed because the deformation happens inside the building where the structural support lies. The real resistance isn't provided by the exterior. Also, I believe you do see the fuel explosion passing through to the other side of the building. Aren't the visible "gashes" seen in the building's exterior? I don't think that material was the structural steel and was much weaker.
What are your thoughts on that each portion of the plane doesn't visibly deform until it reaches the wall? I thought that was a primary area of concern for you.
I was referring to the video I posted. It doesn't appear that any portion of that plane deforms at any point until that point impacts the wall. What are your thoughts on that?
In the case of 9/11, the analogous "wall" likely resides inside the building, hiding it from view.
The plane did explode. That's the fireball you see on the other side of the building. I don't think a plane will explode immediately upon impact at the point of its nose. I assume you see the explosion on the other side because the building as a whole is a bit more porous than a solid concrete wall and allows material to pass through a bit more easily.
Well, then I believe you're at an impasse.
Clearly, a plane cannot crash through the ground, so an explosion is expected at the point of impact. However, in the case of 9/11, the plane crashed through the building since the facade is not a rigid, solid wall. It makes sense to me that the exploding fuel (a fluid) is able to largely pass through to the other side of the building. I don't know what to say if you can't consider the same.
What I mean is that a plane crashing into the ground or a body of water won't crash through to the other side. There is no other side of the ground or a body of water. The plane clearly won't pass to the other side of the earth. Do you see how the two aren't comparable?
Is that what happens when a plane hits the ground or water? In the examples you've seen, does the plane travel a hundred feet into the ground or water? I thought you said earlier that they explode immediately upon impact.
Are the buildings solid walls? Do they not possess weaker materials and open space and effectively a bit porous? The ground and water are effectively solid walls and much more comparable to the example with the concrete wall I posted earlier.
I think that very picture helps explain why a plane might better enter the building than water. There's open space filled with air behind that exterior. I'm sure a significant portion (likely a large majority) of the building's cross section is open air. That's room for a plane at high speed to enter, break apart, and partially break through to the other side. Structures bend and break, and that space allows them to do so more easily. With a body of water, there is zero open space. I think that's a big difference.
I think your comparison would be better if you compared the, say, 100 ft deep body of water to a 100 ft thick wall of steel. That's not what the building was.
Do you have actual calculation for that? Something with the speed of the object, its mass, probably the young modules of steel and aluminum? Or are you just eyeballing it?
Also if it is such basic physics, are all physics major in on the conspiracy? I dont remember having been approached by the FreeMason in structural resistance class.
I really don't think it's an argument anymore about the controlled demolition theory.
The real focus should be on why wasn't there a broadcasted investigation like say the California shooting? Why were their passports on a sidewalk? How did we know who was responsible within hours? Why were the media interviewing actors about what they saw? There are ton of questions that went unanswered. 15 years later we all know the truth there's no reason to deny it. The government has done an amazing job of putting negative light around any conspiracies about 9/11 to the point where the title of this post is a damn joke to most of this site.
The answer is simple, they needed a reason to invade the Middle East so they put all the pieces in place and turned their heads until it was over. Even 15 years later we are still over there for the very thing we sought after, oil. Now there is a new boogey man and we have current refugee system in place that could allow it all to happen again. The fact that they tried to turn the Cali shooting into a gun and Internet control argument should be a red flag to anyone about the true agendas.
Very true, but just for others reading, an acceleration is more simply stated as a change in speed or direction, because velocity is speed and direction.
67 comments
18 jacks1000 2015-12-20
Here we go folks, like clockwork, the bullshit starts up again.
"Mini-nukes" "space beams" "no planes" etc.
We're seeing a new round of disinformation because of the new project being done at the University of Alaska Fairbanks:
http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
The real truth movement has scientists and does scientific research.
The bullshit artists have internet trolls and wild stories.
-7 Trey29G 2015-12-20
"The bullshit starts up again."
I mean can you not convey your point in a more mature way? You sound like a 5 year old.
1 Gh0st1y 2015-12-20
So do many people on this sub, indeed on reddit as a whole. I think it's because of the American educational system.
-11 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
25 JoeBloggsNZ 2015-12-20
Bullshit. It is simple physics. At the moment of impact there is a huge amount of energy being transferred. If that energy is enough to cause the steel to fail, then it will fail, no matter if the projectile is made of steel, aluminium, or feathers.
