Car disentigrates against bridge

reply to post by ANOK

Thanks for the physics lesson. I'm not a physicist, nor an engineer, but I understand the the concepts in Newtons laws of motion. Your lesson has proved nothing as far as the amount of damage the WTC towers would (or wouldn't) sustain from the impacts of the aircraft. Obviously the amount of force experience by the plane was enough to obliterate it. But what of the (equal) force experienced by the steel columns involved in the impact? Was it enough to sever the steel? To answer that, you have to do the math--which has been done more than once by various professionals in the fields of applied physics and engineering, and has been published in professional peer-reviewed journals. And guess what? This issue is not one that's disputed amongst professionals in the field. The math pans out. The planes would have (and did) easily sever the outer columns and still had enough force to potentially sever or at least severely damage several of the core columns.

Not to mention NIST, according to Wierzbicki, Xue, and Hendry-Brogan of MIT:

The external columns were impacted at a very high speed and the process is controlled mainly by local inertia. As the fuselage and wings cut through the steel facade of the Towers, the affected portions of the column sheared off. It was found that the momentum transfer between the airframe and the first barrier of external columns was responsible for most of the energy dissipated in this phase. The energy to shear off the column constituted only a small fraction of that energy. A more exact calculation performed in Ref. [2] give a slightly larger value E = (external column) 26MJ.

The floors and floor trusses were the next barrier to overcome. The floor trusses consisted of hundreds of beam-like tubular members. At this stage of the analysis it was impossible to develop a detailed computational model of this complex assembly. Therefore the entire volume of steel used by the floors was lumped into a uniform steel plate of the equivalent thickness. It was estimated that loss of kinetic energy to plow the airframe through the model structure was E (floor) for North Tower = 1221MJ and E (floor) = 1040MJ for the South Tower. As for the airplane itself, the process of disintegration of the fuselage and wings started immediately during the entry into the wall of the exterior columns and it continued as the floors were cut and ripped apart.

The energy to be dissipated by the core structure is the difference between the total energy introduced into the Towers E (kinetic) and the energies lost on damaging the exterior columns, floors, and the aircraft itself. From Eq.(1) this energy was found to be E (core) = 1630MJ for the South Tower and E (core) = 141MJ for the North Tower. There are a lot of uncertainties as to what happened to the core structure under such high energy input. One could envisage partial damage (bending) of many columns or complete damage (severance) of fewer columns. By the time the pile of debris from the airplane and floors the load on core column would probably be much more distributed favoring severe bending rather than of core columns cutting. It is estimated that 7 to 20 core columns were destroyed or severely bent in the South Tower while only 4 to 12 core columns were ruptured in the North Tower. These initial estimates can be easily adjusted once more precise information on the geometry, material, and impact condition become available.

Wierzbicki T., Xue L. and Hendry-Brogan, M., Aircraft impact damage, in The Towers Lost and Beyond - A collection of essays on the WTC by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ed. Eduardo Kausel, 2002.

In the International Journal of Impact Engineering (2003) Wierzbicki and Teng wrote:

The problem of the airplane wing cutting through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center is treated analytically. The exterior columns are thin-walled box beam made of high strength steel. The complex structure of the airplane is lumped into another box, but it has been found that the equivalent thickness of the box is an order of magnitude larger than the column thickness. The problem can be then modeled as an impact of a rigid mass traveling with the velocity of 240 m/s into a hollow box-like vertical member. The deformation and failure process is very local and is broken into three phases: shearing of the impacting flange; tearing of side webs; and tensile fracture of the rear flange. Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column. It was also found that the energy absorbed by plastic deformation and fracture of the ill-fated column is only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing.

Ryan Mackey, research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, did his own math:


Do these guys not understand Newton's laws of motion?

You only have to look at the damage caused in this aircrash to realise no plane hit the pentagon.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by mee30

 

This is what happens when aircraft (which was moving at 3 X the speed of that car) strikes masonry object

B25 into Empire State Building - Exterior shell is 8 inches of solid limestone backed up by brick wall

www.youtube.com...

