What is the flash before the plane hits the building?

reply to post by septic

Exactly.
In our hypothetical situation both planes would be damaged equally.

What about when the nosecone of the moving plane hits the wing to the plane that's not moving - equal damage?

I appreciate the repartee. Now, in our hypothetical stationary plane, lets replace all the aluminum parts with steel. In our hypothetical model, the steel will be three times the stiffness and weight of the aluminum. So lets say that gives the stationary plane twice the mass...hypothetically.

Huh? Sorry. Too many "hypotheticals" there. Three times the "stiffness"? Don't even know what that means. Three times the weight and then only twice the mass?

Once again, the planes collide at 500 MPH, this time the stationary plane is made of steel.

Wait, now the whole plane is made of steel? And its only three times as heavy and twice the mass? I can see now why you get so confused. You think you can make perfect extrapolations to the real world based on a very primitive understanding of some simple physical propositions.

Which plane is likely to do more damage to the other one?

Well, obviosuly the stiff rigid steel plane is going to be more damaged.

Really, you see your little problem here? You keep thinking you can reduce complex constructions to "fit" simple basic physical propositions. Building vs. plane. Mass vs. weight. Stationary vs. moving. But the real world is much, much, much more complex. The planes hit the buildings, they challenged the connections of the system first and foremost. Both parties experienced failure. That mutual failure, however, should not be construed to mean mirrored failure.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Or how about this wooden 2x4? Can your physics resolve this conundrum?

Hmmm do you know how solid that wall was?

You are asking us to explain things that can't be explained without more information. How do you know the wood doesn't have more mass than the wall section it hit? You do realise that you don't include the mass of the whole building right lol? Just the part it hits.

I can guarantee that there was more than just velocity going on.

No matter what you claim, the laws of motion are the laws of motion...

Our daily experiences might lead us to think that forces are always applied by one object on another. For example, a horse pulls a buggy, a person pushes a grocery cart, or a magnet attracts a nail. In each of these examples a force is exerted on one body by another body. It took Sir Isaac Newton to realize that things are not so simple, not so one-sided. True, if a hammer strikes a nail, the hammer exerts a force on the nail (thereby driving it into a board). Yet, the nail must also exert a force on the hammer since the hammer’s state of motion is changed and, according to the First Law, this requires a net (outside) force. This is the essence of Newton’s Third Law: Whenever one object exerts a force on a second object, the second object exerts an equal and opposite force on the first object. This law is often stated: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. However, it is important to understand that the action force and the reaction force are acting on different objects.

swift.sonoma.edu...

Originally posted by hooper
Wait, now the whole plane is made of steel? And its only three times as heavy and twice the mass? I can see now why you get so confused. You think you can make perfect extrapolations to the real world based on a very primitive understanding of some simple physical propositions.

LOL that is hilarious.

Yes hooper you can, because the laws of motion explain it, duh.

When all objects collide there is an equal and opposite reaction, so how can we not know the outcome of a collision between two objects?

So why are there sites like this...

www.fearofphysics.com...

...that can demonstrate what happens, if we can't know ahead of time what would happen?

reply to post by ANOK

When all objects collide there is an equal and opposite reaction...

I ask again, the example of a .45 caliber bullet into a Human head.

We have ALL seen how Hollywood depicts this. Is that the foundation for your knowledge and *understanding* of physics??

In Hollywood films, machine gun bullets cause the body to be thrown backwards several yards. This is NOT reality, and not how it works in the real world.

But, that mindset is implanted (it appears) in some people's minds, and their impressions of physics is therefore skewed as a result.

MOMENTUM and INERTIA.....look those up, and then understand the real physics.

reply to post by hooper

Wait, now the whole plane is made of steel? And its only three times as heavy and twice the mass?

I knew that would throw you for a loop, but hoped in vain you'd realize in my hypothetical model I was exchanging only the aluminum parts of the plane with steel. Had I estimated three times it's mass, I'm sure someone would have pointed out that not all of an airplane is made of aluminum.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by hooper

 

Wait, now the whole plane is made of steel? And its only three times as heavy and twice the mass?

I knew that would throw you for a loop, but hoped in vain you'd realize in my hypothetical model I was exchanging only the aluminum parts of the plane with steel. Had I estimated three times it's mass, I'm sure someone would have pointed out that not all of an airplane is made of aluminum.

It is kind of an irrelevant demonstration, though, isn't it? If they have equal mass but different material whilst traveling at the same speed, then they will have the same damage. If one is going faster, then both will be more damaged. The faster something goes, the more damage it causes. Even if the material is disintegrated, it still is traveling very fast and will impact more along the way. This is what happened in the towers for the most part. Due to the wall of the tower not being a solid wall (windows, and bolts will fail easier than the metal will shear, in some cases, so not all the plane "cut" through), the plane was not completely destroyed upon entering the building, and was able to cause more damage on the inside.

Originally posted by Varemia

It is kind of an irrelevant demonstration, though, isn't it? If they have equal mass but different material whilst traveling at the same speed, then they will have the same damage. If one is going faster, then both will be more damaged. The faster something goes, the more damage it causes. Even if the material is disintegrated, it still is traveling very fast and will impact more along the way. This is what happened in the towers for the most part. Due to the wall of the tower not being a solid wall (windows, and bolts will fail easier than the metal will shear, in some cases, so not all the plane "cut" through), the plane was not completely destroyed upon entering the building, and was able to cause more damage on the inside.

