What is the flash before the plane hits the building?

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by pshea38

What would a bullet do if you fired it at a steel girder? I think you can guess?
I'm sure Septic has already answered you adequately, but I am responding to as far as
i've got on page 17 (of 20 so far).
What of the 8 horizontal concrete floors the 'plane' 'seamlessly' penetrated?
What's Up Doc??

What do you think happens?

It depends primarily upon the sum of the velocity, does it not?

Does it not depend on the density of the projectile?

reply to post by pshea38


Those guys need to educate themselves, we are not wrong about the physics they simply do not understand how physics works, and how armor piercing rounds work.

It is NOT just their velocity OSers.

The most widely used armor piercing bullets in the world are made of a hardened steel, tungsten-carbide, or depleted uranium penetrator enclosed within a softer material, such as copper or aluminum.

The armor piercing bullets fired from rifles are strengthened with a copper or cupro-nickel jacket, much like the jacket that surrounds lead in a conventional projectile, a jacket which is destroyed upon impact to allow the penetrating charge to continue its movement through the targeted substance.

news.softpedia.com...

You have to realise that the case of the bullet did not make those holes, the case of the bullet did not receive less damage than the object it impacted, the case was destroyed. The physics is just as I have explained it.

Originally posted by pshea38
Thought experiment.
Imagine firing said chickens (fresh or frozen - your choice) into a steel girder say 1/4 inch thick.
What do YOU think the outcome would be? (and with what degree of confidence in your surmising?)

I don't think there have been any recorded instances of a bird breaking a part of a building besides windows. They just don't get fast enough by themselves.

I suppose that if you fired a chicken at a steel girder at a high enough speed, it would cause damage, yes. I can't say with confidence because I've never seen it done before. I know that there was a lot of mass in the airplane, and mass+high velocity is a recipe for disaster.

reply to post by ANOK


Here's a slow-motion montage of bullets hitting stuff. Gives you a good idea of the physics involved.

www.youtube.com...

As for how this relates to the towers? Not very well. The parts of the plane not impacting the metal will continue forward, and the stuff that impacted the metal of the tower apparently overcame it and continued forward. It's fairly straight-forward.

reply to post by pshea38


pshea38:

'Haha NWOwned! What I have (not) been saying to you all along, and have
known longsince. It is a cartoon, as it does not and cannot represent reality.
Septemberclues has thousands of similar impossible instances! (why everyone
focuses on the nose-out scenario, when it is just a drop in the ocean of video fakery
evidence, is beyondreason, (if you get my drift! )'

---

Ok, now it appears that you and me need to have a little discussion, for although it is apparent that we are generally on the same side, from my perspective, even so, you are working against me.

Case in point.

It seems that you agree that the tip of an angled wing should not impact the building (on a straight in hit) before the portion of the wing, say containing the engine, which is closer to the fuselage and hence ahead of the wing tip, does. Is that correct? So we agree about the obvious physics of this yes? So then if anyone examines the Naudet footage they will see by simple reasoning, something is just not right, dare I say "impossible" with that 'impact'. Yes?

So far so good.

Ok. Now you say it's all a cartoon and like Duh! (lol) and that there are many many examples of these kinds of 'impossible' anomalies on the SC forums etc. To that I would say/ask, like what? Like the "nose out" that even I, a non-OSer debunked? How many anomalies of the 'cartoons' could I debunk? If they're all cartoons then are there any 'anomalies' at all? You understand?

It's like this, the OSers claim 757s hit the towers and that the video clips are real, that's where I start. I look at the first hit, the Naudet clip, and I notice the "Quick Wing" thing, i.e. that the right wing tip gets to the building in that clip before the part closer to the nose.

And so I'm taking what they say is real and showing that it's impossible.

You come along and say like "no matter the whole thing is a cartoon!"

