What is the flash before the plane hits the building?

Originally posted by NWOwned

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?

I do not see the right wing impacting first. I see the shadow from the nose appear on the right side of the building slightly before impact. But both wingtips enter the building at close to the same time.


If you watch @ 0:51 The live feed of the camera is also affected by the impact of AA11 into Tower 1

reply to post by ANOK


Sorry since this has gone so far afield from the actual topic.....but, the OP does refer to United 175 in particular, so....it is about what the airplane the size of a Boeing 767 can actually do:

The planes had no effect on the collapses....

It is stunning, to read someone write that. It's as if they cannot realize how much damage occurred just from the introduction of the high-velocity mass of the airplane and its structure and components.

....and reality says the planes could not have severed core columns after being slowed and deformed by the outer columns.

That also has no basis in rational contemplation. The overall mass of the airplane structure and components did not slow significantly, merely from the initial impact with the outer facade building structure. I don't think people are understanding the reality of momentum, from velocity, and the extremely short span of time involved.

Think about the speed of the airplanes (American 11 or United 175) at a value of (low) 600 to maybe 700 ft/sec. Then, think of the total width (depth) of the building itself. The figure I see is somewhere around 208 feet on each side, so that will also be its depth. From the initial entry point of the outer pieces, to the first contact with any of the central core components is less than one-half that distance --- correct?

Generously, let's call it 100 feet, shall we? At 600 to 700 ft/sec, can you see just how fast this happened, in real time?

Consider this too.....as the airplane structure and the mass contained within entered, it displaced those components of the building that got "pushed ahead".....any and all of the interior objects that would now contribute to the destruction wave as it propagated inside.

The key point to remember, and note in the *arguments* I keep reading is: The central core columns themselves did not have to be "severed" at all. This is a fallacious argument, and gets to the core (pun) of the lack of understanding re: the physics and dynamics involved.

The individual parts that were assembled to build the darn buildings could easily have failed at their points of attachment...these connections were subjected to extreme force side-loads that they were never designed to withstand. Enough parts and components of the structure would have been dislodged just from the trauma of impact, to seriously endanger the continued stability of the structure itself. Subsequent fires, and uneven heating and the resulting expansions from the heat contributed.

A team at the Purdue University made a video some years ago, and I have not seen it posted lately. They used sophisticated super-computer processing and software to give an impression, in order to help visualize a very likely scenario. Based on the laws of physics....which can be numerically calculated, and the computed can "crunch" those numbers.

Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack

.....the World Trade Center simulation showed that it was the weight of the 10,000 gallons of fuel more than anything else that caused the damage.

"It is the weight, the kinetic energy of the fuel that causes much of the damage in these events," Hoffmann says. "If it weren't for the subsequent fire, the structural damage might be almost the same if the planes had been filled with water instead of fuel."

...

"To estimate the serious damage to the World Trade Center core columns, we assembled a detailed numerical model of the impacting aircraft as well as a detailed numerical model of the top 20 stories of the building," Sozen says. "We then used weeks of supercomputer time over a number of years to simulate the event in many credible angles of impact of the aircraft."

...

Sozen says the actual damage to the building's facade that was observed was identical to the damage shown by the numerical simulation.

"We calibrated our calculations using data from experiments we had conducted to evaluate the energy imparted from fluid moving at high speed to solid targets," he says. "We concluded that the damage map we calculated for our numerical model of the building would correspond closely to the actual extent of the damage."

Video:

Originally posted by septic
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.

Are you not denying the equal and opposite force of the plane on the building ?

I said the force exceeded the ultimate strength of both objects, I am therefore acknowledging the force of both objects.

Exactly how much force do you think the plane put on the building ? Is it the same as the force the building put on the plane? If you don't say yes you're going to have to do some serious back-pedalling.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by NWOwned

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?

I do not see the right wing impacting first. I see the shadow from the nose appear on the right side of the building slightly before impact. But both wingtips enter the building at close to the same time.


If you watch @ 0:51 The live feed of the camera is also affected by the impact of AA11 into Tower 1

From about 16-19 seconds of this:



It does look to me that the outer right wing causes damage (or something in the building causes damage) to the building before the engine does. The apparent damages seems to start right and move left actually then appearing in the gap between hits where the engine would be, instead of the damage occurring left and sweeping right as the engine and taper of the wing would sweep the damage right and not left...