Left hole some 18 x 24 feet

B 25 also weighed about 20,000 lbs - about 7 times the car

Forces are over 60 times that of car into barrier

Proves if accelerate object enough the destructive energy released is tremendous

By the way Pentagon E Ring is made of same materials........

cool video. As we can see, the Empire State Building did not collapse at all after this plane impact. This was built before the WTC buildings, so effectively the newer buildings should be of better design, and technically still standing...

reply to post by 4hero

You only have to look at the damage caused in this aircrash to realise no plane hit the pentagon.

Another no plane er.
Go talk to the eyewitnesses.

You would think that after 10 years the truthers would be able to prove this one single item in their web of conspiracy.

They stand a better chance of disproving pi.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by smyleegrl

 

Ok want parts from Pentagon.......

Quite a bit of debris here - looks like parts off airplane.....



What do we have here? A plane part with a serial number......



Wow - whole alley few of aircraft parts.....



Lawn full of aircraft parts



Part with green primer paint.......

These photgraphs could be of any debris, are they all official? If they were all in a pile near the hole in the pentagon then I might believe them, but they are just isolated photos, and could have come from anywhere or taken in a way to make you beleive they are actually from the pentagon 'crash'.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by 4hero

 

You only have to look at the damage caused in this aircrash to realise no plane hit the pentagon.

Another no plane er.
Go talk to the eyewitnesses.

You would think that after 10 years the truthers would be able to prove this one single item in their web of conspiracy.

They stand a better chance of disproving pi.

I am not discounting the WTC planes, but you tell me this, one of the most secure buildings in the world, supposedly, and yet no CCTV footage of a plane hitting the pentagon? Why is that? Please do explain.

Also, if you look at the damage and debris in the amsterdam crash video i posted, the pentagon had nothing on that scale, less debris and less damage.. Please do reply with some answers....

Originally posted by conar
You wont believe your eyes

maybe that plane did disintegrate at Pentagon

edit on 27-3-2012 by conar because: (no reason given)

Saw the whole episode, and yes, jets can disintegrate on certain impacts. In fact the lady refers to the F-4 as 'atomizing to dust'.

reply to post by samkent


Oh dear, now i have asked you a few difficult questions you have run away because you dont have the answers.. Shame, i was looking forward to yourt detailed explaination to my questions! comment on run, that makes us believe you even less...

reply to post by 4hero

I am not discounting the WTC planes, but you tell me this, one of the most secure buildings in the world, supposedly, and yet no CCTV footage of a plane hitting the pentagon? Why is that? Please do explain.

Your conclusion of it being one of the most secure is where you get off track.
The Pentagon is a public building with secure areas. I'm not even sure if it has a perimeter fence around the property?
If you wanted maximum security you would'nt chose to use a private company to provide up scale renta cops?
If you wanted maximum security you would'nt use drop down 2x4's to block autos for ID check.
If you wanted maximum securtiy you would place security towers at the property corners.
If you wanted maximum security you would place guards along the roof.

Nope this is just a public building with secure areas inside.

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by 4hero

 

You only have to look at the damage caused in this aircrash to realise no plane hit the pentagon.

Another no plane er.
Go talk to the eyewitnesses.

You would think that after 10 years the truthers would be able to prove this one single item in their web of conspiracy.

They stand a better chance of disproving pi.

I am not discounting the WTC planes, but you tell me this, one of the most secure buildings in the world, supposedly, and yet no CCTV footage of a plane hitting the pentagon? Why is that? Please do explain.

Also, if you look at the damage and debris in the amsterdam crash video i posted, the pentagon had nothing on that scale, less debris and less damage.. Please do reply with some answers....

So why were Arlington police calling in reports of a plane crash at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11 ? An American Airlines plane over the Pike !

www.youtube.com...

The evidence for AA 77 hitting the Pentagon is simply overwhelming. Only in the darkest recesses of trutherdom can there be any doubt.

reply to post by 4hero


Actually older buildings have more resistance to impact than newer structures

up until lates 1950"s tall buildings had a masonry (concrete, stone, brick) outer shell - one of the first
things "progressive" engineers did was eliminate the masonry and replace it with the "glass wall" type

Masonry was too heavy and expensive and limited height to which buildings could be economically
built.

