spooked911 (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-13-10 11:43 AM
Original message http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x280892
The Key Problem with the Official South Tower Plane Crash Story
According to official videos, the plane enters the tower without significant slowing or deflection/alteration in its path or anything breaking off. Importantly, I actually don't argue with this. Who can say for sure that a plane going extremely fast can't enter the tower in this way?
The real problem here is that after this seamless entry, the 160 foot long plane never exited the 208 foot wide tower and officially shattered into many small pieces.
By itself, I also have no problem with the idea that the plane disintegrated after hitting the tower.
But you can't have both things going on at once! This is a violation of physics and is solid proof that the story is wrong.
It is like cutting into butter with a knife-- there is no resistance as the knife goes in-- yet once the knife enters, the knife shatters! An object that cuts into some material easily is not going to shatter once inside the same material.
This is obviously nonsense, and this conflict is the strongest, simplest proof that the South tower plane attack was faked.
In Newtonian mechanics, the kinetic energy (energy of motion), EK, of a moving object is linear with both its mass and the square of its velocity.
Thus, a fully loaded plane flying at 500 MPH doesn't go to a dead stop when it hits an object...
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-13-10 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. Purdue already modeled this, Spooked...
I'm willing to bet they know more about engineering than you do. I'm pretty sure that South Bend is a pretty easy drive from Indy. Why don't you go ****ing ask them and quit embarrassing DU with ignorant questions?
I was not aware spooked911 was from Indy. Good Lord, we lived in the smae city!
spooked911 (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-13-10 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. they didn't model the south tower hit
Edited on Sat Feb-13-10 06:02 PM by spooked911
and their model was bullshit-- not even an accurate representation of the official story.
Also I don't think they'd want to talk to me.
Finally, Notre Dame is in South Bend. Purdue is in West Lafayette. I thought you said you were a hoosier!
as opposed to the chickenwire and gas model a la spooked911...(nice deflection, BTW)
spooked911 (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-15-10 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. a quick critique
Edited on Mon Feb-15-10 08:13 AM by spooked911
of the video shown here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UvPWny_PBc&feature=play...
1) a real plane would not slip past outer spandrel plates like a ghost, as shown in the video.
2) sheets of aluminum debris from the plane would not slice through thicker steel columns like a knife through butter.
3) the tail of the plane should not wave in the wind like a wet noodle.
4) the wingtips of the plane cut large gashes through the outer wall columns in the video, but the wingtip regions of the wtc1 hole were not cut open in this way.
5) they don't show any explosion on the entry face as was seen in the Naudet video
So there are some real problems with their model.
But again, I want to point out that the hit on the south tower was considerably different in terms of the floor and the thickness of the columns-- plus we have much better videos of the south tower event to see what happened with the "plane" and how it went in.
William Seger (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-13-10 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. "But you can't have both things going on at once! "
Edited on Sat Feb-13-10 12:32 PM by William Seger
And why not? If the leading part of the plane and the exterior wall were simultaneously destroyed in the initial collision, then momentum would carry most of the debris into the building. What "violation of physics" are you claiming? Once the exterior wall was breached by the leading parts of the plane, then obviously the rest of the plane would enter the hole unobstructed. But then it would be destroyed by collisions with the floors, core columns, and furniture.
Furthermore, photos and videos show that your premise is inaccurate in the first place: A fair amount of debris did fall away from the collision, outside the building.
If that's the "strongest, simplest proof that the South tower plane attack was faked," then it's time to find a new hobby.
Never doubt spooked has this figured out:
spooked911 (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-13-10 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Here's why
If the plane is going to cut into the tower like shown in the video, there can not be significant destruction of the plane as it goes in. If the plane was breaking up as it went in, there would be significant slowing, and there wouldn't be clean cutting of the columns. The velocity and mass of the plane did cause massive damage to the building because of the force it applied. If I throw a melon hard enough it will kill you.
Also, if you are claiming only the leading edge of the plane broke up as it entered, then what the hell broke up the other 95% of the plane-- given that the outer wall was way more than 5% of the major resistance the plane had to go through the building. Prob'ly the interior walls, office furniature, bodies, interior colums, etc etc etc...
