What is the flash before the plane hits the building?

reply to post by Joey Canoli


What I should have said is, you also need to consider the effect on the bullet itself, not just what it hits, because you are only considering the damage of the object hit. The point I am trying to get you to understand is you can't ignore the damage to the falling floors, as they would be damaged as much as the floors they crashed down onto (is 'crashed down' a sufficient term for you).

(same thing for the bird analogy, the bird will put a dent in a plane, but have you seen the state of the bird?)

Bullets do not penetrate steel plate, armor piercing rounds can but it's not the round itself, the hardened casing shatters on impact...

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...

Small masses can not destroy larger masses (mass, not size or weight). This site demonstrates that fact, please do the demonstration and share your results, and then explain how the result could be that way if your logic is correct...

What Happens When Two Things Collide

This selection will show you what happens when two objects crash into each other, or collide.

www.fearofphysics.com...

15 floors can not crush 95 floors, all at once, or one by one. Don't fear the physics, do the demonstration and it will show you how the laws of motion apply to mass and velocity. It will either prove me wrong, or it won't, here is your chance if you think you are so right. Why do you all keep ignoring it?

Originally posted by septic
Your obsession with planes means nothing because planes had nothing to do with it.

That could be the most sig worthy quote of the year.

Aircraft had nothing do do with it huh?

Originally posted by Varemia
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?

It would result in the same damage no matter if the wing was moving "considerably fast" or if the column was moving "considerably fast".

Therefore, imagine swinging a column like a pendulum and striking a wing. Will the wing cut the column? No, the wing would shatter. If you speed up the column to 500 miles an hour, will the wing cut it in half? No, it might dent it a bit, but the wing would still shatter.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by septic
Your obsession with planes means nothing because planes had nothing to do with it.

That could be the most sig worthy quote of the year.

Aircraft had nothing do do with it huh?

Well according to NIST the planes were not the reason for collapse, fire heated up trusses that sagged and pulled in columns. Planes started the fires but they didn't cause the failures that caused the collapse, according to the OS.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by septic
Your obsession with planes means nothing because planes had nothing to do with it.

That could be the most sig worthy quote of the year.

Aircraft had nothing do do with it huh?

No planes.

Originally posted 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?

Again you fail to understand EQUAL OPPOSITE reaction law.

An increase in velocity increases the forces on BOTH objects, not just the one moving.

That is such a basic fundamental law of physics, and you OSers get it wrong every time. You have to in order to believe the OS.

4. Which of the following statements are true about collisions?

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

a. TRUE - In any collision between two objects, the colliding objects exert equal and opposite force upon each other. This is simply Newton's law of action-reaction.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

Learn something Mr.Physics Challenged.

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by septic
Your obsession with planes means nothing because planes had nothing to do with it.

That could be the most sig worthy quote of the year.

Aircraft had nothing do do with it huh?

No planes.

That's a delusion

reply to post by ANOK

Well according to NIST the planes were not the reason for collapse, fire heated up trusses that sagged and pulled in columns. Planes started the fires but they didn't cause the failures that caused the collapse, according to the OS.

I would suggest you read the report again. It was a combination of the heat from the "room fires" and the damage done by the impact and explosion.

reply to post by ANOK


hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

In inelastic collisions, momentum is conserved. There is no way that the tower collapse was completely elastic, and the collapse focused mostly on the momentum being maintained as it continued downward.

You seem to be making the case that the floors should have practically stopped at each floor before moving on. This is simply incorrect. Once the first floor failed (nearly instantly) from the material falling on top of it, its momentum is preserved while it continues downward, collapsing the next floor and collecting its mass onto the next floor, and so on. There is no extra upward resistance because the vertical columns had no way to be the focus of the downward weight.

Your argument is invalid.

reply to post by ANOK

Which of the following statements are true about collisions?
a. Two colliding objects will exert equal forces upon each other even if their mass is significantly different...
a. TRUE - In any collision between two objects, the colliding objects exert equal and opposite force upon each other. This is simply Newton's law of action-reaction

And? The wing and the column had the same experience, but does not mean the same outcome for each. However, for the purposes of their function both failed.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
That's a delusion

Why is that?

The physics proves the planes would have bounced off the buildings and spread identifiable aircraft parts all over the streets below, incidentally that's another reason why planes weren't used...besides the fact that they wouldn't do the trick, they could be ID'd.

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
That's a delusion

Why is that?

The physics proves the planes would have bounced off the buildings and spread identifiable aircraft parts all over the streets below, incidentally that's another reason why planes weren't used...besides the fact that they wouldn't do the trick, they could be ID'd.

You have provided nothing to support your position but argumentative nonsense while utterly failing to grasp multiple attempts by different people to illustrate where your impressions of physics is flawed.

