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

And your proof of this is what,again?

Fantasies aren't proof

 

That statement applies to the official story as much as anything.
look at the crash sites for "FLT77" & "FLT93" where are the airplanes?

 

Inside the Pentagon and in Shanksville. Your research skills are severely lacking.

 

You KNOW where they arethey crashed into the pentagon and in a field in shanksville.....duh.

 

That's the story for sure. Strange that we can't verify it though.

 

Why can't you 'verify' it?

voice and data recorders were found for both planes

 

None were missing from any of the flights? All information was recoverable, and recovered?

 

You were specifically posting about the pentagon and shanksville,and they recoverd the black boxes from both planes..THAT'S your 'verification'.

 

An initial rough estimate by MIT of the force the aircraft produced based on conservative estimates were 3658MJ for the South Tower and 2540MJ for the North Tower. That is roughly 2698 million foot lbs and 1873 million foot lbs respectively. It was also estimated that the core columns absorbed about 50% of the impact energy.

 

Funny but I have a pilot's license and don't like to fly commercial after seeing what an accident looks like. One like that is like being put into a shredder.

 

more like a rock crusher!.....thanks!

 

The ever infamous propaganda photo. Reminds me of that one of the Pentagon lawn supposedly showing 77's fuselage. Both repetitive and both nonsensical. Any photos we can verify the surroundings, and to scale, versus a close up that could have been generated anywhere from anything, at any time? There ought to be many so, let's see them.

 

Of course you can't accept evidence. It would burst your conspiracy bubble.

 

It's NOT propaganda,and you can't even prove that claim..

 

The allegation was stated that aircraft bits penetrated deep into the earth
and there had been parts pushed down 20 ft or more, OK
where is the documentary on that excavation? more pix,
what? where is it? did they actually dig down to locate more plane bits?
and if they did dig further down, how is any of that activity documented?

 

Back on topic.

Any of the resident truthers here want to discuss the math provided in the linked paper above or are you going to continue to ignore it? If you disagree with any of the math, please explain why. My prediction? None of you will touch it.

 

The many pages of advanced math, is somebody trying too hard to prove their point.
Please do observe the video of "FLT175" allegedly crashing into the South Tower.
The port side wing contacts the wall first, and there is no deformation of the "aircraft"
no sign at all that the aircraft had suffered HUGE mechanical stress.
This case does not require many pages of advanced math to prove the point.
bottom line here, 9/11 was an inside job.

 

Why should there be if the aircraft SHEARED THE PERIMETER COLUMNS UPON IMPACT? If I shoot an orange at a window at 450 mph, are you suggesting that you will visually see the orange deform between the instant of impact and the window breaking?!

How long was the actual impact? From the point of contact to the perimeter columns shearing? Can you tell me that?

Nice dodge! You truthers are claiming that a jet cannot shear/penetrate the perimeter columns. I have provided you with a paper that MATHEMATCIALLY shows it could. Your rebuttal is "This case does not require many pages of math..."?!

 

According to the video, the alleged "FLT175" penetrated completely in aprox 0.380 sec
now, given the known characteristics of aircraft ( note that there is a video record of a
hard landing where the tail of an airliner breaks off) given the stress involved in having
the port side wing contact the wall before the starboard side, why wasn't there more
obvious damage, such as having the tail break off, or any other manifestation of the
forces involved.

 

Tell me something genericbob. You are comparing one scenario (hard landing) with a direct, vectored impact into another object. Why do you consider these two scenarios to be comparable and that the results should be the same (tail breaking off)?

 

Do you get it, that is the fact that the alleged aircraft hit to the South Tower
had the port side wing hitting the wall first therefore, tremendous forces
would be exerted in a non-uniform manner to the aircraft. If and ONLY if
the aircraft could have met the wall fully perpendicular to the plane of the wall,
could it be expected to penetrate straight in, and even in that case, because
of the forces involved, its probable that bits would break off and be separate
from the body of the aircraft.

 

Based on what math? What are you basing this on?

Again, do you understand vectors and mass?

 

You sure about that?

 

An aircraft hit the south tower....there is nothing alleged about it,and nothing would have 'broken off'