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

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?

 

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....

 

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

 

Empty weight of a 767-200 is 163,900 lbs. I used the lightest weight shown taken from here: http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103. That converts to 5,094,167,733 slugs.

 

Just found this PDF.

ftp://ftp.ecn.purdue.edu/ayhan/Korucu/Karim and Fatt_(ASCE)0733-9399(2005)131_10(1066).pdf

Care to discuss Kokomojojo? n0spam?

 

you'll never get them to read that because it's non truther fact. And it has multisyllabic words!

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

why do you think it was 'so little'?,obviously it wasn't.

 

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

 

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.

 

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...

 

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?

 

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!

 

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.

 

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...

 

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!

 

It would be good to know the answer to this issue but the issue is not about whether or not 9/11 was an inside job as the speed the towers fell has already proven that it was an inside job.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...fall-speed-impossible-without-explosives.html

If the thread starter is trying to use issue this to prove that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, it's a moot point.

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?