Put simply, if there is enough mass traveling fast enough, then even jello can penetrate steel. That's why we can use water jets to cut thick steel plate with ease.
If fast moving water can cut steel, then so can fast moving aluminium. All that matters is how much and how fast.
-18 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
17 JoeBloggsNZ 2015-12-20
It would be insane to argue with yourself. But you're clearly insane so...
Did you know a soft lead bullet can penetrate steel plate? It just has to have enough mass travelling at a high enough velocity.
-16 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
26 JoeBloggsNZ 2015-12-20
What the fuck do you think a 0.8 mach jet airliner is designed to do?
Nope. Those wings could fall completely off and the jet will still fly forward at 530 miles per hour until drag slows it down.
This has to be performance art, because nothing else could explain how stupid you are.
No, it shows that you do not understand the first thing about physics.
-14 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
20 JoeBloggsNZ 2015-12-20
It's always best to run away when you've picked a fight you can't win.
You may look like a cowardly fool, but its better than getting your ass handed to you.
12 GlowingBall 2015-12-20
Its okay you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la! I can't hear you!" when someone proves you wrong.
Please go learn some basics in physics, primarily how energy transfers from objects based on speed, and then come back.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
9 GlowingBall 2015-12-20
Oh shit you better call up everyone in physics and tell them that bullets and arrows don't count as projectiles.
0 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
1 hal-nine-thousand 2015-12-20
A plane is not a projectile, the end. That doesn't mean you are right about all the other BS you said...
11 That_Guy381 2015-12-20
A PLANE IS THE DEFINITION OF A PROJECTILE!
with an engine.
1 Gh0st1y 2015-12-20
That sounds like a missile bro... Wait a minute... You just proved that jet fuel doesn't need to melt steel beams!
3 biohazard930 2015-12-20
You're right in that a plane isn't a projectile.
However, I'm not sure how the origin of an object's velocity makes a difference in this case.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
1 biohazard930 2015-12-20
I could believe that significant rebound would occur if I didn't expect the building points of impact to yield some. However, I expect the points of impact to yield, and, as such, the net direction of velocity should be in the direction of the plane's impact.
2 Gh0st1y 2015-12-20
You clearly never paid attention in physics, just let the class in by "osmosis". This is the problem with that thought process, namely being unable to support your hypothesis and obviously unable to realize that fact.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
2 Gh0st1y 2015-12-20
Well, no that's not what it was saying. But uh, yeah. It is.
Edit: "a projectile is any object thrown into space (empty or not) by the exertion of a force"
1 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
1 Gh0st1y 2015-12-20
Bro, all you've proven is that there's more than one definition for a word. Language is imprecise, and you're a moron. I mean that in many, but not all definitions.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
1 Gh0st1y 2015-12-20
You're literally so obtuse.
10 BeyondWikipedia 2015-12-20
What calculation is there that says an aluminum-allow plane wing going 500 mph wouldn't cut through the steel perimeter wall units? Also, why are the wall units bending inward on the plane impact hole?
-9 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
13 JoeBloggsNZ 2015-12-20
Force equals mass times acceleration.
Elementary physics, my dear retard.
No shit, Sherlock. Ever heard the phrase "equal and opposite reaction"? Every newton of energy that is used to crush the aluminium is also felt by the steel. If the force is high enough, the steel breaks.
So... the Navy are wasting their money on that railgun?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/12/13/navys-new-railgun-shoots-at-mach-7-can-hit-targets-100-miles-away/
Steel armour will always defeat that railgun... right?
An empty 757 (no fuel, no passengers, no cargo) weighs 5,652 times more than that aluminium railgun projectile. Mach 7 is 5190 miles per hour at sea level. The cruise speed of a 757 is 530 miles per hour. The railgun projectile is only 9.7 times faster than a 757.
5,600 times heavier, 1/10th the speed. That means a 757 at 530mph hits harder than a railgun projectile by a significant margin.
You're fucking moron. You really are.
-7 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
13 JoeBloggsNZ 2015-12-20
The acceleration is the short period of time between 500 mph and 0 miles per hour. During the WTC impacts over 130,000 pounds of jet slowed from over 500mph to 0mph in the space of 65 metres. The acceleration was incredible.
Your tiny brain would literally explode if it was subjected to anything near that sort of acceleration.
So what? That has nothing to do with the fact that 130,000 pounds does not stop in 65m without releasing a huge amount of energy.
