Basic logic >>>MOD WARNING ISSUED<<<

Discussion in '9/11' started by Katzenjammer, May 25, 2016.

  1. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was posted to this forum that the south tower swayed by aprox 10 ft upon impact of "FLT175" the ONLY way that could be accomplished, would be for the KE of the entire aircraft to be brought to bear, and with that, the whole aircraft is involved and would experience the shock of hitting the tower.
    you can NOT have your cake and eat it!

    again - people attempt to explain away the phenomenon by incredulity over the speed, however
    in the case of the alleged "FLT175" the whole event that is airliner going nose to tail penetrating a wall, took about 210 milliseconds,
    and the time between the nose contacting the wall and the wings having the opportunity to touch the wall, would be aprox 70 milliseconds,
    there was PLENTY of time for physical materials, that is the aircraft, to react to forces applied.

    BTW: Hoosier, Fangbeer, how many years have you been at this? and why have you made no progress at all in your thinking?
     
  2. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    97,282
    Likes Received:
    27,224
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I volunteered during Vietnam. You?
     
  3. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so you should be old 'nuff to know better, the Government is lying about the whole hijacked airliners story.
    isn't that what 'nam educated everybody who had to experience it in how the Government doesn't care at all about the people,
    its all about fattening up the war profiteers!
     
  4. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    97,282
    Likes Received:
    27,224
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, I know better than you do.
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,632
    Likes Received:
    1,871
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I protested the Vietnam War, where hundreds of thousands were needlessly massacred, many poisoned and burned to a crisp. It was a war crime of epic proportions, just like the fake "war on terror". I remember the smell of tear gas in DC. Nixon was exposed as a traitor for needlessly prolonging the war for his personal gain. I don't know much about your progressive thinking but yours wouldn't be my definition.
     
  6. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so do you believe that the Government is always truthful?
    do you believe that the Military Industrial Complex is a myth?
    what?
     
  7. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    2,302
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please show your calculation for the amount of energy required for the tower to sway approximately 10 feet. Don't forget to compensate for the viscoelastic damper system.

    Such reactions can be shown mathematically. You claim to have a logical argument. Nothing is more logical than math. And no, simply posting numbers isn't math. Please show your work.


    The ratio of "years at this" to "no progress at all in [my] thinking" is equal to zero.
     
  8. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    2,302
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you believe this is an example of logical thinking?

    1. Hoosier believes terrorists committed an act of terrorism using aircraft as weapons.
    2. The government says terrorists committed an act of terrorism using aircraft as weapons.
    conclusion: Hoosier believes the government is always truthful & the military industrial complex is a myth.
     
  9. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    97,282
    Likes Received:
    27,224
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The reason I did not respond is because it is another classic example of a logical fallacy of which the Truther's use all the time.
     
  10. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    45,143
    Likes Received:
    37,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, that was done in a simulator with a 767 and it achieved a speed well in excess of 600 mph in level flight.
     
  11. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    45,143
    Likes Received:
    37,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The shape of the damage to the building is not a "cut out". The wings damaged the supports to the point that they were compromised. The supports were never designed to hold up the weight of the upper stories after being bent and mangled. The supports that were directly impacted by the main mass of the plane were the only ones that were "punched out" in your vernacular.

    - - - Updated - - -

    No such data exists!
     
  12. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    45,143
    Likes Received:
    37,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you have any idea of the forces that an airplane encounters when it hits an air pocket? It quite literally drops vertically until it hits denser air. The entire weight of the plane has to be supported by the wings on impacts, over and over again.

    I have never been on a flight that did not encounter air pocket turbulence. The airframes are designed to take this kind of punishment on a daily basis for a couple of decades.
     
  13. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    2,302
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The truther has certainly overlooked the durability of the airframe, but his problem is much more fundamental.

    He believes the impact should have somehow moved through the entire aircraft, and somehow shattered it at the same time. In short, he believes the aircraft should have behaved like a Prince Rupert's drop. He has no clue why the aircraft behaved as it did, or why the glass in the drop behaves as it does.
     
  14. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    6,324
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree that math does not lie.

    The challenge is to interpret what the math actually means, and how it enters into an analysis of any given question. That is part of analytical thinking.

    The math must be kept in context.
     
  15. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    45,143
    Likes Received:
    37,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Great example!

    If the airframe was as brittle as glass then his imaginary scenario might have some semblance of credence.

    But metal does not shatter at normal temperatures, it bends.

    And yes, the OP does not understand any of the forces involved in the impact or any of the math either.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Agreed!
     
  16. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    2,302
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not just the physical properties of the metal that need to be examined. It's the way energy moves through materials, and what happens when that energy moves through materials.

    Energy propagates as a wave through the material. It moves at a specific speed (not instantly from one end to another) and a material can only carry a certain magnitude of energy before it fails. The type of failure is somewhat important to the amount of energy that can continue through a structurally failed material, but it's inconsequential to the idea that the amount of energy is inherently less.

    Consider this thought experiment: If you hit the front bumper of your car with a hammer, will the rear bumper drive a nail into a board?
     
  17. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    97,282
    Likes Received:
    27,224
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It bends, it tears, it absorbs energy, and it can even melt given enough pressure. You have crumple zones in your car so you won't feel the full brunt of an accident because the crumple zone absorbs some of it. A fuselage is only strong if all of it's parts are securely connected. Once it begins to fail, it fails spectacularly and all of it's ability to withstand stress disappears. Somehow this common knowledge is beyond a couple of posters here. Scratches head.
     
  18. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    45,143
    Likes Received:
    37,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Engineers and designers have to achieve the optimal balance between strength and weight. Extra weight means higher running costs so yes, when those material strength limits are exceeded it will fail.
     
  19. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    2,302
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right, but for the purpose of the truther, it's important to create an understanding of what happens when a structure fails and where energy actually goes. That's where the gap is. A buckled beam can't carry load, for example.

    In this case, a crushed aircraft nose doesn't carry the energy used to crush it toward the tail of the aircraft.
    The energy used to deflect the tower & shear structural columns can't also crush the tail of the aircraft in the same instant.

    Equal and opposite does not mean that energy available is doubled. On the contrary, energy must be conserved. The available energy in the closed system has to remain the same minus entropy.

    Our resident truther ceded that a great deal of energy was required to deflect the tower. That can certainly be assumed true. What we have to get him to understand is that that amount of energy cannot therefor be instantly used to crush the tail of the aircraft. It was already in use deflecting the tower.
     

Share This Page