What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

reply to post by septic


What is inconsistent about the jet impact videos? Each one is taken from a different angle, with different cameras, each getting different reflections of light. It's logistically impossible to impose a jet onto every one. Someone has to have a video at home without the jet, yet somehow it has never surfaced.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

Please read the thread, or any number of the hundreds of threads where the OSers distractions of water cutting steel, aluminum rail guns, Kamikazes, etc. are debated.

This thread is not about any of your distractions, it is about the damage to columns 145-152 and their left-to-right directional damage. If you can't address the damage without mentioning your distractions, please refrain from posting.

Answer the question. How does it work? How can water cut steel but steel not be cut by aluminum?

reply to post by snowcrash911

Answer the question. How does it work? How can water cut steel but steel not be cut by aluminum?

No. It is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Stick to the topic, or move along.

reply to post by septic


But it's not irrelevant to the topic at all, septic. Your whole theory depends upon the idea that aluminum can't cut through steel, no matter how fast it's going! This well know effect of a waterjet cutting through steel should cause us to question that.

So it's very relevant, on topic, and not a distraction. Go ahead and answer the question.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

Answer the question. How does it work? How can water cut steel but steel not be cut by aluminum?

No. It is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Stick to the topic, or move along.

Well, you keep asking how an aluminum wing (ignoring the interior structural spar) can cut through a steel support and then keep ignoring the answer.

As to the topic - you do realize that all the photos you have of the facade of the building were taken after there was a massive explosion inside the building, correct? Therefore any damage shown in those photos is a result of both the plane impact and the explosion. So, if you could please, detail exactly what was a result of the explosion and what was a result of the impact.

Originally posted by septic
Are wings designed to cut through steel?

Wouldn't the mass be distributed over a wider area than say, the fuselage? Wouldn't the fuselage be decelerating against the building the instant it contacted it? By the time the wing tips contacted columns 145-152. How much energy had they lost, and how much mass did the last 12 feet of wing have?

Come, I'm calling BS on the plane claim...isn't that your claim? If you're so sure all my evidence isn't even worth looking at, much less discussing, why? What's your proof the last 12 feet of two different jet wings could cause such similar damage in two separate crashes, at different trajectories and speeds?

This is what the above tells me. It tells me: how about you either (A) stick to your guns or (B) move along yourself instead? Don't be whinging when you open a thread specifically to defend your claims. Answer the very pertinent questions put to you. There is no point in proceeding if:

* You don't acknowledge basic principles of physics
* You don't acknowledge the duplicity of claiming everything is 'fake', yet your cited photos are 'real'

This thread is a vehicle to promote NPT, you've admitted it is. You're "calling BS on the plane claim", counter to all principles of science, reason, evidence, rationality, logic, journalism, epistemology and historiography. If you think you can manipulate the discussion by declaring whatever rubs you the wrong way "off-topic", you've got another thing coming.

Originally posted by septic
You're making an ass of yourself?

Don't put words in my mouth. If you think the wing had the mass and energy to bend the columns on wrong sides and in the wrong direction, have at it. You'll succeed where MIT failed. The facts are that no one has been able to prove a jet wing can do what the TV showed, and now you have the benefit of hind sight to scrutinize the damage. Another nail in the plane theory's coffin.

It's obvious you are a no plane theorist (and proud of it) and this is a no plane theory thread, with all the usual memes. Pseudophysics as espoused by NPT is on topic, it would seem.

reply to post by ANOK


FROM your source, let's look at the details again:

The water pressure is typically between 20,000 and 55,000 pounds per square inch (PSI). The water is forced through a 0.010" to 0.015" in diameter orifice (hole) in a jewel.

Now, the fine diameter of the orifice is to direct the jet of water, in order to provide a precise and narrow cutting line.

What we really need to look at is the pressure, in PSI, that leads to the steel giving way. (And, the fact that a fine abrasive is added to the water is moot. It simply adds to the effectiveness, for that particular function).


NOW....to understand the force applied by the airliner wing and rest of its structure, when it struck the building, you have to start doing some mathematical calculations, using physics. Use the velocity of the airplane, and its overall mass to get the amount of Newtons of force "pushing" against the stationary object (building) and its components.

But, once you know that figure, in Newtons, then you have to calculate (or a rough estimate will suffice) the surface area of the points of contact, such as wing leading edges, and the mostly round frontal shape of the fuselage.

However, let's just focus on the wings, first. Since it's about those "columns", here. You can do the work (I'd do it for you, but you learn better by doing it yourself) by researching for the online calculators that exist out there, and getting into the physics of it that way. One specific area of interest that can help is the phrase "terminal ballistics". That usually refers to bullets, but since the airplane was a sort of projectile, it's apt.