I have to believe at this point you are disingenuous and being purposely obtuse.

Have fun with it.

Originally posted by septic
... imagine swinging a column like a pendulum and striking a wing....

Umm.... I'd like to see some evidence, arguments or equations here, not just a statement of what your imagination tells you should happen.

The collision simulator that ANOK keeps linking to is not capable of simulating damage, even in the simplified situations depicted. In fact, in the perfectly elastic collisions depicted, NO DAMAGE CAN TAKE PLACE, since no energy is lost in the collision. It is implied that both objects spring back into shape exactly, and unharmed, like pool balls.

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
That's a delusion

Why is that?

The physics proves the planes would have bounced off the buildings and spread identifiable aircraft parts all over the streets below, incidentally that's another reason why planes weren't used...besides the fact that they wouldn't do the trick, they could be ID'd.

What physics? Your physics? septic, come on man. You have to be better than that. I was there. I saw the 2nd plane hit from Broadway and Wall, just a few blocks away. Were you there? Don't say there weren't planes. That's just ignorant.

You know there were plane parts found all around on the streets. Numerous photos exist, even on your conspiracy sites.

Why are you lying to yourself like that and trying to hide behind the "physics" of it?

It's really weird man.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK

 

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

In inelastic collisions, momentum is conserved.

Do you know what that means?

It means an object wants to maintain its momentum, and if it hits a mass, resistance, it will be deformed due to its desire to keep moving. Momentum is conserved between the two objects, one will lose what the other gains. Which object receives the most deformation is due to their mass. Remember velocity increases the forces on BOTH objects, thus increases the deformation of BOTH objects, not just the one being impacted, because in reality BOTH objects are being impacted, equally, even if only one object is moving.

Go back and look at this...www.fearofphysics.com...

Do the damn demonstration and stop spinning this debate. Add momentum of conservation in the demonstration, instead of the objects bouncing off each other there will deformation of the objects, equal to the amount they decelerate, or move backwards.

BTW the collapses would not be inelastic collisions, that is when objects bounce back off each other like billiard balls and no damage is caused, they bounce back maintaining their momentum. When one object is fixed it can not be a completely inelastic collision as the floors stuck together and cause deformation as they try to conserve their momentum.

This is not a 911 debate anymore, it's physics school...

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


It's not worth dealing with folks like that. Clearly that's intentional. There's no other way to explain such utter ignorance.

Way to go truthers. It seems the only place for your movement is at the bottom end of a toilet

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

Oh geez. Now I realize I've been arguing with a no-planer. Why do I do this to myself?

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

It's not worth dealing with folks like that. Clearly that's intentional. There's no other way to explain such utter ignorance.

Way to go truthers. It seems the only place for your movement is at the bottom end of a toilet

I see about 6 guys here who are behaving exactly as you've described. The only clear intent I see is to shout down honest discussions about 911.

Originally posted by ANOK

What I should have said is, you also need to consider the effect on the bullet itself, not just what it hits, because you are only considering the damage of the object hit.

Yup.

The bullet is destroyed as it goes through the armor.

And the plane is destroyed as it goes through the ext columns.

In both situations, both pairs of onjects dissipate an equal amount of energy.

Equal and opposite.

Every time.

Equal to the lowest number.

Every time.

The point I am trying to get you to understand is you can't ignore the damage to the falling floors, as they would be damaged as much as the floors they crashed down onto (is 'crashed down' a sufficient term for you).

Yup.

Small masses can not destroy larger masses

If they're of generally the same construction? Agreed.

This site demonstrates that fact, please do the demonstration and share your results, and then explain how the result could be that way if your logic is correct...

Your site can't replicate all the objects being acceleraed by gravity. Nor can it be programmed to replicate the floor by floor collisions that took place.

And I'll give Psikeyhacker due props here, cuz his Python program seems to be the best that I've seen that would be able to accurately reproduce the actual conditions.... although I have serious issues with how he included which parts would be descending, which parts would be breaking, etc.....

But it also proves another point I made just today - truthers are simply unable to see that a horizontal collision cannot replicate a vertical collapse.

15 floors can not crush 95 floors, all at once, or one by one

Prolly correct. But you are forgetting that as each floor is "knocked loose" and begins moving down, its PE is converted into KE, and it is incorrect to call it 15 floors crushing 95. You know how it goes - 15 crush 1, then 16 crush 1, then 17 crush one, etc....

Why do you all keep ignoring it?

Cuz as I'm sure most truthers have heard before - your tool is inadequate......

Originally posted by septic
The only clear intent I see is to shout down honest discussions about 911.

Right, no-planer theories are dishonest and completely lacking credibility. They exist only to waste the time of people with actual curiosity about 9/11