Granted, either way is a blow, but if I were to go further my way and take the videos as real and then say something like, "Ok, now where the 'Quick Wing' hits, because we know that's impossible, the 'damage' shown on the building at the impact point must be from something else... I would next perhaps propose logically, from the building itself etc."

But then here's how you're working against me (and I need you to acknowledge and understand my point), as far as you're concerned it's all FAKE and so you invalidate the position I might take based on the impossible physics displayed in the clip. Right? You understand?

So is the damage shown on the building in the Naudet clip as fake as the plane? Then how can a case for what actually happened even be made? You think the many tower collapse videos are cartoon fakes? Maybe cloaked Klingon warships vaporized both of them in a micro-second and then we were shown two giant cartoon collapse clips? Is that it? You're getting my drift right?

I mean I can understand how you could examine SC and get all excited that there are many instances of impossible things (one of which I've already successfully questioned) but do you truly realize the implications of your entire cartoon stance? What actual video clips do you think show actual unhoaxed video I'd like to know?

And how did you make that determination? Can you give me the formula of "video fakery" so I'll be able to apply it to my research methods when I'm looking at any 9/11 video? Wait! It's what? 'ALL VIDEOS are FAKE!'

So it's: ALL 9/11 VIDEOS = FAKE is it? Really?

Listen to what you are saying and see the implications of it, see how saying it perhaps without examining it in depth actually really hurts any real investigation.

I start with what the OSers claim is REAL: "757s hit the towers and the clips we have basically show this."

And show that, for the first hit anyway (working on second) that that's likely not the case. (And with a clear reason why.)

You think the 'flash' isn't real either? And that it's silly to even discuss it? What about the plane shaped gashes in the buildings seen on all media while the towers stood? Were the holes real or just a video overlay? I'm asking YOU for real. Please do tell me.

Don't get me wrong I appreciate 9/11 research and investigation... you know... but can you see my point of view from just this one little example of impossible physics?

I'm going with the OSers and saying the tower hit videos are real, and THEN, I'm showing that a 757 hitting the first tower is impossible based on the video the OSers think is Real. Clever no? And that if no 757 hit tower 1 and there's damage and later, a 'plane shaped hole' then we now have to figure out how it got there, that is, if we think there REALLY was a hole there... you get me? You do think there were plane shaped holes right? Or do you? I mean real ones.

See, I need you, we all need you, to clarify just a wee little bit.


Cheers

reply to post by Varemia


If you were to accelerate the chicken carcass to a high enough velocity it will blow a hole through the steel. Energy is the same regardless of the composition of the mass, when the chicken impacts the steel the laws of conservation say it has to go somewhere, in this case it becomes heat.

Because energy scales with the square of velocity it is the most important component of Newton's equation. Twice the velocity generates four times the energy, four times the velocity generates 16 times the kinetic energy and so on.

Think about all the worrying NASA does about debris like paint chips in orbit...

I keep seeing the mantra of impossible physics repeated by some as proof of deception in the OS yet all anyone has done to validate the point is prove that they don't understand the mechanisms at work, the physics of the collapse works just like gravity should.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by pshea38

 

Those guys need to educate themselves, we are not wrong about the physics they simply do not understand how physics works, and how armor piercing rounds work.

It is NOT just their velocity OSers.

The most widely used armor piercing bullets in the world are made of a hardened steel, tungsten-carbide, or depleted uranium penetrator enclosed within a softer material, such as copper or aluminum.

The armor piercing bullets fired from rifles are strengthened with a copper or cupro-nickel jacket, much like the jacket that surrounds lead in a conventional projectile, a jacket which is destroyed upon impact to allow the penetrating charge to continue its movement through the targeted substance.

news.softpedia.com...

You have to realise that the case of the bullet did not make those holes, the case of the bullet did not receive less damage than the object it impacted, the case was destroyed. The physics is just as I have explained it.