Also, I am not aware of any plane debris outside the entry hole for the south tower. If you have evidence of this, please provide a link.
Plenty of photo evidence...
William Seger (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-13-10 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. You didn't answer the question
What "violation of physics" are you claiming? You just restated the same claim, which is not an answer. The problem is "the plane" is not really a single object; it's a composite object, some parts of which are stronger than others. I can believe that the leading edge of the wings and the nose and the engine cowling were probably destroyed without slicing through those steel columns, because they were thin aluminum and because they didn't have much kinetic energy on their own, because they didn't have much mass. But then some heavier and stronger parts of the plane would hit the columns. The fuel itself in the wing tanks would deliver a lot of strain energy to the columns. As I recall, the Purdue study actually calibrated their model by firing soda cans at steel grates at very high speed. An empty aluminum can probably couldn't be fired fast enough to penetrate a steel grate, but a can full of liquid could, and I'm pretty danged sure that both were destroyed in the process. What physics are you claiming that would prevent that?
As for your question about what destroyed the rest of the plane that wasn't destroyed by the exterior wall, watching the Purdue video may give you a clue: Mainly it was the floors and the core, but there would also have been a lot of furniture. Your "95%/5%" pseudo-math is meaningless. And I'm sure you must know that a lot of plane debris actually did exit out the other side, because we've discussed it before.
As for debris that didn't enter the building, you can see a lot falling away in Carmen Taylor's photo:
(go to the link to see the pics, please)
And here's a picture of the street where the footbridge crossed Liberty street into the South Tower:
Of course, it's hard to tell building debris from plane debris in those photos, but I see no reason it can't be both, since both were clearly broken into pieces.
spooked911 (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-15-10 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Reply/rebuttal
First, in terms of the debris. I have seen close-up pics of that street, and the debris is all cladding, paper and what looks like ceiling tile. There is no significant plane debris, and surely if there was clear plane debris in that street, we would have seen a pic of it by now. So, spooked looked at the pics and didn't see any plane debris...obviously it was nukes.
Second, in terms of the physics.
What "violation of physics" are you claiming?
That a solid object cannot change states in the milliseconds of a high speed impact-- it cannot initially cut into material without resistance, and then change so that the impact material offers maximal resistance, leading to disintegration of the object. I beg to differ, once the plane hit the building the velocity of the plane slowed, causeing less damage to the building and more to the plane as it contiuned. Common Sense and spooked are mutually exclusive.
The problem is "the plane" is not really a single object; it's a composite object, some parts of which are stronger than others. I can believe that the leading edge of the wings and the nose and the engine cowling were probably destroyed without slicing through those steel columns, because they were thin aluminum and because they didn't have much kinetic energy on their own, because they didn't have much mass. But then some heavier and stronger parts of the plane would hit the columns. The fuel itself in the wing tanks would deliver a lot of strain energy to the columns. As I recall, the Purdue study actually calibrated their model by firing soda cans at steel grates at very high speed. An empty aluminum can probably couldn't be fired fast enough to penetrate a steel grate, but a can full of liquid could, and I'm pretty danged sure that both were destroyed in the process.
I don't dispute this.
What physics are you claiming that would prevent that?
None. The issue is whether the wings and so forth would slide into the tower without significant debris being deflected, without an explosion on contact and with the plane slowing and deforming.
As for your question about what destroyed the rest of the plane that wasn't destroyed by the exterior wall, watching the Purdue video may give you a clue: Mainly it was the floors and the core, but there would also have been a lot of furniture.
Furniture? Really?
Also, the plane would have hit the floor slabs upon impact as well, but clearly got past those.
"Your "95%/5%" pseudo-math is meaningless."
Well, when you say the leading edge got destroyed, how much is that? 10%, 15%?
And you seem to say the heavier parts cut through easily but then got destroyed once inside?
If they didn't cut through easily, more debris should have been deflected and the plane should have slowed.
But it did slow. It didn't fly out the other side of the building, did it?
LARED (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-13-10 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. Spooked911
Seriously, the fact that you think this is some sort of proof is only proof that your understanding of the physics involved might fit in thimble.
truely.
