What is the flash before the plane hits the building?

That's how I've read the physics on this.....lots of weight on the jet.....lots of momentum......smashing into a 'net' or 'grill' not a steel plate solid....the glass would be nothing.....and the steel columns would be a Red Rover, Red Rover situation where the couplings would break. The wings, et al don't slice through steel....they smash beams (think of a hammer as opposed to a knife) and force their way to the interior by breaking the columns at their weakest points.

The reason the jets disappear into the interior and parts don't come back out is that the jet's momentum carries everything (jet pieces, fuel, passengers, beams, hunks of floor, office desks, chairs, computers, workers....) forward....whatever sparks the jet fuel (plenty of metal to metal scraping going on or broken electrical connections for a sparking ignition source) causes the asymetrical fuel splash pattern based fire ball......


So what causes the flash?
O2 tank blowing (what did it burn (I know the pure O2 could create a quick hot Gus Grissom killing fire)?)?
reflection from the forward shock wave of the plane bending the tower glass?
flexing right wing as shock waves from other leading edges break the plane of the tower wall?

wrong pattern for landing lights of course.

reply to post by waypastvne

Lets talk about speed and liquids for a minute. When you jump off a diving board you hit the water at 20 to 30 mph you sustain no damage.

Diving boards now? The tower was not a pool of freaking water man! IMMEDIATELY upon impact the jet would begin decelerating! What is so hard to understand about that? AT ANY SPEED, the jet would decelerate the INSTANT it impacts the tower.

However fast the cartoon jet was going, the tower would have hit the jet just as hard as the jet hit the tower...AT ANY SPEED. THE FASTER IT GOES, THE FASTER THE TOWER HITS THE JET.

In real life the jet would have been shredded!

As much as you want to believe it to be true, I'm sorry but the video is a fake. Get real for crying out loud.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by waypastvne

 

Lets talk about speed and liquids for a minute. When you jump off a diving board you hit the water at 20 to 30 mph you sustain no damage.

Diving boards now? The tower was not a pool of freaking water man! IMMEDIATELY upon impact the jet would begin decelerating! What is so hard to understand about that? AT ANY SPEED, the jet would decelerate the INSTANT it impacts the tower.

However fast the cartoon jet was going, the tower would have hit the jet just as hard as the jet hit the tower...AT ANY SPEED. THE FASTER IT GOES, THE FASTER THE TOWER HITS THE JET.

In real life the jet would have been shredded!

As much as you want to believe it to be true, I'm sorry but the video is a fake. Get real for crying out loud.

You clearly are lacking in understanding. The plane will and did shred, but it also damaged the building. Both the building and the plane had the forces exerting on them, but the plane had all the forward momentum, so because the building was rooted to the ground, the plane passed through it. The solid structure of the tower meant that the impact only deflected it 15 inches.

How you can possibly even imagine a plane causing little to no damage is beyond me. Is the picture of the hole in the Empire State Building fake too? That plane was going far slower and was many times smaller than a Boeing 767.

Honestly, return to reality, man.

reply to post by ATSskeptic

That's how I've read the physics on this.....lots of weight on the jet.....lots of momentum......smashing into a 'net' or 'grill' not a steel plate solid....the glass would be nothing.....and the steel columns would be a Red Rover, Red Rover situation where the couplings would break. The wings, et al don't slice through steel....they smash beams (think of a hammer as opposed to a knife) and force their way to the interior by breaking the columns at their weakest points.

Is that how you've read the physics on this, then?

"Lots of weight on the jet...lots of momentum..."

So what about the building's momentum and weight...does that count in your world; or have movies, TV and video games given you a virtual lobotomy?

Come on genius, tell us about the building's weight and momentum. I'm anxious to hear how you've "read the physics" pertaining to the building.

The reason the jets disappear into the interior and parts don't come back out is that the jet's momentum carries everything (jet pieces, fuel, passengers, beams, hunks of floor, office desks, chairs, computers, workers....) forward....whatever sparks the jet fuel (plenty of metal to metal scraping going on or broken electrical connections for a sparking ignition source) causes the asymetrical fuel splash pattern based fire ball......

The building's momentum keeps it where it is. The lateral support of the trusses and concrete floors would be fighting to maintain their own momentum, so why didn't the jet slow down when it "disappeared into the interior and parts didn't come back out"? Because it was a cartoon! Sorry if that means the TV lies. Deal with it.

reply to post by Varemia

You clearly are lacking in understanding.

