In Depth Look At The Pentagon Witnessess On 9/11

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

...the "bird strike" on the airplane can be worked out two ways: The airplane can be stationary, and the bird accelerated to the speed of impact......or, the bird can be stationary, and the airplane the one in motion. As long as the velocity at impact is the same in both cases, the force of impact will be the same.

So then according to your equation let's replace the bird with a 50 ton steel beam from the WTC moving at 500mph and hitting a stationary plane, the outcome would be the same as a plane travelling at 500mph hitting a stationary steel beam.

reply to post by Rafe_


You forget what is right behind the radome on the nose:

First is the KEEL BEAM - the largest and strongest section of an aircraft, it supports the cargo bay and main
cabin floors and provides the strenght along the long axis of the aircraft

Second - wing box or area between the engine pylons, It has the wing spars and ribs which provide the strenght
for the wings.

Third - the jet engines and their mounts. Each engine weighs 6 tons and is built from high strenght heat resistant
alloys

Fourth - fuel stored in wings. At speed aircraft hit the fuel would act more as a solid battering ram than a liquid

Let me help you understand further -

Empire State Building - 1945 after hit by B 25



What show the large hole in side of Empire State Building?

Because the outer walls of the ESB and Pentagon are almost identical in construction

Both have outer facade of 8 ' of Indiana limeston from the same quarry, backed up by 8 inch brick wall

Now thell me if a B25 which weights less than 1/10 of a B 757 travelling at 1/3 the speed can leave such
a hole, why would B 757 not create a much bigger hole?

A hole some 96 ft across on 1st floor left by wings, a second hole some 17 ft left by fuselage

At ESB one of the motors travelled all way through building to punch out the opposite side and land on roof
of nearby building

At Pentagon landing gear truck was able to travel through building and punch out hole into inner roadway

reply to post by Insolubrious


The airplanes hitting the World Trade Center buildings did not hit just "one 50 ton steel beam". Again with the incorrect analogy and comparisons.

Off the thread topic......but, the airplanes impacted (initially) into a lattice-work of steel components, all held together by individual bolts of various diameters and strengths and load-bearing design limits and directions.

So....essentially (again, purely a theoretical mental exercise), if the airplane were suspended motionless and unsupported, and the entire WTC building could be accelerated to 500 MPH (imagine we're in a vacuum, so no air resistance on the building)....the building at 500 MPH, in this vacuum, striking the motionless airplane of certain mass, would suffer a wound, as the airplane WOULD penetrate the outer components of the building.

However, as in the bird/airplane scenario, the damage pattern would be different, because in the opposite (airplane moving, has added to its mass the aspect of kinetic energy and momentum) all of that KE is concentrated in a compact area, for more penetrating ability.

reply to post by thedman


I don't see any steel beams in that picture what so ever! That's your brick wall dman.

reply to post by Insolubrious

I don't see any steel beams in that picture what so ever!

Are you trying to claim that the Empire State Building was not constructed with steel beams??


Design and Construction

There are photos, there ^ ^ ^ showing steel in the framework.


AND HERE

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

The airplanes hitting the World Trade Center buildings did not hit just "one 50 ton steel beam". Again with the incorrect analogy and comparisons.

Correct! it hit several. Imagine that!

Off the thread topic......but, the airplanes impacted (initially) into a lattice-work of steel components, all held together by individual bolts of various diameters and strengths and load-bearing design limits and directions.

So....essentially (again, purely a theoretical mental exercise), if the airplane were suspended motionless and unsupported, and the entire WTC building could be accelerated to 500 MPH (imagine we're in a vacuum, so no air resistance on the building)....the building at 500 MPH, in this vacuum, striking the motionless airplane of certain mass, would suffer a wound, as the airplane WOULD penetrate the outer components of the building.

I don't buy it sorry. Do you even understand the concept of density? You only talk about mass. It seems completely absent from your theory. Steel is heavy for it's size, dense and solid, relative to a plane which is mostly filled with air. Is air good at penetrating steel? Perhaps you should let the military know, they seem to think DU is much better, but I guess density doesn't count these days.

However, as in the bird/airplane scenario, the damage pattern would be different, because in the opposite (airplane moving, has added to its mass the aspect of kinetic energy and momentum) all of that KE is concentrated in a compact area, for more penetrating ability.

Ok so you conclude that birds and thin air will make better penetrating weapons than steel columns and depleted uranium, just so long as the mass is there, right?