I always enjoy "physics according to Anok." Your quoted source is a mine of misinformation likely written by clueless TV anchormen. I will correct the most glaring misconceptions on the link.
.
The Reagan attempt was with a .22 revolver using bullets containing lead azide and designed to explode on impact. Not armor piercing. The one that got Ronnie bounced off the armor of the limo.

The teflon coated bullets were designed to penetrate Kevlar vests -- "body armor" not steel -- by moving between the weave more readily due to the teflon lubricant.

The armor piercing bullets fired from rifles are not "strengthened" with a copper or cupro-nickel jacket; the jacket is present so that the rifling can be engaged because the cores are harder than the rifle barrels. The non-strengthening jacket does peel off and the penetrator does penetrate. That does not mean that a solid copper bullet would not penetrate; it would just not penetrate as much as the tungsten carbide projectile. A tungsten carbide 757 travelling at speed would certainly penetrate the WTC much easier than an aluminum alloy aircraft if one could be made to fly. If you want to see an example of kinetic energy, look at the rail-gun videos using aluminum projectiles.
Do try to deny ignorance rather than to propagate it.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by septic

 

LOL. So you're saying the plane bounces off the building and starts moving 500mph in the opposite direction?

because that's what you're implying. Hint: the collisions on 9/11, like all those in the real world, are not perfectly elastic.

Spare me your sarcasm. The model in the the link is calculated using just the mass of the objects, it does not consider what they're made of. The point was to show that the smaller mass loses every time in the model, no matter which object is moving, the result is the same.

This means the materials used in the real world will dictate how the objects damage each other when they collide...which object is moving or stationary doesn't matter, the results should be the same relative the materials involved, as the model shows.

If the scooter was made of aluminum sheet metal, and the truck was made of steel columns, in your world the scooter would blast through the truck, whereas it would bounce off if they were both models.

Narrow down the equation to just one wingtip and just one column and it's still the same equation. Considering the masses involved, the wing should lose every time, yet make the wing out of aluminum and make the column out of steel, and everything changes?

The OS is contrary to known physics. How they faked the videos doesn't matter, the point is, the jet would shatter against the building in the real world, with only some pieces of the jet containing enough mass and density of material to overcome the far more massive and dense building columns.

The intention of this comparison was to illustrate how ludicrous the OS is. There is no way on this earth jets would slide through a building like that. It can only be a video composite.

The size of the conspiracy, the "someone would talk". the "eye witnesses" mean NOTHING when compared to what is and is not possible in the physical world.

Implications be damned, the videos were faked because what they showed was impossible in the real world.

reply to post by pshea38

Does it not depend on the density of the projectile?

According to these guys, a chicken mcnugget could do it.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by pshea38

 

Those guys need to educate themselves, we are not wrong about the physics they simply do not understand how physics works, and how armor piercing rounds work.

It is NOT just their velocity OSers.

The most widely used armor piercing bullets in the world are made of a hardened steel, tungsten-carbide, or depleted uranium penetrator enclosed within a softer material, such as copper or aluminum.

The armor piercing bullets fired from rifles are strengthened with a copper or cupro-nickel jacket, much like the jacket that surrounds lead in a conventional projectile, a jacket which is destroyed upon impact to allow the penetrating charge to continue its movement through the targeted substance.

news.softpedia.com...

You have to realise that the case of the bullet did not make those holes, the case of the bullet did not receive less damage than the object it impacted, the case was destroyed. The physics is just as I have explained it.

Why bother wrapping the aluminum with anything? In the new world, why would anyone use anything other than aluminum sheet metal?

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pshea38

 

Does it not depend on the density of the projectile?

According to these guys, a chicken mcnugget could do it.

If it's going fast enough, yes. With lower mass, it will need higher speed though, and objects made up of carbon will probably burst into flame before acquiring the kind of energy required to make it through steel. Now, think about it. A 8-10 foot piece of wing on wingtip is made up of aluminum and other wingy things to hold it together. It is traveling at 500 mph (or so) just like the rest of the plane. This impacts the steel and immediately begins to transfer energy into it. 500^2 is 250000. So, .5*mass*250,000 will give you how much energy the steel must resist in order to stop the moving wing tip from penetrating. Or, simpler, it will be the mass of the wingtip multiplied by 125,000.