Yeah, so you keep saying.

reply to post by septic


You do understand that a missile would follow the same mechanics, right? I mean, it's not like a missile is more magical than an airplane. Technically, an airplane is a missile if it is being propelled at a target.

mis·sile/ˈmisəl/
Noun:
An object that is forcibly propelled at a target, by hand or mechanically.
A self-propelled or remote-controlled weapon that carries a conventional or nuclear explosive.
Synonyms:
projectile - rocket - bullet

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

You do understand that a missile would follow the same mechanics, right? I mean, it's not like a missile is more magical than an airplane. Technically, an airplane is a missile if it is being propelled at a target.

mis·sile/ˈmisəl/
Noun:
An object that is forcibly propelled at a target, by hand or mechanically.
A self-propelled or remote-controlled weapon that carries a conventional or nuclear explosive.
Synonyms:
projectile - rocket - bullet

Non sequitur (literary device)

A non sequitur (Latin for It does not follow; pronounced /ˌnɒnˈsɛkwɨtər/) is a conversational and literary device, often used for comedic purposes. It is a comment that, because of its apparent lack of meaning relative to what it follows,[1] seems absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing.

This use of the term is distinct from the non sequitur in logic, where it is a fallacy.

en.wikipedia.org...


We were talking about the impossibility of airplanes doing what we were shown on TV.

Why are you talking about missiles...am I boring you?

reply to post by septic


I'm talking about missiles because it was either you or another no-plane believer who said that they thought it was (a) fast-moving missile(s) that hit the tower, and that the people on the ground simply couldn't distinguish an airliner from a missile. Then, CGI was cleverly laid over the missile in real time on every news network and camera feed everywhere, with people in their news vans replaying the video and having no suspicions whatsoever over the idea of it being an airliner.

The physics clearly support that an airliner can and did go through the wall of the tower. You simply hand-wave all evidence that supports it.

Honestly, it's the sign of being irrational when you must reject all information that contradicts you in order to continue believing your story.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

I'm talking about missiles because it was either you or another no-plane believer who said that they thought it was (a) fast-moving missile(s) that hit the tower, and that the people on the ground simply couldn't distinguish an airliner from a missile. Then, CGI was cleverly laid over the missile in real time on every news network and camera feed everywhere, with people in their news vans replaying the video and having no suspicions whatsoever over the idea of it being an airliner.

Aren't you getting ahead of yourself here? Who gives a shootfire how they managed to fool us? JETS CAN'T DO THAT. No mater how many times they tell us with a straight face and a perfect smile that it CAN happen; NO, sorry...that sort of thing only happens in the movies. Are we so stupid as to believe otherwise? They probably can't believe we're so freaking stupid. Personally, I can't believe we're so freaking stupid either.

The physics clearly support that an airliner can and did go through the wall of the tower. You simply hand-wave all evidence that supports it.

Honestly, it's the sign of being irrational when you must reject all information that contradicts you in order to continue believing your story.

You simply hand-wave all evidence that supports it.

Snort. You wave the MIT paper around as if it means something, but admit you wouldn't know what it meant even had you read it. Your one redeeming quality appears to be admitting you don't know what you're talking about.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Varemia

The plane will and did shred, but it also damaged the building.

When?! When did the plane shred, smart guy? Physics says it should begin shredding as soon as it impacted the steel. Physics also says once shredded, it would not have nearly as much mass or momentum to damage the rest of the building. So how is it possible we saw a plane disappear into a gigantic steel cage without slowing down and then blow out the other side? We all saw waypastvne's lame 30 staged photos of all the carnage that blew out of the tower. Explain it to me please. Use your own language, please try not to 'wave it off".

reply to post by septic


You are wrong.

Originally posted by ATSskeptic
That's how I've read the physics on this.....lots of weight on the jet.....lots of momentum......smashing into a 'net' or 'grill' not a steel plate solid....the glass would be nothing.....and the steel columns would be a Red Rover, Red Rover situation where the couplings would break. The wings, et al don't slice through steel....they smash beams (think of a hammer as opposed to a knife) and force their way to the interior by breaking the columns at their weakest points.

The reason the jets disappear into the interior and parts don't come back out is that the jet's momentum carries everything (jet pieces, fuel, passengers, beams, hunks of floor, office desks, chairs, computers, workers....) forward....whatever sparks the jet fuel (plenty of metal to metal scraping going on or broken electrical connections for a sparking ignition source) causes the asymetrical fuel splash pattern based fire ball......


So what causes the flash?
O2 tank blowing (what did it burn (I know the pure O2 could create a quick hot Gus Grissom killing fire)?)?
reflection from the forward shock wave of the plane bending the tower glass?
flexing right wing as shock waves from other leading edges break the plane of the tower wall?

wrong pattern for landing lights of course.

I don't know if you've read previous posts in this thread, but earlier I posted about the right wing tip of the plane that hit the North Tower (clearly seen when examining the Naudet clip) reaching the building face before the right engine, which, of course, would be impossible on a direct hit such as the first strike.

