YOUR post #16 alleged that the plane was doing 540 mph at the time of impact. As far as Newton's laws go the side of the building was NOT a solid object. Instead it was mostly empty space with steel beams around the outside and a reinforced concrete core in the center. The plane was essentially "sliced and diced" upon impact given that it was basically a hollow aluminum tube with wings. The most solid objects were the engines and they would have punched right through the outer steel lattice. At the alleged speed of impact that YOU posted in #16 above the wings would have caused the damage that we see on the side of the building images prior to the collapse.
There was a hole in the side of the skyscraper allegedly made by the nose of the airliner, just considering the nose punch out area there would have to be mass displaced in order to create that hole. therefore the airliner would have had to displace mass, Now given the most conservative estimates, the mass needing to be displaced would have to be aprox 3 tons, and with that as a given, I would like for you do consider this: picture an SUV having mechanical problems and its stopped in the road ( level ground, smooth road .... ) and the people in the SUV get out and push it into a parking lot, no big deal right, moving what is probably 2 tons of mass, now picture the same scene with a stationary SUV, and a huge 18 wheel truck traveling at 90 mph crashes into said SUV, there is difference, everybody can get that, its a function of the speed and the inertia of the stationary object. so for the case of the airliner crashing into a wall, there would be >100 g deceleration, and that means for every ton of anything carried in the airliner, there would be 100 tons of pressure against the structure of the airliner. there is also the factor of the time involved, there would have to be a minimum of 70 milliseconds between the time the nose of the airliner contacted the wall and any possibility of the wings contacting the wall, so you see, there would be plenty of time for the airliner to break up, before being able to make that wing shaped gash.
The fallacy is the assumption that the "airliner would break up" on impact. Planes are made to withstand enormous amounts of pressure and g forces. The sky is not a "smooth and level surface". Turbulence places enormous stresses on the airframe and the engines produce about 40,000 lbs of thrust each. The nose of the plane literally has to be able to withstand the pressure of both of those engines at full power flying through rain which weighs a whole lot more than air does. The airframes are designed to last for decades undergoing these kinds of stresses on a daily basis. No, the wings were not going to just "fall off" because the nose impacted the building.
Please try posting without the back and forth baiting. More of the same will earn you warnings/infractions/thread bans. Sincerely Shangrila Moderator
This is amazing, the comparison of flying through air ( even turbulent air .... ) to smashing into a skyscraper, right? Have you even attempted to get your head around the inertia problem? that is the mass that would have had to be displaced ( and at 540 mph ) would present resistance to the airliner, and this resistance would be orders of magnitude more than flying through air, the calculated minimum for said deceleration force being >100 g, and I have already explained that at that level of force, every ton of anything contained in the airliner would be exerting 100 tons of force against the structure of the aircraft, and you insist that airliners are built so sturdy that this would be no problem at all for the airliner to remain whole? Question 4 U: where do you get your INFORMATION?
Planes are built to withstand the stresses of FLYING. Nobody designs planes to withstand the stresses of HITTING buildings. The wings would not fall off the plane just because the nose impacted the building 70 milliseconds before the wings impacted because the kind of stress that would cause (deceleration) would be countered by the thrust of the engines on the wings. In essence the wings would continue to "fly" into the building for those 70 milliseconds which is exactly what occurred and the evidence of that is clearly visible in the images.
The thrust of the engines, who here, reading this forum, actually believes that the engines were a significant contributor to the forward motion of said alleged airliner? where does that information come from? Really, I'm totally curious here, how can it be alleged that the jet engines that were designed to provide thrust to cruse at 35,000 ft, could actually function effectively at <1000 ft and provide thrusts to propel an airliner at 540 mph? the actual data, from people who are aircraft designers clearly indicates that the jet engines would NOT be a contributor. additionally, the theory that the jet engines were a significant contributor, leads to the question of once the wings had cut into the building and the jet engines were destroyed, then why didn't the airliner simply stop, and the friction with the decks inside the tower, stop the airliner and the whole business ends with the tail of the airliner sticking out of the tower?
Engine thrust is measured at ground level. [video=youtube;5xlObdXF8VE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xlObdXF8VE[/video] The engines need to be able to accelerate the 100 tons of airplane from a complete standstill on the ground up to flying speed within the length of the runway and then power the airplane all the way up to it's operational height. And just to demonstrate exactly how powerful these engines actually are at ground level here is a video of a 757 losing an engine on take off because of a bird strike. It manages to complete the take off, fly around and then land safely even though it is fully loaded with just a single engine. [video=youtube;9KhZwsYtNDE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE[/video] Engine thrust is what keeps airplanes in the air even at low levels as they are approaching airfields. - - - Updated - - - The momentum was greater than the friction of the impact.
I can't believe you just posted this nonsense ... and I don't suppose you have an alternate theory explaining away the many videos of the events? ... not that it even needed all the video evidence ... your math and understanding of physics is absolutely way off ... put down your calculator ... tail sticking out of the building ffs ... you ever seen a lightweight Porsche 911 slice through a steel guardrail at 130 mph and drag all the wreckage with it into a canal? ...
Jet engines are more than capable of pushing an aircraft past Mach 1(which is around 750mph at 1000 ft). The only limiting factor is the airframe.
