What is the flash before the plane hits the building?

Originally posted by ANOK

BTW the collapses would not be inelastic collisions, that is when objects bounce back off each other like billiard balls

en.wikipedia.org...

In a perfectly inelastic collision, i.e., a zero coefficient of restitution, the colliding particles stick together

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

And believe me, we all wish you would learn something.......

Originally posted by septic

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.

With all due respect septic. No one in their right mind thinks that there were no planes. It's a preposterous assertion with no basis in the real world.

If that's what you really believe then that's your prerogative. I won't try to convince you otherwise because I know it will be too tiring and not worth the kinetic energy needed for my fingertips to type it all out for you.

Have a good one.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

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.

What was found were props for photo-ops in a propaganda coup that has worked for far too long, and for far too many blowhards if ATS is to be a gauge.

reply to post by septic


Again, that's a delusion. I feel for you man

reply to post by Joey Canoli


We need to put up sound effects when we find gross errors of physics in truther-physics lectures. Don't you agree?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
en.wikipedia.org...

In a perfectly inelastic collision, i.e., a zero coefficient of restitution, the colliding particles stick together

Thanx for correcting me, yes the collapses were mostly inelastic collisions. I wrote it backwards.

Yes they do, that is why the collapses were not perfectly inelastic, or perfectly elastic collisions, the particles did stick together and is why deformation was caused. If objects bounce off each other elastically, there is no loss of Ke, no deformation of the objects.

No collision is perfectly inelastic. You need to read your own link.

Inelastic collisions may not conserve kinetic energy, but they do obey conservation of momentum

en.wikipedia.org...

A perfectly elastic collision is defined as one in which there is no loss of kinetic energy in the collision. An inelastic collision is one in which part of the kinetic energy is changed to some other form of energy in the collision.

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

The collapses were mostly inelastic collisions, Ke was lost to deformation, sound, heat etc. The floors impacted and broke up, they did not bounce off each other causing no loss of Ke.

no large scale impacts are perfectly elastic...

...An elastic collision is defined as one in which both conservation of momentum and conservation of kinetic energy are observed. This implies that there is no dissipative force acting during the collision and that all of the kinetic energy of the objects before the collision is still in the form of kinetic energy afterward.

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

Inelastic Collisions

In the case of a car crash, an inelastic collision occurs. An inelastic collision generally occurs when a soft object experiences a collision that does not result in a bounce.

secure.wikimedia.org...

The collapses were mostly inelastic collisions, unless you think the floors bounced off each other causing no deformation?

reply to post by ANOK


So Anok...

i understand you're not a no-planer, but I must agree with waypastvne's conclusion that you proved the no-plane argument with your link about the scooter and the truck.

Without any adolescent accusations involved, I'm really interested in your thoughts about that. I find a lot of folks who know physics avoid discussing the planes because it is less-confrontational.

I would appreciate a repartee without all the ahem...clutter.

Originally posted by septic

So Anok...

i understand you're not a no-planer, but I must agree with waypastvne's conclusion that you proved the no-plane argument with your link about the scooter and the truck.

It was not just any truck. It was a Big Red Truck. In Truther Physics both size and color are important. Neither of the planes that hit the towers were red.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by septic

So Anok...

i understand you're not a no-planer, but I must agree with waypastvne's conclusion that you proved the no-plane argument with your link about the scooter and the truck.

It was not just any truck. It was a Big Red Truck. In Truther Physics both size and color are important. Neither of the planes that hit the towers were red.

if you don't mind my saying so, I'm noticing an undercurrent of biting sarcasm from many people, with the result being to chase away curious posters and kill conversations, at least that's the effect it has on me. Is this normal for the whole forum?

Originally posted by septic
I find a lot of folks who know physics avoid discussing the planes because it is less-confrontational.

You could be right there.

I've never claimed to be a 'no-planer', but physics is physics, I have to go by what it says, not what anyone else or any website says. If the physics prove the plane could not have done what it did, regardless if whether it looks like it did, then something else had to have been involved in the event. The physics is not flexible, it works the same way every time, that is nature and you can't change nature. Notice every problem the OSers bring up, that they think contradicts my understanding of the physics, turns out to be their misunderstanding? When you understand how the laws of motion work, there is no question. If you don't understand them you can make false analogies all day that you think make sense, but they rarely do.

I do stick to the less 'confrontational stuff', not how I'd describe it, but I've been here long enough to know what points the OSers don't like raised. Notice all the attention I get for the few posts I make lol? Notice no one wants to look at that demonstration of collisions, and simply make fun of it? I make my points so simple a child could understand, and these guys want to pretend they are the intellectually superior.

