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

Picture this,
KE = Velocity * mass,
therefore, in order to express that KE, the ONLY
thing that the aircraft has that it can give up, is velocity.
so what you are saying is that only a very tiny fraction of
the KE available was used to penetrate the wall ( including
the gashes for the wings ) and that the remaining KE was
used to destroy the aircraft and propel the bits deep inside
the WTC tower so that no remnant remained to be identified
from looking in the hole in the side of the WTC tower.

 

What you say up to this point is correct.

This part is speculation and dramatization.

 

The thin perimeter wall and structure was not responsible for the complete destruction of the plane.

This is where the truth of your points end. You are mistaken from the point of the perimeter structure on as the plane progresses into the building.

The perimeter structure was fairly light when compared to the internal concrete core.

You are either conveniently ignoring the internal core composition and it's much stronger resistance to lateral loading especially considering floor diaphrams. Or you are ignorant of the architecture of the towers.

The energy in term of mass * velocity easily punctured the exterior frame, and what was left of the plane was completely obliterated when impacting the core.

My question is, why are you only focusing on the structural perimeter when considering the physics involved? Do you not understand that there was massive structure that existed in the center of the building?

 

Did the building have a concrete core, and if so, where is that documented?

Bottom line with this, the aircraft had velocity as a component of its KE
and as such the expenditure of energy to penetrate the wall, would have
forced the slowing of the aircraft. If the nose of said aircraft met with resistance
and it must have, then the nose would tend to slow down, and the KE would tend
to push the tail forward against the resistance, thus causing the aircraft to buckle
& break up, note that the "FLT175" strike to the wall was NOT perpendicular to the
plane of said wall.

 

Seriously?

You are arguing this theory all over the forum and you haven't even researched the construction type of the building beyond the outer curtain wall?

You aren't interested in fact. You are interested in arguing a conclusion you can't prove based on a theory you don't even understand.

 

I was asking the question to expose the fact that YOU
have a problem here, you cited "concrete" core when
in fact the core was STEEL. No matter actually, the huge
problem here is the assumption that the KE of the alleged
aircraft would be sufficient to penetrate the wall without
noticeable slowing down or for that matter complete destruction
of the aircraft before complete penetration could be achieved.

I see people cite stuff like storm winds driving a broomstraw into a tree,
fine for the broomstraw, however it didn't have wings, what happens when
wings get involved & to be precise, the port side wing contacted the wall
before the starboard side wing and therefore would have created huge
non-symmetrical forces. why did the "plane" not break up outside the building?

 

Here's the math from an independent investigation performed at Purdue:

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

 

Just a correction here.

There wasn't a concrete core. The core had gypsum planking attached the steel columns/beams.

- - - Updated - - -

The only assumption is from your end. We have provided you with the math to show that it was possible and you have neither refuted it nor have you provided your own math that shows that is WASN'T possible.

Keep the dance going.

 

Have you actually read this paper?
there is at least 1 very serious issue with it. can you see it?
has anyone read the paper & see the problem?
I'll be back later to give MY bit on the subject, I just want to
see what everybody else thinks.

 

I have read it and see no errors.
You've made this claim in the past and you never could quite say what you thought was wrong. This is a discussion, not a children's game. Present your evidence or keep dodging like an ignorant coward.

 

The internal core was not concrete. It was steel girder construction and where it would usually have a concrete shell for the stairways they used layers of drywall for fire protection to save weight.

 

I stand corrected.

That doesn't change the fact that the interior core of 24 columns should be ignored when talking about the dissipation of the planes energy.

 

the jet was packing more than enough: kinetic energy to penetrate the walls and break columns...

 

We're supposed to ignore those VERTICAL core columns, and pretend like they made no difference at all when it comes to impeding aluminum planes and interfering with near free fall collapse. Where are people's brains?

 

the planes interfered with the collapse?

 

47 core columns.

 

This has been explained to you time and time again, but you fail to understand.

 

"Floors are not considered. Since floors would
add to the bending resistance of the column, a solution without
them will yield more conservative results."

Quoted from the paper, note that leaving out the floors is a HUGE issue,
the author of the paper attempts to nullify the significance of this omission,
but its really a significant omission.
Consider if you will a 4" thick steel mesh in concrete deck, and an airplane wing
hits it edge on ..... what happens?

Back to the drawing board guys ......

 

You don't get it, do you? They go for the most conservative scenario possible.

 

Meant to say "shouldn't"

 

How do you define "conservative"?
To ignore the presents of the decks is a cheat,
its leaving out part of the structure that would function
as a very serious impediment to the "aircraft" entering the building.

 

Just for our education,you keep putting quotes around 'aircraft' and keep calling them 'alleged airliners'..What exactly do you think happened?

 

I can tell you for certain that I know it wasn't any big Boeing airliners.
the whole hijacked airliners used as weapons bit is a farce!

 

Prove it.

 

So post the proof.....thinking it's so isn't the same as being so...

Or do you think there's a santa clause?