"Jet engines are more than capable of pushing an aircraft past Mach 1(which is around 750mph at 1000 ft)." are you quite certain about that altitude? It appears that you are saying: all that is necessary to achieve the speed alleged in the official story, would be to push the throttle to max and accelerate to 540 mph and hit the WTC tower(s) .... right? Here is a bit of info for you, in stable cruse at say 30 mph, your car may take only 3 horsepower to maintain speed on level road without headwind. however after accelerating to 60 mph and maintaining speed, it takes 27 horsepower. This is a fact of engineering and air resistance is the lions share of the reason why the increase in horsepower required to sustain the higher speed. Airliners are specified to cruise at higher altitudes because the air <20,000 ft is significantly denser. Airliners are more like buses than formula racers. and as for the argument about needing to accelerate to get off the ground the modern airport has between a mile and 2 miles of runway to accomplish the needed acceleration. BTW: for anyone who has actually traveled by air, the acceleration is NOT huge, you can do better in a hot-rod than the acceleration that you feel in a commercial airliner. The facts are in, the video that shows the alleged "FLT175" crashing into the south tower is bogus, and speculation about how it may have been done is fruitless, until such time as a real investigation is launched and certainly one with powers of discovery so that the real truth can be brought to light. additional information about the airliner loosing an engine to a bird strike, this aircraft did not fly to cruising altitude did not attain great speed, ( probably hand just sufficient power to keep flying but little else ) Yes as a design feature commercial airliners are capable of loosing one engine without falling out of the sky, but it does seriously limit what can be done, the airliner is by no means capable of completing its assigned trip. "you ever seen a lightweight Porsche 911 slice through a steel guardrail at 130 mph and drag all the wreckage with it into a canal? " anybody have any info on the composition and structural design of that guardrail?
"A discussion of logic that cites a death ray as a possibility?....and that's all folks!" argument from incredulity? can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there isn't any directed energy weapon? the fact is that it can be shown with good science that the wing shaped gash in WTC1, 2 could not possibly have been made by an airliner.
Talk about irrational logic, the above is a perfect example. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, except if you're a truther. Then anything goes, and damn the torpedoes when it comes to presenting a case that might be considered lucid. In a thread about 'basic logic' the OP fails to present anything resembling logic.
The official story has the extraordinary claim that two airliners made cartoon like cut-outs in the sides of the towers, and in order to so much as create the nose punch out space, there would have to be tons of mass displaced, now who here on this forum payed attention in physics class and can dig what would happen to an airliner having to displace tons of mass, as it strikes said mass at 540 mph?
There is a reason there are speed limitations on a aircraft and it is not because they cannot exceed them, it is due to structural integrity, maintenance, and longevity issues. The aircraft in question is quite capable of exceeding it's design speed.
Before I roll up my sleeves and tackle your poor understanding of mechanical engineering... I'm sure you've calculated these things as part of your logical argument, so if you could reference them that would be great. On the subject of wings can't shear columns: Can you tell me how much force is required to shear a single WTC column at the height of the impact? Can you tell me the number of columns that were sheared in this way? Can you tell me the mass, velocity & area of the material used in the aircraft wing? On the other side of the argument: Can you tell me a little bit about the air frame's capacity to transmit energy from the site of impact through the rest of the aircraft? -At what speed does this take place? -How do the materials & design of the air frame affect the capacity to transmit energy? -How did you calculate the bending moment to determine that buckling should have been visible outside of the building?
So in other words, it should simply be possible in level flight <1000 ft altitude to simply push the throttle to max and achieve speed of 540 mph or even more? right?
Thats right, drag in your own laundry list of specifications that must be met in order so much as question the official story. why should we believe a Roadrunner like cut-out in the side of a building not just once but twice in the same day? Should an airliner act like a steel punch in making an impression on the wall of a skyscraper?
You're saying that your logical argument regarding the behavior of the impact does not contain the analysis I asked for? So have you attempted to model the impact at all?
what is the use of "modeling" the aircraft when a plethora of data indicates very clearly what aircraft do when they crash? if you really can't get your head around this I'm sorry but the data exists to show that the airliner ( if it was an airliner ) should have broken up before the wings had a chance to make that wing shaped gash. the ONLY thing that the argument for it being an airliner rests on is gross incredulity!
You're sorry the data exists? Where is it? It's certainly not presented in this thread. I have a thought experiment for you. I have a steel rod that is 10 light years long supported by a fulcrum at the .5 light year mark. If I push down on one end with a large enough force can I cause the other end of the rod to exceed the speed of light?
Maybe you were a small child on that day.I recorded it the day it all happened. I fully understand the way the WTC fell as well as Building #7 plus the Pentagon. The flights to me made no sense. The pilots were not going to survive. But terrorists seem willing to throw away their lives.
Support for both skyscrapers was sufficient to keep it standing. Proof is the years both stood. Enter a nearly fueled up airliner at over 500 mph and yes, it does act like a punch. [video=youtube;wNNTcHq5Tzk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNNTcHq5Tzk[/video]
Precedent airliner crashes demonstrate very well the fact that airliners break apart when crashing, so in the case of "FLT175" the ONLY argument that has been presented to support the idea that the airliner penetrated a wall without visibly breaking up and leaving tons of wreckage on the south side of the South tower, is that the Airliner was going SOOOO very fast that it had to do what was allegedly done. however, the actual examination of the parameters involved, indicate clearly that the airliner could not possibly have survived the initial impact with the wall in any sort of condition to make the wing shaped gash a possibility.