That is why I just post when I feel like it, emphasizing and supporting my point, and leave the garbage replies to me to stew in their own embarrassing mess. I have given ample opportunity to be proven wrong, tools not just words, but they fail because they know I'm right....

www.fearofphysics.com/Collide/collide.html

QUESTION:
Which car will suffer the most damage? A stationery vehicle, hit from the back or the vehicle that drove into the stationery vehicle? Given that both vehicle are of the same material strength.

ANSWER:
Because of Newton's third law (N3), each should experience the same force, the same impulse, the same damage, etc. For this case, N3 would state that if the moving car exerts a force on the stationary car, the stationary car exerts an equal and opposite force on the moving car. There is one catch, however, not really having to do with physics. The moving car has its radiator, engine, steering, etc. where the impact occurs and the stationary car just has the trunk, so the cost of repair will likely be bigger for the moving car.

askthephysicist.com...&a_old2.html

Cars, concrete floors, it doesn't matter, the laws apply to all objects. Apply those laws and the towers could not have collapsed the way the OSers claim.

Each law of motion (three in total) that Newton developed has significant mathematical and physical interpretations that are needed to understand the motion of objects in our universe. The applications of these laws of motion are truly limitless.

Essentially, these laws define the means by which motion changes, specifically the way in which those changes in motion are related to force and mass.

physics.about.com...

The laws of motion are all that is needed to know why the towers could not have completely collapsed the way the OSers claim. 'Calculations' are neither possible or needed to make this claim. You don't need calculations to know that a larger mass can not be damaged by a lesser mass, and that lesser mass not be more effected by the impact. I'd like someone to do 'calculations' that prove that possible.

reply to post by ANOK


Oh, I found a paper which actually did all the calculations and such. Here are some of the important bits, but please, feel free to read it. I couldn't copy-paste the equations, so feel free to look and check their work.

In our best estimate, the plastic and fracture energy absorbed by disintegrating the
airplane can be summarized as follows

Energy to crush the fuselage ... = 376MJ

Energy to of cutting the fuselage ... = 190MJ

Energy of breakup of wing(s) ... = 20MJ

Total energy absorbed by airplane ... = 586MJ

Here is the MIT paper

Multiplying the energy per column (Eq. 9) by the number of damaged columns the
total energy dissipated by the external columns of the South Tower is ... 20MJ

This is only a small fraction of the available kinetic energy of the aircraft.
It is recognized that there is a momentum transfer during the cutting process and
additional energy is lost during that process.

...

According to the calculation performed by Teng and Wierzbicki [2] the mass ratio is 0.0783,
which means 7.83% of the initial kinetic energy of the wings (96MJ or 2.6% of the total initial
kinetic energy) is lost in cutting the exterior columns. What can be concluded with full
confidence is that the plastic work used for fracturing the top and bottom of flanges as well as
two webs is significantly smaller than the kinetic energy lost during the process of momentum
transfer

Originally posted by ANOK

I do stick to the less 'confrontational stuff', not how I'd describe it, but I've been here long enough to know what points the OSers don't like raised.

I don't know about the other OSers, but I for one would love to see you explain the crash physics of the plane impacts to septic. Tell us how does aluminum cut steel ? Why didn't the plane just bounce off, like the scooter bounced off the Big Red Truck ? I think that would be most entertaining.

Originally posted by ProudBird

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.

Where the buildings are concerned I'm going with the videos being real. With that I agree that the *flash* is real and as well, agree with you that it occurs as the impact sequence is underway.

Where we disagree is the origin and purpose of the flash.

I think its origin is not the oxygen tank and that its purpose is as a fuse, and what you call an 'impact sequence' I would call an IGNITION SEQUENCE. The flash being the starting spark of it etc.

For immediately following this *flash*, is, one very enormous explosion.


Cheers

Originally posted by NWOwned

Originally posted by ProudBird

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.

Where the buildings are concerned I'm going with the videos being real. With that I agree that the *flash* is real and as well, agree with you that it occurs as the impact sequence is underway.

Where we disagree is the origin and purpose of the flash.

I think its origin is not the oxygen tank and that its purpose is as a fuse, and what you call an 'impact sequence' I would call an IGNITION SEQUENCE. The flash being the starting spark of it etc.

For immediately following this *flash*, is, one very enormous explosion.