So not only does the outer right wing portion appear to arrive at the building before the right engine, the "sweep" of damages appears to run right to left where it in actuality it should run from left to right, the right tip being furthest back etc.


Cheers

Originally posted by ATSskeptic

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.

Does the flash occur in the exact same spot on both aircraft and is the timing of the flash similar in both instances?

Originally posted by septic
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".

edit on 31-10-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)

No. I'd like you to explain how you seem to know for a fact that all those photos were "staged." What led you to believe this? Was it anything in the actual photos, or was it simply because they disagree with your worldview?

Originally posted by waypastvne



Exactly how much force do you think the plane put on the building ?

Exactly the same as the force the building is putting on the plane. So whenever one of you geniuses tries to explain a jet can slice a building like it wasn't even there by noting the plane's mass, momentum and kinetic energy, you are leaving out the other half of the equation...the building's mass, momentum and kinetic energy.

The building hits the jet just as fast and hard as the jet hits the building. In your world, if the jet was hanging in mid-air and the building hit the jet at 500 miles an hour, the jet would still cut right through the building like it wasn't even there. In the real world, the building's MUCH larger mass and MUCH stronger construction wins, every time.

Originally posted by Varemia

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

Originally posted by septic
Explain it to me please. Use your own language, please try not to 'wave it off".

No. I'd like you to explain how you seem to know for a fact that all those photos were "staged." What led you to believe this? Was it anything in the actual photos, or was it simply because they disagree with your worldview?

"No."

Because you can't.

my "worldview"???

Project much?

In your world, physics means nothing. You'll believe anything the TV tells you, regardless how impossible it is.

Want to know why I know the photos were staged? Because a plane can't possibly do what we were shown on TV! A wheel doesn't trump a multi-ton exterior wall panel, but even if it did, you'd see some evidence that the wall panel fell 6 dozen stories...it would be twisted and bent from the impact with the pavement! Where's the CRATER and the shattered concrete?

IT WAS A STAGED PROPAGANDA SHOT. Sorry if that means your leaders aren't so much leading you as preying on you.

It is you who is denying reality to suit your own "world view", however pathetic and childish it is.

Originally posted by septic
you are leaving out the other half of the equation...the building's mass, momentum and kinetic energy.

The buildings had mass, but its momentum was 0.000 and its kinetic energy was 0.000.

The building hits the jet just as fast and hard as the jet hits the building. In your world, if the jet was hanging in mid-air and the building hit the jet at 500 miles an hour, the jet would still cut right through the building like it wasn't even there.

On Real World the plane and every thing in it, the fuel, the air, the oxygen tank, the landing gear, the passport, are dynamic in relation to its environment.
The building and every thing in it, the desk, the chairs, the drywall, the carpet, the air, are static in relation its environment. You cannot switch the 2 and have the same results.
Only in the vacuum of space, would which one is moving be irrelevant.

In the real world, the building's MUCH larger mass and MUCH stronger construction wins, every time.

The only part of the buildings mass that's important is the part that was broken pushed in and moved, after it failed the rest of the building mass is irrelevant.

reply to post by waypastvne

The buildings had mass, but its momentum was 0.000 and its kinetic energy was 0.000.

It would try to maintain that state. The speed of the plane does not mean it disintegrates everything it touches. The building hits the plane at the same speed as the plane hits the building. It's the law.

The only part of the buildings mass that's important is the part that was broken pushed in and moved,

Same for the plane.

The only important part of the plane is the part that is shredded by the steel knives of the tower walls. The equation works both ways, therefore steel knives beat aluminum sheet metal.

For a panel to be "pushed in", it would need to overcome the lateral support of the concrete floors behind it. This is an old wive's tale, note in this still from ProudBird's video:



Source

Notice the wingtip highlighted in red; the building has already collided with the jet at 500 mph, yet instead of the building blasting through the jet, we see the reverse. Note the wing tip is about to strike a floor. Even in that simulation video, they show no parts of the plane bouncing off as it slices through laterally reinforced steel kinves.