No one even mentioned this after I did, which I thought was funny, because really I was waiting for someone to say maybe the plane didn't go straight in after all but on a 36 degree angle or something. Or at least some kind of intelligent explanation for this observed occurrence with the Naudet clip. Perhaps you could take a crack at it?

Many things have been countered, such as the flash, most saying it's a canister, while I suggested it may be an ignition etc.

I say it may be that in part because I was looking on youtube and found an air show where some Italian acrobatic team had a crash and it was as two groups of jets did a turn toward each other at 350 miles per hour, but failed to pass each other correctly and happened to directly collide.

The explosion of jet fuel was immediate upon impact, and I mean IMMEDIATE.

I was saying earlier that it might be good, you see, to find a plane collision and time how fast we get an explosion and compare that to strike 2. I'm claiming in part that it wasn't a 767 that hit the South Tower and the lag of timing before exploding is suspect I feel.

Also keep in mind I'm not saying the crash sequence is fake in the same way septic and pshea38 claim it is fake. But regardless of that difference, the lack of immediate explosion upon contact with the building, and there being no actual plane there, it bolsters the idea that what we do see in the *flash* IS possibly, a kind of ignition.

For those following along, I believe it was Yankee451 who suggested multiple missiles to explain the strikes and holes, myself, I do not agree with this conclusion of his.


Cheers

reply to post by septic


Since the common truther cannot grasp the concept of airplane verses steel without steel winning, maybe we should leave of the plane and just look at air verses steel. The minimum construction standards of a tanker like the one in the video below are:

The most common (and commonly collapsed) railcar is the DOT 111A100 class or commonly called a "general purpose" tank car. These cars are rated to a test pressure of 100 psig and a minimum burst pressure of 500 psig. Minimum carbon steel plate thickness is 7/16 inch. For a 23,000 gallon car, the tank length is about 55 feet.

7/16 is just under 1/4". The columns thickness at the point of impact were 1/4" and made of A36 mild steel which is about the lowest grade of steel you can get. The tanker is most likely made of mild steel also. So this tanker and the exterior columns are made of comparable materials.

Click play and let's see how steel stands up to the force of standard air pressure. (14.7 psi)



Truthers seem to think steel is some magical indestructible unyielding substance. It is not.

reply to post by waypastvne

maybe we should leave of the plane and just look at air verses steel.

No, lets not. Lets not look at diving boards, or bullets, or chickens, or air versus steel, let's look at a jet and a steel building.

Do you deny the building would "give as good as it gets" in a collision with a jet?

reply to post by septic



The tanker was subjected to less than 14 pounds per square inch and was destroyed in a split second.

The impact points on the columns were thousands of pounds per square inch and you expect it to survive......

Silly Truther

reply to post by waypastvne



Do you deny the building would "give as good as it gets" in a collision with a jet?

Originally posted by waypastvne

Truthers seem to think steel is some magical indestructible unyielding substance. It is not.

No, what you fail to understand and address is EQUAL OPPOSITE REACTION.

How many time does this have to be repeated before it sinks in? Obviously a long time for someone who had never taken a physics class.

When two objects collide the forces on each object is the same, equal. It doesn't matter how fast, or how heavy the plane was, the force the plane puts on the steel is the SAME as the force the building puts on the plane. The steel isn't magic is just has more mass than aluminum.

That is the physics you keep ignoring in all aspects of the collapses.

You other points, air for example, can be easily explained without contradicting those laws. Pressure can break anything if it is high enough. That is how water jets work, pressure, not velocity.

I'm not that concerned with the planes entering the building, it doesn't change much imo, but the claim that the planes also severed core columns is what I call complete BS on. The planes had no effect on the collapses, you have zero evidence of that. You can imagine it in your head all day, but unless you can prove it I will have to side with reality, and reality says the planes could not have severed core columns after being slowed and deformed by the outer columns.

And stop calling people 'silly truthers' some of us 'silly truthers' have far more physics and engineering experience than you do. That is obvious to see.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by waypastvne

 

Do you deny the building would "give as good as it gets" in a collision with a jet?

Oh Hell Yes. And the force applied exceeded the ultimate strength of both objects.

reply to post by ANOK


When have we ignored equal and opposite forces ? Equal and opposite forces is exactly what we are trying to explain to septic tank. We also like to add gravity into our explanations and we don't have potential energy pushing up. I understand you recently added safety factors together to get a higher FOS, I missed that post, is it true ?Have you never herd of the weakest link ?

reply to post by waypastvne

When have we ignored equal and opposite forces ?

Whenever you convince yourselves the jet's speed was enough to carry it through the building.

Whenever you convince yourselves 15 floors can crush 95.