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

I don't see any steel beams in that picture what so ever!

Are you trying to claim that the Empire State Building was not constructed with steel beams??

No in your original picture. Where's the steel?

In your example the plane hit an area where there wasn't anything like the kind of re-enforced steel perimeter of the towers!

At 57,000 tons ESB has half as much steel as a single WTC tower. The outer walls are clearly no where near as robust!

reply to post by Insolubrious


Once again....this is borderline trolling, bringing up the most ridiculous analogies and red herrings. Comparing a weapon, specifically a DU round for specific armor piercing purposes and intent is a type of discussion deflection, and distraction, and a specious argument.

Then, the claim that the airplane is "mostly air"??

Astonishing in its desperation to further muddle the science, facts and physics. Tragic, in a way.

Fortunately, anonymity means never having to be personally embarrassed.....one only has to deal with their own private knowledge, once they realize their fallacious grasp on a topic.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

Once again....this is borderline trolling, bringing up the most ridiculous analogies and red herrings. Comparing a weapon, specifically a DU round for specific armor piercing purposes and intent is a type of discussion deflection, and distraction, and a specious argument.

Then, the claim that the airplane is "mostly air"??

Astonishing in its desperation to further muddle the science, facts and physics. Tragic, in a way.

Fortunately, anonymity means never having to be personally embarrassed.....one only has to deal with their own private knowledge, once they realize their fallacious grasp on a topic.

Can you even say the word "density"?

reply to post by Insolubrious

Steel is heavy for it's size, dense and solid, relative to a plane which is mostly filled with air. Is air good at penetrating steel? Perhaps you should let the military know, they seem to think DU is much better, but I guess density doesn't count these days.

Trapped air is given as the reason a straw can pass through a raw potato.

reply to post by Insolubrious


"density" is irrelevant in the case of the impact @ the Pentagon (or the WTC), in terms of the airplanes that hit those buildings, and the physical characteristics of the buildings' structure.

Should read the Pentagon Building Performance Report, for starters. Since it WAS possible to thoroughly investigate the aftermath at the Pentagon, much was learned about the dynamics and physics of the incident, what occurred, and what was involved.

The PBPR has been linked, countless times. It is available with a simple Google hunt.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

"density" is irrelevant in the case of the impact @ the Pentagon (or the WTC), in terms of the airplanes that hit those buildings, and the physical characteristics of the buildings' structure.

Should read the Pentagon Building Performance Report, for starters. Since it WAS possible to thoroughly investigate the aftermath at the Pentagon, much was learned about the dynamics and physics of the incident, what occurred, and what was involved.

The PBPR has been linked, countless times. It is available with a simple Google hunt.

There we go, we've hit the core of the issue - you've admitted you believe density is irrelevant when it comes to the physics on 9/11.

Your 9/11 debunker physics moto should be "There is no density, there is only mass, especially when it comes to the pentagon."

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by budaruskie

 

I figured you'd bring up this red herring eventually:

Do you believe the White House might have articulating cameras with high resolution and/or high frame rates? There isn't really anything all that valuable there either....

Of course the sort of security @ the WH is pretty well known. IT is far more a "target" to the every day terrorist and NUT case than the Pentagon will ever be!!!

Oh, and you think there "isn't really anything all that valuable there..."???

Ever been on on the WH Tour? Tons of valuable, irreplaceable artwork. A lot more sensitive material that isn't stored deep, deep inside a fortress of an office building, like the Pentagon.

And of course, a big red bulls-eye in the form of the person himself (or herself in future).....I mean, to steal from the kids...."Duh!"

Rrriiigghhttt....so that is what you call a rational argument? Maybe you shouldn't borrow children's reasoning abilities as well as their language. You really lack the ability to understand the "value" of a general or classified information? OK, I get it...you just can't admit when you are wrong. It's cool, one day when you grow into a big boy and learn to be gracious in defeat or how to put together a single rational thought without immediately contradicting yourself, we can have a grown-up discussion. What a loser...

reply to post by Insolubrious


Oh, hold on there sparky:

you've admitted you believe density is irrelevant when it comes to the physics on 9/11.

It was YOU who brought up the red herring of DU ("depleted uranium" for those who don't know) and now are trying to spin this by taking MY comment out of context.

