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

I wonder if the 'truthers' will supply their math/ numbers on why it couldn't be possible, or if they will continue to change the subject and dodge the facts?

 

A: the video you linked to, showed a projectile alleged to be a pumpkin fired at a van, and it is ambiguous as to the exact nature of the penetration beyond the penetration of one door of the vehicle.

also, an airliner is NOT a pumpkin and the interaction between the WTC tower & airliner would be much more complex than that demonstrated by a pumpkin used as a projectile.

In regards to what may be expected to happen at such time as an airliner actually impacted a wall such as the WTC tower wall,
first of all note that the airliner can not possibly be expected to contact the wall perfectly perpendicular to the plane of said wall,
therefore there will be vector forces to contend with, forces that would split the body of the aircraft open, or rip wings off or cause
other breakage of the aircraft while still outside the wall, even at the alleged high speed that the airliner was said to have been traveling, the event of its penetration would last aprox 0.380 seconds. a lot can happen in that time, it is alleged by the official story, that two airliners acted much like hardened steel punches by making impressions in the side of the WTC towers complete with cuts for the wings. Just exactly how is that done?

 

F=MA

Newton's Second Law of Physics.

 

Wait a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing minute here, you want to discuss math and you dont know how to set it up???????

So whats next boiling water without a heat source?

- - - Updated - - -

good start AND...........?

- - - Updated - - -

why to teach gam? LOLOLOL

 

I called no names,nor made any 'snide remarks'

You however keep making snide remarks by calling the entry holes in the WTC as 'cartoon-like cutouts'

 

Speculations in lieu of lies and falsehoods? I'll take it.

 

"steaming pile of specious speculation." to be exact .... really now!

Anybody can throw around verbiage, its something else entirely to be able to provide data.
such as the data that states WTC7 descended for 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration.
now that is HEAVY STUFF!

just like being able to state that the alleged "FLT175" penetrated completely
the South wall of the South Tower in under 400 milliseconds. and that also is quite heavy.

 

The math was provided for you in post #1. Can you refute it mathematically or will you continue to post your speculations?

 

No not really, the MATH has NEVER been presented
there has been estimates as to how much KE the airliner would have
and indeed estimates as to how much force it would take to break a box column
however, there is more to it than that, there is the fact that the wall of the tower
had steel re-enforced concrete decks behind, and also steel plates joining the
columns together. there is also this little matter of the energy required to shred
the airliner and not only shred it, but propel the bits far enough into the building that
the airliner has virtually disappeared. This is a complex subject and one that has
multiple energy sinks.

 

if that were true then why is ex pres. bush not in jail ?
also where is all the media coverage?
oh wait...that's another cover up!

 

Definition of specious (adj)

Bing Dictionary
spe·cious
[ spéeshəss ]


1.apparently true but actually false: appearing to be true but really false
2.deceptively attractive: superficially attractive but actually of no real interest or value..

 

Check out page one of this thread. It's all right there.

 

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
•Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
•Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
•Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Does this mean there are hundreds or thousands of unsafe tall buildings with long span supports that must be retrofitted in some way? How would you retrofit a building to prevent this problem?

While the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, NIST strongly urges building owners, operators, and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of structural systems. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following characteristics: long-span floor systems, connections that cannot accommodate thermal effects, floor framing that induces asymmetric forces on girders, and composite floor systems, whose shear studs could fail due to differential thermal expansion (i.e., heat-induced expansion of material at different rates). Engineers should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

 

I think we're supposed to disregard physics on 9/11 and apply some other logic, then believe in it again when it fits the story. It's all very confusing, for sure. It would be nice to have some solid and verifiable calculations though.

 

no you didnt, lets see a video of you standing on the ground sawing them do it.

 

Voice recordings can be faked, & a photograph of any given individual at an airport check-point is not proof of anything, much less this individual hijacked an airliner.

 

More speculation, you're still not providing evidence.

 

It is pure speculation to assume that you can identify your hijackers from airport check-point pix.
BTW: why are there no pix from the actual morning of 9/11/2001, all of the "airport check point pix"
are from someplace other than the origin points for "FLT11" "FLT175" "FLT77" "FLT93"
whats up with that?

 

explain.

 

That is at the airports where "FLT11" "FLT175" "FLT77" or "FLT93" were alleged to have originated from,
where is the security camera pix of the alleged hijackers? or for that matter any of the passengers who
were supposed to have been on any of those flights?

 

Try again,this time,be more coherent..

 

Supposed to have been? Are you claiming that the men, women and children who were passengers on those planes were all in on it, too?

 

Hard to decipher just WHAT they're trying to say, at times..

 

Simple. We weren't told the truth.

 

Are you agreeing with n0spam's claim that there were no victims?

Or....?