I have not seen you explain why the fuselage can accomplish what the wings and motor could not?And yet dozens of people saw it do just that. You have no structual engineering degree. You have no aeronautical degree. You have no proof to back up your opinion. Your opinion does not matter to the world.
I have not seen you explain why the fuselage can accomplish what the wings and motor could not?Yes you have, but you are clinging to a skewed and false impression that the engines are somehow heavier than the rest of the plane which is stopping you from understanding what is being said. Cade, the engines are not 'dense' like a bullet. Their function, to propel the aircraft, is achieved by means of ingesting, compressing and burning air, they are basically a hollow tube containing rows of finely engineered fans rotating around a central core and they have to be in order to allow the necessary vast volume of air to pass through them, so your impression about them being some sort of solid object hitting the Pentagon is in error. While the fuselage is indeed hollow for passengers above the floor and freight below it, that does not mean there is not a whole load of metal structure there too, and remember a 757 fuselage is ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FIVE FEET LONG and if you cannot grasp how the fuselage and wing box are vastly more heavy and solid than the engines (or even that the wing box as described to you by another poster is not actually the wings) that is your problem. Farewell.
Originally posted by samkent reply to post by CadeIf a thousand people saw a mosquito fly through a concrete wall, should I give up my adherence to the laws of physics? My questions are aimed at anyone with structual engineering degrees, aeronautical degrees, as well as any civilians. Anyone who can explain to me why the fuselage could accomplish what the engines could not.
I have not seen you explain why the fuselage can accomplish what the wings and motor could not?And yet dozens of people saw it do just that. You have no structual engineering degree. You have no aeronautical degree. You have no proof to back up your opinion. Your opinion does not matter to the world.edit on 26-11-2012 by samkent because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by waynos reply to post by CadeFarewell
I have not seen you explain why the fuselage can accomplish what the wings and motor could not?Yes you have, but you are clinging to a skewed and false impression that the engines are somehow heavier than the rest of the plane which is stopping you from understanding what is being said. Cade, the engines are not 'dense' like a bullet. Their function, to propel the aircraft, is achieved by means of ingesting, compressing and burning air, they are basically a hollow tube containing rows of finely engineered fans rotating around a central core and they have to be in order to allow the necessary vast volume of air to pass through them, so your impression about them being some sort of solid object hitting the Pentagon is in error. While the fuselage is indeed hollow for passengers above the floor and freight below it, that does not mean there is not a whole load of metal structure there too, and remember a 757 fuselage is ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FIVE FEET LONG and if you cannot grasp how the fuselage and wing box are vastly more heavy and solid than the engines (or even that the wing box as described to you by another poster is not actually the wings) that is your problem. Farewell.
Cade, the engines are not 'dense' like a bullet. Their function, to propel the aircraft, is achieved by means of ingesting, compressing and burning air, they are basically a hollow tube containing rows of finely engineered fans rotating around a central core and they have to be in order to allow the necessary vast volume of air to pass through them, so your impression about them being some sort of solid object hitting the Pentagon is in errorThe more you explain why 6 tons engines cannot penetrate the outer walls, the more you have difficulties explaining how a fuselage whose circumference is largely made up of empty space to give room for passengers, can make a round hole in the Pentagon walls, while the much more dense 6 tons engines could not penetrate the outer walls. Let's hear it.
If a thousand people saw a mosquito fly through a concrete wall, should I give up my adherence to the laws of physics? My questions are aimed at anyone with structual engineering degrees, aeronautical degrees, as well as any civilians.Your laws of physics are wrong. Instead of asking anyone with degrees, why don't you explain why the hundreds of thousands of those degrees are not screaming at the top of their lungs?
That is the keel beam of an A320. That is the strongest part of any aircraft. Pound for pound, aircraft aluminum has a higher tensile strength than
most steel.
When the 757 hit the Pentagon, the hollow portions of the fuselage began to disintegrate. What punched a hole in the building was the keel beam, and
the more rigid portions under the skin of the aircraft.
As for the engines, as Waynos has stated, they are not the solid pieces that you think they are. Most of the weight of the engines is in the cowling,
and fan sections. The core of the engine is dense, and it's heavy, but by the time it would have gotten to the wall, the fan section and the cowling
around it would have absorbed most of the energy of the impact, and slowed the core down to where it wouldn't penetrate the concrete.