Nice try.....but very transparent attempt to ridicule by trap and innuendo. You are busted wide open.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

"density" is irrelevant in the case of the impact @ the Pentagon (or the WTC).

How is it irrelevant?

Density is the mass per unit volume of an object (weight per unit volume), I think that has a lot of relevance.

In fact it is one of the most important points there is when it comes to the physics of colliding objects.

For example when two objects collide the forces on each object is equal, Newtons third law, the deciding factor on which objects receives the most damage is the MASS (density) of the objects. A larger mass will always receive less damage than a smaller mass, as it will be decelerated less on impact.

The fact that you don't know this is very telling.

Q, Two colliding objects will exert equal forces upon each other even if their mass is significantly different.

Answer, Two colliding objects will exert equal forces upon each other even if their mass is significantly different.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

If you understand equal opposite reaction you will understand how mass effects collision damage.

reply to post by ANOK


IF you will please note.....I fell for the trap that insolubrious had set....guilty of being lured into it.....because he/she began with using the fallacy comparison to DU. Implying the need for "density" in that material, for the purpose it is intended (armor piercing), and thus attempted to imply that the example of DU negated the ability of the airplanes to penetrate the buildings' facades (a total fallacy).

So, "density" was the subject related only to DU, and that ridiculous try earlier.

In terms of American 77, it is clear that the mass and the distribution of THAT particular object, as a whole, was sufficiently "dense" enough to do what it did, at the Pentagon.

May it be also noted that the aforementioned member also successfully lured me into more off-thread-topic forays into the specifics of the WTC, again possibly with intent? Who knows....

Either way, whether discussing the Pentagon, or the other buildings, the airplanes ALL had enough mass and "density" as they existed to penetrate as seen.

ONE more thing to note.....much noise is generated in "conspiracy" circles about the wings being "hollow" and "flimsy". Incorrect. They were full of fuel, in all cases.....this actually made them more massive, and had an added element of rigidity.

If you do not understand the power of the mass of a liquid, especially when it is in a container (the wing was the container), then this video of UNcontained water should be of interest:

reply to post by ProudBird


All you've proven with that last video is a plane might be crushed if you dropped a large amount of water on it.

To make it more fair try replacing the water in that video with an outerwall section from the WTC.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
reply to post by ProudBird

 

All you've proven with that last video is a plane might be crushed if you dropped a large amount of water on it.

To make it more fair try replacing the water in that video with an outerwall section from the WTC.

Exactly! Or try replacing the car with an outerwall section from the WTC.
My money is on the WTC section. Doh!

Let's play rock paper scissors.

Water beats car
Water beats plane (surely!)
WTC Section beats water (surely2!)

WTC Section beats car and plane.

Birdman dishing up the usual birds**t, I see.

9/11 was a faked hollywood style extravaganza. suckering the public
into submission using fake video, victims, actors and false witness testimony.
www.cluesforum.info
www.septemberclues.info

Here are a few other great Mike Sparks eye-opening interviews.
The Nazis and 9/11.
James Bond is Real.
Bodyguard of Lies.

Good Luck.

Originally posted by ProudBird
Either way, whether discussing the Pentagon, or the other buildings, the airplanes ALL had enough mass and "density" as they existed to penetrate as seen.

Well that is where we disagree.

Take for example the engines at each incident.

First of all here is one engine that supposedly went through the WTC, two sets of steel box columns, and fell many feet to the ground...

911review.org...

So it went though steel, dropped many feet to the ground, and survived. Take the pentacon, the engines did not go through the concrete right? So what does that tell us? The pentacon concrete was stronger than two sets of steel box columns? Do you think it was? Was it that much stronger to cause two 3 ton engines to practically disappear, leaving only a few parts, instead of punching through? If so, how did the fuselage punch through, which is a lot less compact, and has the equivalent of crumple zones?

The whole story contradicts itself.

BTW I have no idea what point you're trying to make with that video, that water is heavy? What has water got to do with the pentacon?

reply to post by Insolubrious


Apparently have trouble with eyes - in addition to other problems

Look to left of man in suit taking notes - is that not a steel beam? Look above them - is that a steel beam?

On off chance might actually do some research - try reading pages 129-130 of "CITY IN THE SKY"

Authors (2 NY Times reporters) quote from FDNY report on incident - which reports one beam had rivets sheared
off, another was twisted and third was gouged by impact

Another thing the steelwork in the exterior walls were protected by 4-8 inches of brickwork as fireproofing