Below you see the gash cut through the floor, but why didn't the floor cut through the wing? A four inch thick concrete slab laid over a steel pan and trusses is surely a match for the wingtip, why would they create a model that said otherwise? The floor hit the wingtip at 500 MPH, remember? Why wouldn't the building shred the wingtip instead of the reverse?



The rest of the plane had already encountered the building at the time the wingtip collided, and since a jet's mass is just the sum of its parts, just as a building's mass is the sum of its parts, the mass of the wingtip was negligible compared to the building that hit it at 500 MPH.

reply to post by septic

The only important part of the plane is the part that is shredded by the steel knives of the tower walls. The equation works both ways, therefore steel knives beat aluminum sheet metal.

Well, its not a football game so there is no "beating" the other side. Both lose. Which is what we witnessed on 9/11. The wing and the plane lost and the areas of the building that "challenged" the plane also lost. Both failed. End of story.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic

 

The only important part of the plane is the part that is shredded by the steel knives of the tower walls. The equation works both ways, therefore steel knives beat aluminum sheet metal.

Well, its not a football game so there is no "beating" the other side. Both lose.

I don't see the plane losing at all. It doesn't crumple or even slow down. It is clearly a cheap video effect.

reply to post by septic

I don't see the plane losing at all.

Of course not, the effect of the "loss" is inside the building. Geez, it really can't be any simpler.

It doesn't crumple or even slow down.

Well, actually I am sure it slowed down. Just not perceptively. And the existing videos of the impacts are not of sufficient quality to measure the effect. You would have needed to have a high speed - high resolution camera forcused on the impact to capture and measure that effect.

It is clearly a cheap video effect.

What's a cheap video effect?

Originally posted by septic
therefore steel knives beat aluminum sheet metal.

The aluminum was stronger than the steel, I showed you the specs. The spar is also latterly braced, just like the floors, not only with the ribs but also the dynamic force of the fuel. Dynamic force is real otherwise it wouldn't have a name would it ? You should look up dynamic force Truther.

This topic is gettting stupid. I have seen this exact argument in 2003. It gets no where, segways to holograms and pods and other proven disinformation theories started by the official story pushers and made to look like its a truther claim when in fact 911 truthers have been fighting these theories and distancing themselves from it.

Originally posted by septic
"No."

Because you can't.

It's not that I can't. It's that I legitimately don't want to. I'm not being paid to pander to your inability to understand simple concepts.

my "worldview"???

Project much?

Yes. Your worldview is that the planes couldn't have gone through the building. You believe this fullheartedly, and no matter what evidence is presented, you will never change your worldview, because to do so you would have to revert everything you know and accept an embarrassing truth about yourself. I know this feeling, because it has happened to me in the past many times, when I have believed something and thought I had all the facts, only to find out that I was being stupid the entire time. The difference is that I owned up to it, and learned from it. Now, I don't trust anyone, no matter how convincing they seem to be. I look at the sources of my information and I find rational tests for everything.

You lack reason. You reject literally everything in order to believe your story, and nothing anyone says or shows you will change it, because it is no longer a hypothesis for you. It is your religion, essentially.

In your world, physics means nothing. You'll believe anything the TV tells you, regardless how impossible it is.

Right. My high school physics class must have been based off TV then. I have a rudimentary understanding, something which you seem to either lack, or have attained a serious misunderstanding in.

Want to know why I know the photos were staged? Because a plane can't possibly do what we were shown on TV! A wheel doesn't trump a multi-ton exterior wall panel, but even if it did, you'd see some evidence that the wall panel fell 6 dozen stories...it would be twisted and bent from the impact with the pavement! Where's the CRATER and the shattered concrete?

IT WAS A STAGED PROPAGANDA SHOT. Sorry if that means your leaders aren't so much leading you as preying on you.

It is you who is denying reality to suit your own "world view", however pathetic and childish it is.

So, your argument is that it couldn't be because you don't believe it. There is no undeniable marker in the pictures or videos. There is no evidence of a setup. It is simply your personal incredulity that makes it so that you are certain that it is all fake.