The faster something goes, the more damage it causes? Even if the material is disintegrated, it still is traveling very fast...

Too funny.

reply to post by septic

The faster something goes, the more damage it causes?

YES!!! Finally, a truthful statement!

(It shows that even those who live under bridges can occasionally utter a bit of *truth*, in-between the vast amount of other filth and detritus that spews out of their pie-hole....)....

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by septic

 

The faster something goes, the more damage it causes?

YES!!! Finally, a truthful statement!

(It shows that even those who live under bridges can occasionally utter a bit of *truth*, in-between the vast amount of other filth and detritus that spews out of their pie-hole....)....

The faster a stationary object is struck, the more damage it causes. Yeah, we're saying the same thing.

Originally posted by septic
Even if the material is disintegrated

Did you know there is law of physics called conservation of matter. You should look it up.

Do they have the same law on Planet Truther ?

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by septic

 

The faster something goes, the more damage it causes?

YES!!! Finally, a truthful statement!

(It shows that even those who live under bridges can occasionally utter a bit of *truth*, in-between the vast amount of other filth and detritus that spews out of their pie-hole....)....

The faster a stationary object is struck, the more damage it causes. Yeah, we're saying the same thing.

edit on 1-11-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)

Do you have some kind of imagination where a stationary object becomes stronger the faster an object is impacting it? Both objects involved in an impact will sustain more damage in the event of higher velocity.

reply to post by septic

The faster a stationary object is struck, the more damage it causes. Yeah, we're saying the same thing.

Are you getting it, now?

The *stationary object* was (were) the Twin Towers. They, each of them, were struck.

Just as a bullet might enter YOUR BODY (or, head).

Get it now???

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by septic

 

The faster a stationary object is struck, the more damage it causes. Yeah, we're saying the same thing.

Are you getting it, now?

The *stationary object* was (were) the Twin Towers. They, each of them, were struck.

Just as a bullet might enter YOUR BODY (or, head).

Get it now???

I get you're not getting it if you claim a wingtip can sever multiple box columns, a steel spandrel and concrete floor.

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by septic

 

The faster a stationary object is struck, the more damage it causes. Yeah, we're saying the same thing.

Are you getting it, now?

The *stationary object* was (were) the Twin Towers. They, each of them, were struck.

Just as a bullet might enter YOUR BODY (or, head).

Get it now???

I get you're not getting it if you claim a wingtip can sever multiple box columns, a steel spandrel and concrete floor.

Going fast enough it will. It was going around 500 mph. Do you even comprehend how fast that is?

reply to post by ANOK


The site you incessantly link to gives extremely unrealistic results: why is that, ANOK?

Originally posted by septic


What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

It's your turn. We have explained the impact forces to you for many many pages. I think its time for you to explain some things to us in equal detail. You posted this picture and claimed that only something like this could do that kind of damage to the building. Now we would like you to explain how it could do this this damage without contradicting anything you have already said. Oh ya we get to use your own words against you.

this is a JASSM missle
Weight 2200 pounds
length 44'
span 7'11"
top speed 290 mph

This is all you have to work with to create that damage.

If you want to use the word explosion you are going to have define it and explain to us how it works... That includes newtons third law of motion.

Good Luck Truther.




(I'll start first with the picture you showed us)

This picture is fake it cant be real look at it. The INSTANT the nose came in contact with the concrete roof, the velocity of the missiles nose would have deminished, which would have immediately affected it's connected parts.. With the fuselage coming to an abrupt stop, or at best an abrupt deceleration, the wings' forward momentum should have been noticealbe as well. Why didn't the fuselage crumple and the wings and tail snap forward? Look at the wings how deep they cut into the concrete. Composite wings cant do that concrete is so much stronger and stiffer than fiberglass. And look at the nose it comes out of the other side of the concrete totally unscathed, not a scratch on it. Why didn't the nose just crumple up like a normal missile would ?

Because it's a cartoon; not real.

reply to post by Varemia

Do you have some kind of imagination where a stationary object becomes stronger the faster an object is impacting it?

No, but you guys apparently believe when an object gets to 500 MPH it becomes much stronger than the object it collides with.

My simple point is to reverse the words to demonstrate how faulty your reasoning is.

A plane striking a building at 500 MPH is the same as a building striking the plane at 500 MPH. You guys think the plane becomes a light saber at that speed. "Use the Farce" should be your mantra.

reply to post by waypastvne


It's a missile designed to pierce hardened targets. Duh.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by waypastvne

 

It's a missile designed to pierce hardened targets. Duh.

Are you saying you can't explain how missiles work using physics ?

You can't explain it to us without contradicting yourself. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

Your only hope is to avoid the subject. I'm not going to let you do that Truther.

What are the design differences that make a small missile like a JASSM penetrate better than a large missile like a Boeing 767 ?

reply to post by septic


A JASSM missiles nose is only made of fiberglass just like a Boeing 767. How can anyone be dumb enough to believe it can pierce a hardened target and come out the other side with out a scratch on it ? Explain it to me truther.