KC-135R
If you look at the engine of the KC-135R, which is the workhorse of the Air Force tanker fleet, it looks like it's a really big engine. It's big
enough for a man to stand up in the intake. But if you look at the core of the engine, it's actually tiny.
The same applies to the 757 engines that hit the Pentagon. Six tons sounds like a lot of weight, and they look like pretty substantial engines, but
they're actually very small, and surrounded by what is basically a big crumple zone in the cowling, that will absorb a lot of the energy of impact,
and prevent the core from penetrating.Originally posted by samkent reply to post by CadeYou claim the physics are wrong, but you can't explain why it is wrong. Are the thousands of degrees informed? Who has informed them? The press? Most of the degrees that DO support a new investigation are complaining they were never informed by the press of the problems that led them to this decision. Are you catching up now?
If a thousand people saw a mosquito fly through a concrete wall, should I give up my adherence to the laws of physics? My questions are aimed at anyone with structual engineering degrees, aeronautical degrees, as well as any civilians.Your laws of physics are wrong. Instead of asking anyone with degrees, why don't you explain why the hundreds of thousands of those degrees are not screaming at the top of their lungs?
Originally posted by thedman reply to post by filosophiaThat's funny ....Watson, I thought only criminals cleaned up a crime scene, removing evidence.
Did you ever consider that somebody moved it from the interior of the Pentagon during cleanup/recovery Sherlock.....? As can see from their uniforms the people in the frame are from FEMA USAR team who are shoring up the damaged sections in the Pentagon to prevent collapse Try reading the book "FIREFIGHT" - goes into detail concerning operations in the Pentagon
Originally posted by Zaphod58 reply to post by CadeThank you for showing us the keel beem, now we all understand the round hole in the wall of the pentagon.
Because the fuselage is actually much stronger than the engines are.edit on 11/27/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)
You claim the physics are wrong, but you can't explain why it is wrong.I said YOUR physics are wrong. Perhaps you didn't have physics in high school. We pushed a paper straw though a raw potato. We were taught about inertia. Do you remember the formula? Force = Mass * Acceleration That comes out to 160 million pounds of force That's all it takes. One simple calculation. If you disagree then it's up to you to prove either the calcuation is wrong or the building can withstand that much force.
Are the thousands of degrees informed? Who has informed them? The press? Most of the degrees that DO support a new investigation are complaining they were never informed by the press of the problems that led them to this decision. Are you catching up now?So it's up to the press to tell the engineers what to think??? Look my son is in his 4th year of his aero space engineering degree. And he knows I battle these cock and bull stories on this web site. Not once has his intructors tried to sway the math to fall in line with the OS. They never even mention 911. So much for bringing the new engineers in line to keep a secret. There are only a few misinformed people who think the physics are wrong. Sadly you are one of them.
Originally posted by samkent reply to post by CadeYou decide if you think the building can withstand that much force. I'm pointing out that in the case of the engines it could, and in the case of the fuselage it could not. You are only reinforcing my point, thank you.
You claim the physics are wrong, but you can't explain why it is wrong.I said YOUR physics are wrong. Perhaps you didn't have physics in high school. We pushed a paper straw though a raw potato. We were taught about inertia. Do you remember the formula? Force = Mass * Acceleration That comes out to 160 million pounds of force That's all it takes. One simple calculation. If you disagree then it's up to you to prove either the calcuation is wrong or the building can withstand that much force.Are the thousands of degrees informed? Who has informed them? The press? Most of the degrees that DO support a new investigation are complaining they were never informed by the press of the problems that led them to this decision. Are you catching up now?So it's up to the press to tell the engineers what to think??? Look my son is in his 4th year of his aero space engineering degree. And he knows I battle these cock and bull stories on this web site. Not once has his intructors tried to sway the math to fall in line with the OS. They never even mention 911. So much for bringing the new engineers in line to keep a secret. There are only a few misinformed people who think the physics are wrong. Sadly you are one of them.
So it's up to the press to tell the engineers what to think???Oh I'm sorry, I thought the degrees you were referring to had heard from the press that Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. Let's hear it then, how did they learn who did it and why are they in your opinion not supporting a new investigation? If you think I am misinformed, then please show me where the engines penetrated the Pentagon? Or show me that the fuselage did not penetrate the Pentagon. That's all I'm pointing out, followed by a question why two sets of physics apply at the Pentagon?