Good luck with that.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
This topic is gettting stupid. I have seen this exact argument in 2003. It gets no where, segways to holograms and pods and other proven disinformation theories started by the official story pushers and made to look like its a truther claim when in fact 911 truthers have been fighting these theories and distancing themselves from it.

So, do you believe that Flights 11 and 175 struck the towers on the morning of September 11, 2001 as described in what you would call the "official story"?

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
This topic is gettting stupid. I have seen this exact argument in 2003. It gets no where, segways to holograms and pods and other proven disinformation theories started by the official story pushers and made to look like its a truther claim when in fact 911 truthers have been fighting these theories and distancing themselves from it.

Honestly, I preferred debating demolitions over this bull-honkey. At least there is a slim possibility for demolitions. The topic in this thread is based entirely on a misunderstanding of primary impact physics.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by septic
therefore steel knives beat aluminum sheet metal.

The aluminum was stronger than the steel, I showed you the specs. The spar is also latterly braced, just like the floors, not only with the ribs but also the dynamic force of the fuel. Dynamic force is real otherwise it wouldn't have a name would it ? You should look up dynamic force Truther.

The aluminum-vs-steel, strength-vs-weight issue is one that is commonly misunderstood, especially among jib makers, sometimes even among engineers.

The misconception arises from the partial truth that there are aluminum alloys that are as strong as, or stronger than, steel. It’s more accurate to say that there are some aluminum alloys that are stronger than some steel alloys.

One of the most widely used high-strength aluminum alloys is alloy 6061 with T6 temper. Pound for pound, 6061-T6 is stronger than some steel alloys, but not as strong as others. The fact is, for any given high-strength aluminum alloy, there are higher-strength steels that outperform aluminum in strength-to-weight. Factors other than strength and weight eventually dictate which material is a better choice for a particular application.

Basically:

Strength refers to the maximum load that a material can be subjected to without yielding.

Stiffness refers to how much a material bends when a load is applied.

Stiffness is quantified by a parameter called Modulus of Elasticity. Without getting overly technical, we can look at the relative stiffness of steel versus aluminum by comparing this parameter:

Aluminum’s modulus is about 10 million psi.

Steel’s modulus is about 3 times that: 30 million psi.

That means, for a common structural shape used in jib design, (for example, a 2-inch square tube), and for the same limit of bending with the same load, the wall thickness of an aluminum tube would need to be more than 3 times the wall thickness of a steel tube.

www.cineventions.com...

So in general, to build an aluminum building to be as STIFF as the WTC, they'd have to make the columns three times as thick as steel.

Furthermore, you are being deceiving when you talk about the 1/4 inch steel. The steel was formed into a box shape, meaning the wing would impact not just the face of the steel, but the edges as well, and while the aluminum is hitting the steel, the steel would be slicing the aluminum in return. Still further, in front of every floor was a spandrell of steel plate four feet wide tying each column together with the floors.

To be as stiff as the steel, the aluminum would need to be three times the thickness of the steel, and it is my understanding the skin was 0.035 to 0.037 inches thick. The spars you keep squawking about are nothing compared to just the steel walls, not to mention the floors and trusses.

What we saw on TV was impossible.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
This topic is gettting stupid. I have seen this exact argument in 2003. It gets no where, segways to holograms and pods and other proven disinformation theories started by the official story pushers and made to look like its a truther claim when in fact 911 truthers have been fighting these theories and distancing themselves from it.

So, do you believe that Flights 11 and 175 struck the towers on the morning of September 11, 2001 as described in what you would call the "official story"?

YES! undoubtedly a Boeing 767 stuck the south tower. Flight 175 being focused on is the biggest laugh and also suspicious considering it is the plane that has the most footage of it crashing into the towers. The most evidence.

Flight 11, not really any 'good' footage that proves that it was Flight 11 but lets assume it was.
Flight 93 not may eyewitnesses.No footage. Some accounts are conflicting.
Flight77 Witnesses, some conflicting.No real footage that proves that it was flight 175 but lets assume so.

Flight 175 thousands of witnesses, many pictures and good video. Not contest as if it was a plane or not.

The whole discussion about controlled demolitions and other nonsensical theories are meant to misdirect you as a magician would.