WTC was built, using at the time innovative and experiemntal engineering to remove as much concrete and
steel from the buildings to make then lighter hence cheaper and to allow them to built taller

Older buildings like Verizon (140 West St) built in 1927 withstood impact from both WTC collapse and
from collapse of WTC 7 next door

The heavy masonry exterior is credited with saving the building by preventing fires like those with destroyed
WTC 7 from taking place

The south and east facades of the Verizon Building were heavily damaged in the September 11, 2001 attacks, from the collapse of the adjacent 7 World Trade Center, as well as the collapse of the Twin Towers. No fires were observed in the building on September 11.

The building's older design utilizes thick masonry and gives the building added strength, which helped the building withstand the attacks and remain structurally sound. The building has thick, heavy masonry in the infill exterior walls, which encloses the building's steel frame. Brick, cinder, concrete and other masonry materials encase interior steel columns, beams, girders and other structural elements. The masonry allowed the structure to absorb much of the energy from debris hitting the building. Nonetheless, the building had extensive damage to its east and south facades. Underground cable vaults belonging to Verizon, along with other underground utility infrastructure were also heavily damaged from water and debris.

90 West st across from South Tower was pummeled with debris from collapse of South Tower - it burned for
2 days, yet did not collapse. Engineers were amazed that building not only did not collapse, but
suffered little structural damage

It was built in 1907 using heavy masonry not only in outer shell, but in encasing steel work and in floor
construction .

The heavy weight construction resisted the impact and prevented fires from affecting the steel skeleton
supporting the structure

The building was severely damaged in the September 11, 2001 attacks when the south tower of the World Trade Center collapsed directly across the street. Scaffolding which had been erected on the facade for renovation work did nothing to stop the fiery debris from raining into the building and tearing a gash deep down its northern face. Two office workers were killed when they were trapped in an elevator. The firestorm raged out of control for several days; the building, which had housed businesses including Hanover Capital, Frost & Sullivan and IKON Office Solutions, was completely gutted. It is believed that 90 West's heavy building materials and extensive use of terra cotta inside and out helped serve as fireproofing and protected it from further damage and collapse, as opposed to the more modern skyscraper at 7 World Trade Center, which suffered similar damage and collapsed later that day.

Do any people arguing about building structures of a 6-story high massive edifice that was recently reinforced on that very same side that was impacted by a jet airliner, that is indeed designed to withstand M-8 shots to it's one inch thick transparent armor windows (also part of that upgrade) ever consider tinsel strength of said building and largely aluminum aircraft built to save weight?

Sounds sort of silly which would win that battle.

Another thing 'truthers' fail to understand about aircraft is there are just three points of most resistance, the two engines, and the lower half of the fuselage (the lower half) that has any chance whatsoever to punch through the Pentagon, and that is why the 'hole' was smallish. Do they expect a perfect 'cookie cutter' roadrunner and coyote hole to be punched through such massive reinforcement like the pentagon newly reinforced outer wall like a cartoon by the wings and upper fuselage, or even tail? How adolescent is that logic?

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by 4hero

 

You only have to look at the damage caused in this aircrash to realise no plane hit the pentagon.

Another no plane er.
Go talk to the eyewitnesses.

You would think that after 10 years the truthers would be able to prove this one single item in their web of conspiracy.

They stand a better chance of disproving pi.

I am not discounting the WTC planes, but you tell me this, one of the most secure buildings in the world, supposedly, and yet no CCTV footage of a plane hitting the pentagon? Why is that? Please do explain.

Also, if you look at the damage and debris in the amsterdam crash video i posted, the pentagon had nothing on that scale, less debris and less damage.. Please do reply with some answers....

So why were Arlington police calling in reports of a plane crash at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11 ? An American Airlines plane over the Pike !

www.youtube.com...

The evidence for AA 77 hitting the Pentagon is simply overwhelming. Only in the darkest recesses of trutherdom can there be any doubt.