Cheers

I know that the people on the plane referred to the hijackers as claiming to have a bomb, so it's possible that there was a bomb on the plane, but honestly, you don't need a fuse for that. It just needs to be impact-sensitive.

reply to post by NWOwned


The "flash" is minor, and certainly not a "fuse" ..... no such thing exists on a Boeing 767 in that location. And, no.....before this gets down a circular logic route again, it is irrefutable from the preponderance of evidence that United 175 that impacted the Tower was the same jet that departed from Boston that morning, and was a completely stock Boeing 767-222, registration N612UA, Manufacturer's Serial Number 21873, "Line" No. 41::

MSN LN Type Delivery date Registration Remark
21873 41 767-222 23/02/1983 N612UA 11/09/2001 Crash into WTC tower 65(65) + ground

Courtesy Airfleets.net -- Boeing 767 Written off with United Airlines


And, yes the reason for the immediate explosion seen just microseconds later was the result of the Jet-A1 fuel in the wing and center tanks atomizing upon impact, and being ignited by the heat of the two engines.

Milliseconds after the radome (nosecone) and forward fuselage structure was impacting the first point it contacted, the compression of the airplane was occurring, the occupants in the cockpit began to die and disintegrate, and there was a great deal of distortion and crushing going on, to include down in the E&E compartment, where the O2 bottle was mounted.....on ship right, below the cockpit floor.

reply to post by NWOwned


So did they remove the O2 tank and replace it with the "Ignition Sequencer" ?

The flash is exactly where the O2 tank is located, Is it not ?

The flash is spark as the building tears through the plane. The flash look odd because of the video quality of the video.- End story.

These debunkers here are having a laugh keeping this thread alive with sillyness. This has been debunked back in 2003 when the letsroll911 website was pumping out the pods, holograms, windowless tanker theories to prepare for Popular Mechanics : Debunking 911 myths.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


How is your UFO crashed in Shanksville theory going ? Any evidence to support it yet, besides Susans testimony ?

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by NWOwned

 

The "flash" is minor, and certainly not a "fuse" ..... no such thing exists on a Boeing 767 in that location. And, no.....before this gets down a circular logic route again, it is irrefutable from the preponderance of evidence that United 175 that impacted the Tower was the same jet that departed from Boston that morning, and was a completely stock Boeing 767-222, registration N612UA, Manufacturer's Serial Number 21873, "Line" No. 41::

MSN LN Type Delivery date Registration Remark
21873 41 767-222 23/02/1983 N612UA 11/09/2001 Crash into WTC tower 65(65) + ground

Courtesy Airfleets.net -- Boeing 767 Written off with United Airlines


And, yes the reason for the immediate explosion seen just microseconds later was the result of the Jet-A1 fuel in the wing and center tanks atomizing upon impact, and being ignited by the heat of the two engines.

Milliseconds after the radome (nosecone) and forward fuselage structure was impacting the first point it contacted, the compression of the airplane was occurring, the occupants in the cockpit began to die and disintegrate, and there was a great deal of distortion and crushing going on, to include down in the E&E compartment, where the O2 bottle was mounted.....on ship right, below the cockpit floor.

I'm glad you have all that plane data to back things up because as far as I am aware there were no black boxes recovered from the towers.

There's an old saying: If the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem starts looking like a nail.

That's what you OSers have, a 'plane hammer' etc.

And had eye witnesses and film shot by CNN on 9/11 shown a jet going in backwards with a *flash* then a 'plane hammer' explanation would of necessity, have to have been found.


Cheers

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by NWOwned

 

So did they remove the O2 tank and replace it with the "Ignition Sequencer" ?

The flash is exactly where the O2 tank is located, Is it not ?

I haven't tested this yet only been thinking about it today. I want to dig up some aircraft accident collisions where the wings or even the whole plane is involved and filmed, like two planes striking each other or just one plane hitting something very hard very fast and igniting. (If anyone wants to go dig up some examples, feel free.)

Why? Well I'd like to see just how fast and immediate the exploding wings and gas tanks are on an airplane for real. Why? Because I can see the nose of a 767 not bursting into flames right away, but it just seems strange to me that the plane enters so far into the building on the second hit before there is any even hint of explosion.

On the surface, it seems to me, if we're talking high speed, jet fuel, hard impacts and spark *flashes* like Shadow Herder seems to think, or even you with your exploding cylinder, I mean how fast does a jet wing visibly explode on hard impact? We need to find out and time it for an average then compare it to how long it takes the second plane to ignite AFTER impacting the building because it seems to me it takes too long on the second hit etc.

As if the plane was thinking, "Oh, I'll just hold it till I get to the elevator shafts! Yeah that's the ticket!"

As for the canister idea, didn't you post a pic of a Quantas plane with a blown tank? Wasn't the skin of the aircraft missing? Wasn't it therefore 'blown off' in the explosion? Wouldn't a pressurized canister set off at high speed against a steel building travel in the path of least resistance out from the tower in a way that would be detected on the clips? Why is the *flash* so flat and uniform then? Why is no debris apparently blown off upon impact?

How come we don't see the oval shaped hole of the skin blown off below the door just before it enters?

Ah, so many questions...


Cheers