Jesus, go back to school you moron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
Educate yourself. Your parents must be so embarrassed.
Actually it was huge. Over 500 mph to 0 mph in under 65m and a fraction of a second.
No shit, what do you think cut that steel? Jesus, now you're proving yourself wrong. Even you subconsciously know how stupid you are.
Unless the building gives... and let's not forget that as you said aluminium is very pliant. The front half of the fuselage can be flat as a pancake while the tail is still doing hundreds of miles per hour.
Have you ever crushed an aluminium can? You know how the bottom of the can can be motionless on the floor while the top moves down towards it, compressing the can into a fraction of its size?
Turn that can on its side and you have a jet airliner fuselage.
Give up, moron. You're wrong, and only other morons don't know it.
3 Desyncronization 2015-12-20
He apparently holds that same idea of acceleration as the majority of people who slept through their high school physics class, acceleration is the change in velocity over the time it took to do so, so to try to explain this to him in the simplest manner, imagine you are making $5000 an hour, and now there is $500 being removed every 6 minutes, you are not increasing your wealth, thus, no acceleration (you are gaining and losing $5000 each hour, so no net change), so there is no acceleration present to "support the velocity" which, honestly, makes zero sense to begin with. I hope this painfully dumbed down version of acceleration helps you to understand how hopelessly stupid you sound, p.s. high school physics should have taught you this, i aced the tests without doing any homework or studying, its kind of sad that you couldn't take the time to understand it before you try to "debunk" the majority of the civilized world... Idk... Maybe your hat isn't on tight enough, try another layer of foil.
1 JoeBloggsNZ 2015-12-20
Perhaps you should try again, I'm not sure you even understand what we're talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
The moment that aircraft hit the surface of the WTC it began accelerating in the opposite direction. We call this deceleration.
The 130,000 pound jets decelerated from over 530 mph to 0 in a fraction of a second. That is a huge acceleration.
Imagine the same jet accelerating from 0 to 530 mph in a fraction of a second... the humans on board would be instantly killed, and I doubt most of the structure of the aircraft would be able to withstand the forces.
Are you talking to me, or the guy I was responding to?
1 Desyncronization 2015-12-20
Why are you telling me this? Its nothing I don't ready know, I closed out of physics with a 97 on the final, but I was talking to the other guy, "super"-something
1 Desyncronization 2015-12-20
In that money example that is why I called it dumbed down as it would only be like on a line or something so there could only be a left or right movement, it was just a on the fly analogy that isn't a perfect fit but it should tell him that he was wrong I was specifically referencing that he said "the acceleration of the engines sustains the velocity" but if the velocity is being maintained and I mean im pretty sure he isn't referencing that the plane was dropping because that would be acceleration but wouldn't have much to do with the velocity as neither would turns, therefore my hypothesis that he doesn't understand acceleration
1 Desyncronization 2015-12-20
And I'm not trying to pick you apart, but in a physics setting it isn't called a deceleration, it is what you said originally, an acceleration in the opposite direction.
1 JoeBloggsNZ 2015-12-20
I know. I was just using the layman term because the guy I was responding to clearly does not understand what "acceleration" means in physics.
Any change of velocity or direction is an acceleration. If you think about it, a car has two accelerator pedals and an accelerator wheel.
1 Desyncronization 2015-12-20
Very true, but just for others reading, an acceleration is more simply stated as a change in speed or direction, because velocity is speed and direction.
1 Desyncronization 2015-12-20
How in depth of a physics background do you have??
10 BeyondWikipedia 2015-12-20
Mythbusters: Ping pong ball shoots perfect hole in paddle
-10 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
9 BeyondWikipedia 2015-12-20
Have you ever thought of compromising your theory to say they simply used stronger military drone lookalikes?
-7 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
8 JoeBloggsNZ 2015-12-20
Sorry? The fucking planes basically vapourised from the energy.
How do you explain the extremely strong engine that flew clean through the building and out the other side? A fucking optical illusion?
Here is a photo of the core of one of the engines that was found two blocks away.
You simply haven't got a fucking clue.
Have you heard of momentum? Did you know that during a car collision, the front bumper can be completely stopped while the back bumper is still moving in the direction of travel?
That's how the tail of an aircraft travelling at over 530 miles per hour can compress itself right into the fucking nose of the plane. All that mass compressing into a hardened wad and releasing more energy than a railgun.
That's how an aluminium aircraft can cut through steel.