That tape is not proof of anything. For on it's barely audible, and the plane was a decoy.

reply to post by thedman


Perhaps but surely the WTC buildings were technically stronger internally.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by 4hero

 

I am not discounting the WTC planes, but you tell me this, one of the most secure buildings in the world, supposedly, and yet no CCTV footage of a plane hitting the pentagon? Why is that? Please do explain.

Your conclusion of it being one of the most secure is where you get off track.
The Pentagon is a public building with secure areas. I'm not even sure if it has a perimeter fence around the property?
If you wanted maximum security you would'nt chose to use a private company to provide up scale renta cops?
If you wanted maximum security you would'nt use drop down 2x4's to block autos for ID check.
If you wanted maximum securtiy you would place security towers at the property corners.
If you wanted maximum security you would place guards along the roof.

Nope this is just a public building with secure areas inside.

Even the building I live in has more CCTV cameras than the Pentagon! C'mon, there would have been more CCTV footage. Even frames from the footage that exists has been removed! Pull the other one dude!

well directed energy beams were covertly used to help disintegrate some of the 2 wtc towers quicker/more synergistically with the fuel and blasts.

i'm talking nanoparticle size reducing technology

Originally posted by 4hero

That tape is not proof of anything. For on it's barely audible, and the plane was a decoy.

This tape

www.youtube.com...

is proof that Arlington Police were calling in reports of a plane crash at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11 unless you can prove to the contrary. The audio is quite sufficient to hear that and, in particular, at 0.32 you can hear Officer Richard Cox at the intersection oif S Wayne St and Columbia Pike specifically call in an " American Airlines plane " " Headed east over the Pike, possibly towards the Pentagon."

If you are going to throw in a supposed "decoy plane " you need to provide some substantiation for that. Where did it come from ? where did it go ? what was it ? who saw it ?

Originally posted by 4hero

Even the building I live in has more CCTV cameras than the Pentagon! C'mon, there would have been more CCTV footage. Even frames from the footage that exists has been removed! Pull the other one dude!

FBI says no. You are just making assumptions :-

www.911myths.com...

How many CCTV cameras at your building are pointing at the sky or a blank wall in case a rogue aircraft shows up ?

Originally posted by plube
Now not sure this is going to be a good 911 discussion as the differences will clearly get pointed out....

This is absolutely the same thing as the aircraft hitting the Pentagon, and I have pointed these types of incidents out to the truth movement before. As a matter of fact, you can search on my old posts for NW flight 255 DTW, and you will see that its an almost identical situation:

Flight 255 made its takeoff roll on Detroit's Runway 3C at approximately 8:45PM EDT with Capt. Maus at the controls. The plane lifted off the runway at 170 knots (195 mph) and soon began to roll from side to side at a height just under 50 feet above the ground. The MD-82 went into a stall and rolled 40 degrees to the left when it struck a light pole near the end of the runway, severing 18 feet of its left wing and igniting jet fuel stored in the wing. It then rolled 90 degrees to the right, and its right wing tore through the roof of an Avis rental car building. The plane, now uncontrolled, crashed inverted onto Middlebelt Road and hit vehicles just north of the intersection of Wick Rd. The aircraft then broke apart and burst into flames as it hit a railroad overpass and the overpass of eastbound Interstate 94.

Of course those in the truth movement do not care for this information, as it hurts their theory, and they will find every excuse to argue with it. The facts are though, that in all these situations, an aircraft (or in your video a car) hit a reinforced piling, broke up, and the wreckage carried forward due to its inertia. In the instance of the bridge the wreckage was mostly behind the first overpass, and in the case of the Pentagon the majority went inside the building itself. This is why there was no wreckage to be seen on the lawn at the Pentagon, besides a slight amount of lighter material that was flung into the air.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by samkent
Think kamikaze. Wooden planes through steel decks.

LOL more OSer nonsense.
Kamikaze planes were loaded with bombs and torpedoes.
Wooden planes can not go though steel decks mate.
If you understood physics you would know that.

You're both sort of right and wrong.
The decks on the ships in WWII were still made of wood, not steel.
So they could go through, but it was not steel they were going through.