WTC1/WTC2 perimeter columns vs. plane impact, math discussion...

Discussion in '9/11' started by Gamolon, Apr 30, 2014.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Anyone game?

    My first question is how much force the jets created upon impact. How do we calculate that? Anyone want to supply a formula or idea?
     
  2. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't know the math,but I've heard the force of the impact was like an atomic bomb,and the output of the hiroshima bomb was 67 terajoules....
     
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How about this?

    E = 1/2 m v[SUP]2[/SUP] where E = dynamic energy (J, ft lb), m = mass of the object (kg, slugs), v = velocity of the object (m/s, ft/s).

    Taken from http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/impact-force-d_1780.html
     
  4. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
  6. BdD1138

    BdD1138 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You may be right, but I've never had a truther present numbers supporting WHY they think the perimeter columns should have resisted the plane impact.

    Now we have actual numbers that support the fact that it was possible. if they don't agree then they can point out what they don't agree with, why they don't agree, and what the correct item would be instead.

    I personally don't think it'll happen, but it's worth a try.
     
  8. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Perhaps in the same manner that those advocating the original nonsensical story would be inclined not to read or discuss anything that align with the official nonsense?
     
  9. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    May I add to the discussion
    the fact that ( & Yes I have seen the pages of numbers to attempt to justify the position that is the official story )
    in the event of a "bench test" one could take a box column and install it in a manner so as to simulate its integration
    into a wall, just like the WTC towers, and then test it to see what its breaking strength may be.
    all fine & dandy so far ..... HOWEVER, there is another part to all of this and that is how much energy would
    be consumed in destroying the aircraft, allegedly, the airliner was shredded upon entry to the WTC tower, so
    how much energy was consumed shredding the aircraft?, not only that but please do think about this,
    have you ever driven a nail into a bit of wood, its easy to bend the nail if you strike it even a bit off center.
    now think about the alleged FLT11 & FLT175 strikes to the towers, in either case, the aircraft could not possibly
    be expected to hit perfectly perpendicular to the wall, and therefore would encounter forces that would tend to
    bend it.

    For a number of reasons that by far exceed "incredulity" the hits by commercial airliners to the WTC towers
    are totally improbable, implausible, ( whatever ..... pick your word .... ) its not as if planes simply dissappear
    like that all the time, but on 9/11/2001, we have 4 aircraft as much as disappear, and people are going to cite
    little bits of sheet metal recovered from the Pentagon or Shanksville, and the alleged aircraft bits from any one
    of the crash sites, constitutes insufficient evidence to prove a commercial airliner was ever there.

    The problem that I see here is the fact that the mainstream media + our "leaders" have attempted to make a case
    for hijacked airliners used as weapons, however they have shown far too little actual evidence, and far too much
    speculation & conjecture ..... Where is the proof that there were any hijacked airliners at all?
     
  10. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, i guess the video of the hijackers going thru security, the calls made from the airplanes by the flight attendents, the voices heard by ATC as they talked no knowing they could be heard, the voices of the hijackers and the passangers fighting for control of the plane....yeah, nothing.
     
  11. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you accept those things as evidence, so be it, however, if there were airliners, why so little to mark the spot where they crashed?
     
  12. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    why do you think it was 'so little'?,obviously it wasn't.
     
  13. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    We don't need to, it's been done.

    "Taking the estimated airplane mass at the point of impact to be M = 127 tons and the impact velocity of V= 240m/s , the energy of the striking aircraft was 3658MJ"
    "It was found that the momentum transfer between the airframe and the first barrier of external columns was responsible for most of the energy dissipated in this phase. The energy to shear off the column constituted only a small fraction of that energy. A more exact calculation performed in Ref. [2] give a slightly
    larger value E=26MJ"


    http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf

    and here

    http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101428
     
  14. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your first number is 365MJ and then you say "slightly larger value" E=26MJ

    Did you proofread this before posting? "The energy to shear off the column constituted only a small fraction"

    How about the total energy usage in overcoming the total resistance offered by the decks, trusses (etc... )
    + the energy required to shred the aircraft. NONE of the forces & resistances can not possibly function in isolation.
    we have the total force acting on the total resistance.
     
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How is this in any way similar to what actually happened?! Are you suggesting that that the plane was embedded into the wall at it's nose, not moving, and something struck it from behind? This proves that your understanding of physics is lacking. How about a nail shot into the wood with a nail gun? For crying out loud! How are you supposed to use math and physics to explain something when you can't even correctly describe the scenario?

    Gotta love this! Sheet metal...

    :roll:
     
  16. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Answer something for me. When the plane impacted the perimeter columns and sheared them, what was left to shred the rest of the plane? Let me guess. It was like a cheese grater. The perimeter columns stayed intact, shredding the entire plane, and then sheared as the end of the plane went through.

    Right?
     
  17. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Did you COMPREHEND what was actually written before posting this? Obviously not. The "slightly larger value of E=26MJ" reference was not a comparison to the "365 MJ", but a comparison to the "The energy to shear off the column constituted only a small fraction of that energy" statement.

    No wonder you guys are having a hard time understanding all this science stuff. You aren't getting things right from the very beginning. I mean n0spam wants to compare the impact of the jets into the perimeter columns to hitting a nail, sticking out of a piece of wood, with a hammer! Are you kidding me? How does one think the scenario of an object, with an already established velocity, impacting a columned wall is similar to pounding a nail into a piece of wood?!

    You guys are killing me!

    :roflol:
     
  18. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is a gap of communication here,
    Given the specific conventions of sentence structure, It is possible to create
    "communication" that has ambiguities built in, if I ask for clarification, this is just that
    a request for clarification, No offense intended.
     
  19. BdD1138

    BdD1138 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    right I've seen and or read most all truther and alternative "information" on 911 and the only thing it proves is it's a steaming pile of specious speculation...
     
  20. BdD1138

    BdD1138 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2014
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    oh no,not the not airliners ploy!

    using your "logic" all of the passengers and flight crews were in on it and by some magical means were never seen ever again!
     
  21. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,437
    Likes Received:
    891
    Trophy Points:
    113
  22. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I thought the intent of this thread was to get away from the name-calling & snide remarks.

    oh well ..... The problematic nature of the alleged airliner crashes into the towers is in part
    the fact that two crashes produced the same sort of cartoon like cutout complete with penetration
    by the wings and complete disappearance of the aircraft into the building.
    A feature of the alleged hijacked airliner bit is that the hijackers could not possibly have flown
    the airliner(s) into the tower(s) in a manner that caused the aircraft to strike perfectly perpendicular
    to the plane of the wall, therefore there would be vector forces to account for, forces that would shred
    the aircraft on the outside of the building before it had a chance to penetrate.

    The whole hijacked airliners used as weapons bit is a CROCK!
     
  23. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Good, now explain why it was impossible for the planes to do what, we on the ground, saw them do. And then explain how, we on the ground at the same vantage point, saw the planes.
     
  24. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd really like to know, were you in NYC at the time, and did you personally see "FLT175" strike the south wall of the south tower?
    or was this all an image that people saw on TV? When you have been shown images of an alleged airliner crash
    that clearly violates the laws of physics, and you defend the lie .... oh well, there is only so much I can do here.
     
  25. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes I was, myself and thousand or so other people at the intersection. Now, what laws of physics are violated? Explain.

    You were presented a video showing a pumpkin being shot thru the side of a boat. Tell me how the same physics are not at play?
     

Share This Page