-5 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
3 JoeBloggsNZ 2015-12-20
OK... let's say it wasn't from a 767. We have video footage of it flying out of the building.
How did that engine get there if no aircraft could possibly cut into the WTC?
Here is an image of the second impact.
See that black dot trailing smoke and shooting out of the fireball? That's it.
Basically your argument has boiled down to a 737 did it rather than a 767. Which is just retarded.
Also, the engines weren't the only strong parts to make it out of the building:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2315518/Plane-fragment-9-11-wedged-Manhattan-buildings.html
That is a piece of the landing gear.
Give up fool, you simply can not win.
7 BeyondWikipedia 2015-12-20
Do you think that you could give an answer to every bit of media, including an entire blog dedicated to debunking no planes? Like this one?
4 The_Noble_Lie 2015-12-20
I like how you explain this.
In your opinion, if a mosquito flying 0.9999c strikes a skyscraper, what happens?
3 Desyncronization 2015-12-20
Not much, it would only be about 160-180 pounds of force, I say only because of the astronomical numbers you gave, and that's given that the mosquito weighs in at 2.5mg which is the average, and I rounded the speed of light by like 700 meters/second in the calculation so sue me.
-12 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
7 Aliastral 2015-12-20
How many bugs and birds fly at 0.9999c?
Please check the consistency of your hypotheticals before flinging them out into the world.
2 Desyncronization 2015-12-20
Idk I aced my physics class with zero effort but these kind of things always trip me up, part of me says if you speed it up enough and it has enough mass then why shouldn't it fuck the beam up, I mean it won't slice through it ( i keep envisioning a knife through butter) idk where u got that from but it could bend it or bust it up or something like that, I mean there is nothing dictating how a force has to be applied, the same way if u flip it around and say if it was a very massive object like say an aircraft carrier it doesn't have to be moving at any kind of large speed to impart serious force, so why shouldn't a tiny object moving with massive speed be able to impart a serious force and therefore fuck up the beam in question?
2 biohazard930 2015-12-20
You've stated that an increase in the plane's velocity will increase the force of the steel column against the plane. That's true, but it also means that the force of the plane will increase against the steel column. Both are true and both the steel and the plane have yield points. Thus, at some velocity, the steel must fail in some capacity. Velocity is not irrelevant. In fact, it's more relevant than mass (Kinetic energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity2).
1 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
2 biohazard930 2015-12-20
Surely the plane deforms and decelerates. All of it just doesn't do so at the same time since the plane isn't acting as a rigid object. The plane's nose deforms and decelerates before the tail. Also, isn't it possible for both objects to yield?
1 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
1 biohazard930 2015-12-20
What would you expect to see if a plane hit the building?
I think it's quite reasonable for the tail section to appear unaffected by the initial impact until it enters the building itself due to the high speed of impact.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
1 biohazard930 2015-12-20
I think you don't see the fuselage crushed because the deformation happens inside the building where the structural support lies. The real resistance isn't provided by the exterior. Also, I believe you do see the fuel explosion passing through to the other side of the building. Aren't the visible "gashes" seen in the building's exterior? I don't think that material was the structural steel and was much weaker.
As far as a plane's deformation during high speed impact goes, are you familiar with this video?
1 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
2 biohazard930 2015-12-20
What are your thoughts on that each portion of the plane doesn't visibly deform until it reaches the wall? I thought that was a primary area of concern for you.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
2 biohazard930 2015-12-20
I was referring to the video I posted. It doesn't appear that any portion of that plane deforms at any point until that point impacts the wall. What are your thoughts on that?
In the case of 9/11, the analogous "wall" likely resides inside the building, hiding it from view.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
3 biohazard930 2015-12-20
The plane did explode. That's the fireball you see on the other side of the building. I don't think a plane will explode immediately upon impact at the point of its nose. I assume you see the explosion on the other side because the building as a whole is a bit more porous than a solid concrete wall and allows material to pass through a bit more easily.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
1 biohazard930 2015-12-20
Is that true? I don't know. Are there other similar instances of large planes crashing through buildings?
1 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
2 biohazard930 2015-12-20
Well, then I believe you're at an impasse.