How much energy can the steel resist? What absorbs the energy? We know that the tower was meant to sway slightly in strong winds, but do the individual connections have much sway to absorb all that energy?

It just seems like the assertion of "the plane couldn't go through the building" rides on speculation without backing by any scientific data.

reply to post by pteridine



However, to sever columns as shown by the NIST:



How fast would a 35-degree swept-back wing need to go?



If your bullet were to strike the protruding edge of the column, instead of striking the face, it would travel through about 12 inches or so of steel, and it would need to do that to sever the column, and this is just one example of dozens of columns.

Originally posted by ANOK

A bullet hits a very small concentrated area, it doesn't have to worry about the complete mass of what it hits, only the very tiny section it hits.

Yup.

And this is how the plane got through the building's ext columns.

Concentrated force.

Perhaps you could explain it a little better for some of these confused truthers????

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ANOK

A bullet hits a very small concentrated area, it doesn't have to worry about the complete mass of what it hits, only the very tiny section it hits.

Yup.

And this is how the plane got through the building's ext columns.

Concentrated force.

Perhaps you could explain it a little better for some of these confused truthers????

It's like a twilight zone episode. I can't believe even public schools can produce such geniuses.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine

 

How fast would a 35-degree swept-back wing need to go?

About 400 KEAS.

American Airlines Flight 11

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine

 

How fast would a 35-degree swept-back wing need to go?

About 400 KEAS.

American Airlines Flight 11

Your obsession with planes means nothing because planes had nothing to do with it.

"Narrow down the equation to just one wingtip and just one column and it's still the same equation. Considering the masses involved, the wing should lose every time, yet make the wing out of aluminum and make the column out of steel, and everything changes?

The OS is contrary to known physics. How they faked the videos doesn't matter, the point is, the jet would shatter against the building in the real world, with only some pieces of the jet containing enough mass and density of material to overcome the far more massive and dense building columns."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by septic


Tell me, Mr. Physics. How does a wingtip "lose" when we're talking about impacts here? It is still going considerably fast. How is a piece of steel designed to resist that kind of force?

reply to post by septic

How fast would a 35-degree swept-back wing need to go?

This has zero relevance to the ability of a mass (the airplane) at a high velocity being able to inflict damage and penetrate.

By the way, the actual figure for the 767 wing sweep-back is 31.5°.

As a point of trivia, the 757 wing is swept back 25°.

Although many factors come into play that determine an airfoil's maximum speed capability, including the chord length, height (thickness) and shape of leading edge, trailing edge, the aerodynamics of the shape, and the center of pressure location that results, etc.....in conventional modern large jets, generally the greater the leading edge sweep-back angle, the higher the "normal" Mach speed.

In normal operations, other factors are considered, and airplanes are not flown up to their theoretical "maximum".

Point is, all the early claims of "impossible" speeds for the 767s that hit the Towers are ridiculous. Just because they are not *normally* operated at those velocities does not mean they cannot attain them.

And, the *flash* seen in those many videos of UAL 175 is the crew oxygen tank. The *flash* is not occurring "before" the airplane hits the building (as this thread title claims). It is occurring as the impact sequence is underway.

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ANOK

A bullet hits a very small concentrated area, it doesn't have to worry about the complete mass of what it hits, only the very tiny section it hits.

Yup.

And this is how the plane got through the building's ext columns.

Concentrated force.

Perhaps you could explain it a little better for some of these confused truthers????

It's like a twilight zone episode. I can't believe even public schools can produce such geniuses.

So then ANOK doesn't know what he's talking about?

Ordinarily, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you.

But on occasion, he forgets his trolling points and actually says something correct.