Originally posted by waynosBugs and Bunny? I don't know, does it?Originally posted by Cade You decide if you think the building can withstand that much force. I'm pointing out that in the case of the engines it could, and in the case of the fuselage it could not. You are only reinforcing my point, thank you.Please explain how the force imparted by the fuselage impact was equal to the force imparted by the much smaller, lighter engines after the initial impact? That is what you are trying to claim, right? You don't see anything wrong with that? Do you think the world operates like a Bugs Bunny cartoon and the hole made should be a cookie cutter replication of the item that caused it?
You are claiming it should not create a bugs and bunny hole, and yet photos of the WTC shows us a different reality. Are you saying these holes were
cut out by lasers? And what about the hole in the pentagon. If a round object leaves a square hole, and a square object leaves a round hole, was it
then a square airplane that hit the Pentagon? What exactly are you trying to say here?
I am not saying it was equal, I am asking how the fuselage could make a hole (apparently smaller then the fuselage itself?) in the Pentagon when the
engines could not? Is there a difference in the two elements? I'm sure there is. The fuselage is mostly a vacuum with space for the passengers, the
engines are more dense then a vacuum for passengers. They are 6 tons in a more dense circumference than the fuselage, hitting the wall with 600 mph.
The fuselage apparently penetrated the outer ring, while the engines could not even penetrate the outer wall. Did the plane hit the Pentagon with two
parallel realities?You are claiming it should not create a bugs and bunny hole, and yet photos of the WTC shows us a different reality. Are you saying these holes were cut out by lasers? And what about the hole in the pentagon. If a round object leaves a square hole, and a square object leaves a round hole, was it then a square airplane that hit the Pentagon? What exactly are you trying to say here? I am not saying it was equal, I am asking how the fuselage could make a hole (apparently smaller then the fuselage itself?) in the Pentagon when the engines could not? Is there a difference in the two elements? I'm sure there is. The fuselage is mostly a vacuum with space for the passengers, the engines are more dense then a vacuum for passengers. They are 6 tons in a more dense circumference than the fuselage, hitting the wall with 600 mph. The fuselage apparently penetrated the outer ring, while the engines could not even penetrate the outer wall. Did the plane hit the Pentagon with two parallel realities?It shows that you don't have a good grasp of physics and the strength of structures. Look at the strength of an unopened beer can. You can stand on it. But once it's opened... That is the same reason you can push a straw through a raw potato. The WTC was constructed to resist compression and tention from the vertical direction. Yes a plane can leave a cartoon like hole. Structual engineers from all over the world have seen the pictures. Have you ever heard one strucural engineer say the plane could NOT cut through like a cartoon? Only the misinformed feel the plane should have fallen to the ground. Even a small single engine plane punched through an IRS office in Texas and burned the place almost to the ground.
Originally posted by samkent reply to post by CadeSo in your infinite wisdom you are actually telling us that there is no way the airplane could have created a round hole in the pentagon wall. It's really no fun teaching you all this if you're gonna steal my arguments.
You are claiming it should not create a bugs and bunny hole, and yet photos of the WTC shows us a different reality. Are you saying these holes were cut out by lasers? And what about the hole in the pentagon. If a round object leaves a square hole, and a square object leaves a round hole, was it then a square airplane that hit the Pentagon? What exactly are you trying to say here? I am not saying it was equal, I am asking how the fuselage could make a hole (apparently smaller then the fuselage itself?) in the Pentagon when the engines could not? Is there a difference in the two elements? I'm sure there is. The fuselage is mostly a vacuum with space for the passengers, the engines are more dense then a vacuum for passengers. They are 6 tons in a more dense circumference than the fuselage, hitting the wall with 600 mph. The fuselage apparently penetrated the outer ring, while the engines could not even penetrate the outer wall. Did the plane hit the Pentagon with two parallel realities?It shows that you don't have a good grasp of physics and the strength of structures. Look at the strength of an unopened beer can. You can stand on it. But once it's opened... That is the same reason you can push a straw through a raw potato. The WTC was constructed to resist compression and tention from the vertical direction. Yes a plane can leave a cartoon like hole. Structual engineers from all over the world have seen the pictures. Have you ever heard one strucural engineer say the plane could NOT cut through like a cartoon? Only the misinformed feel the plane should have fallen to the ground. Even a small single engine plane punched through an IRS office in Texas and burned the place almost to the ground.