Clearly, a plane cannot crash through the ground, so an explosion is expected at the point of impact. However, in the case of 9/11, the plane crashed through the building since the facade is not a rigid, solid wall. It makes sense to me that the exploding fuel (a fluid) is able to largely pass through to the other side of the building. I don't know what to say if you can't consider the same.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
1 biohazard930 2015-12-20
What I mean is that a plane crashing into the ground or a body of water won't crash through to the other side. There is no other side of the ground or a body of water. The plane clearly won't pass to the other side of the earth. Do you see how the two aren't comparable?
1 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
2 biohazard930 2015-12-20
Is that what happens when a plane hits the ground or water? In the examples you've seen, does the plane travel a hundred feet into the ground or water? I thought you said earlier that they explode immediately upon impact.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
1 biohazard930 2015-12-20
Are the buildings solid walls? Do they not possess weaker materials and open space and effectively a bit porous? The ground and water are effectively solid walls and much more comparable to the example with the concrete wall I posted earlier.
1 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
1 biohazard930 2015-12-20
I think that very picture helps explain why a plane might better enter the building than water. There's open space filled with air behind that exterior. I'm sure a significant portion (likely a large majority) of the building's cross section is open air. That's room for a plane at high speed to enter, break apart, and partially break through to the other side. Structures bend and break, and that space allows them to do so more easily. With a body of water, there is zero open space. I think that's a big difference.
I think your comparison would be better if you compared the, say, 100 ft deep body of water to a 100 ft thick wall of steel. That's not what the building was.
1 flyyyyyyyyy 2015-12-20
apropos..
1 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
1 flyyyyyyyyy 2015-12-20
dont be fooled. bear is cgi.
0 King_TJ 2015-12-20
lmao dude you are a legit genius
1 maybelator 2015-12-20
Do you have actual calculation for that? Something with the speed of the object, its mass, probably the young modules of steel and aluminum? Or are you just eyeballing it?
Also if it is such basic physics, are all physics major in on the conspiracy? I dont remember having been approached by the FreeMason in structural resistance class.
1 Gh0st1y 2015-12-20
Are you... Do you have.... Gfdi haven't you heard of... Nvm
4 other_mirz 2015-12-20
So, what do you think would happen then if a plane hit a skyscraper? Would it just smack against it like an insect on a window pane?
3 PopsicleMud 2015-12-20
You know what would explain this? The Dunning-Kruger Effect.
-1 jacks1000 2015-12-20
Oh, no, I suspect that was the point.
-5 [deleted] 2015-12-20
[deleted]
-1 jacks1000 2015-12-20
I wouldn't waste any time reading whatever it is you are pushing.
I would, instead, pay attention the actual truth movement doing actual science.
http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
5 ultronisright 2015-12-20
You people are delusional and frankly mentally challenged. This subreddit is a waste of space. I'm done.
4 Gh0st1y 2015-12-20
Nah bro, this sub is literally a gift from god.
3 FlatPlane 2015-12-20
This guy sums it up in a few minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSUvUJafQik
1 dreamslaughter 2015-12-20
Angry Metal Worker Makes Brilliant Video proving 'Jet Fuel Can't Melt Steel Beams'
https://www.google.com/search?q=fema+911+molten+steel&num=100&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5pabj1OfJAhWCTSYKHfYQDUUQsAQIOg&biw=1475&bih=838
-2 A_sexy_black_man 2015-12-20
I really don't think it's an argument anymore about the controlled demolition theory.
The real focus should be on why wasn't there a broadcasted investigation like say the California shooting? Why were their passports on a sidewalk? How did we know who was responsible within hours? Why were the media interviewing actors about what they saw? There are ton of questions that went unanswered. 15 years later we all know the truth there's no reason to deny it. The government has done an amazing job of putting negative light around any conspiracies about 9/11 to the point where the title of this post is a damn joke to most of this site.
The answer is simple, they needed a reason to invade the Middle East so they put all the pieces in place and turned their heads until it was over. Even 15 years later we are still over there for the very thing we sought after, oil. Now there is a new boogey man and we have current refugee system in place that could allow it all to happen again. The fact that they tried to turn the Cali shooting into a gun and Internet control argument should be a red flag to anyone about the true agendas.
1 Thiswhatyawanted 2015-12-20
You do know that the US imports only 10% of it's oil from the Middle East, right?
1 A_sexy_black_man 2015-12-20
In 2001 that wasn't the case.
1 Desyncronization 2015-12-20
Very true, but just for others reading, an acceleration is more simply stated as a change in speed or direction, because velocity is speed and direction.
1 Desyncronization 2015-12-20
How in depth of a physics background do you have??