OH, and the apparent lateral movement of the damage patterns, that are the (waste of time and energy) "Point" of this ridiculous thread??

The wings' own geometry is the most likely instigator of the various skewing and chaotic damage. They had a "slicing" component, but it's far more complicated than that. There is also the aspect of friction, and "pulling" or "dragging" motions to account for as well. Such behavior would have been extremely short-lived --- the entire sequence of impact lasted for only a faction of a second --- but, the resulting damage patterns reflect this.

There certainly were no convoluted and insane-to-even-suggest "missiles" in a "barrage" from all over hell and gone. These sorts of assertions are usually made by persons who have an agenda, or agendas, that doesn't or don't involve any shred of "truth" as a motivator. These are people who resemble a fictional character from children's stories, who generally is depicted as living under a bridge or culvert, and comes out to cause mayhem and wreak havoc. And are always anonymous.

Liquid travelling at 500mph will probably give you about 100psi, plus the water jet cutter is applied to the surface for a long duration, far longer than a plane crash, plus it would be impossible to use jet fuel as a water cutter jet as it would most likely ignite long before it was able to cut.

reply to post by Varemia

What is inconsistent about the jet impact videos? Each one is taken from a different angle, with different cameras, each getting different reflections of light. It's logistically impossible to impose a jet onto every one.

The question was why I think the damage images are real if I think the impact images are tampered with. The trajectories, shadows, shapes, sizes, layer mask edges, etc. are inconsistent from image to image.

It is certainly not "logistically impossible" to impose a jet on every one, and every one has been proven to have been tampered with. If you think you can prove the images genuine, have at that too.

Someone has to have a video at home without the jet, yet somehow it has never surfaced.

Now who's assuming. What difference does it make how they suppressed factual images? The ones they have offered as proof are frauds.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by septic
You're making an ass of yourself?

Don't put words in my mouth. If you think the wing had the mass and energy to bend the columns on wrong sides and in the wrong direction, have at it. You'll succeed where MIT failed. The facts are that no one has been able to prove a jet wing can do what the TV showed, and now you have the benefit of hind sight to scrutinize the damage. Another nail in the plane theory's coffin.

It's obvious you are a no plane theorist (and proud of it) and this is a no plane theory thread, with all the usual memes. Pseudophysics as espoused by NPT is on topic, it would seem.

Don't hang around on my account.

reply to post by septic


Tough luck.

Why do you claim your photos are real while simultaneously claiming every other medium is 'fake'? Why do you maintain an atrocious double standard in this regard? Why do you claim aluminum can't penetrate steel while it has been demonstrated to you that considerably "softer", or even liquid substances can penetrate steel?
Why do you ignore plausible explanations given for the column deformation and contorting, and why do you demand a level of detail in collision dynamics from the "plane huggers", while at the same time refusing to provide even a sliver of evidence for a missile, other than your imagination and quote mined, misinterpreted witness accounts?

These are pertinent questions, and you need to answer them. I understand you want me to go away, because it beats having to answer these questions forthrightly.

reply to post by Insolubrious

Liquid travelling at 500mph will probably give you about 100psi.....

"probably"??

Show your work, show the math. Don't just drop one like that, then fly away.

I call that the "seagull method".

reply to post by hooper

Well, you keep asking how an aluminum wing (ignoring the interior structural spar) can cut through a steel support and then keep ignoring the answer.

What answer? I ask what caused the left-to-right directional damage and all you can do is point to an aluminum spar? Have you demonstrated how a lightweight aluminum spar striking straight-on at a 35 degree wedge from the right can cause left to right damage of the 14 inch square steel box columns with two protruding, wing-slicing edges?

Why didn't the spar cause the same damage on the other side of the gash; why only the left sides of both towers? It should be explainable since it happened twice, with different planes at different speeds and trajectories. None of you provide an answer, and you won't even attempt to show me how my analysis is incorrect. All I see is a repeated attempt to undermine and clutter the thread with gibberish. Why the hell should I do anything but ignore folks who treat me and my material with such disdain? You're obviously not here for a discussion.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Liquid travelling at 500mph will probably give you about 100psi, plus the water jet cutter is applied to the surface for a long duration, far longer than a plane crash, plus it would be impossible to use jet fuel as a water cutter jet as it would most likely ignite long before it was able to cut.

Firstly, yes, to cut harder materials with softer materials, you have to provide plenty of kinetic energy, and preferably you focus this kinetic energy on a small surface area. A water jet cutter achieves both these things. There does not have to be an abrasive added; you can cut steel just as easily with tap water. To cut steel with water, you need a considerably higher velocity and a considerably higher pressure than you'd need if you were "using aluminum".

Since you mention "applying to the surface for a long duration", shall we up the ante a little bit?

(PhysOrg.com) -- A device developed by Sandia National Laboratories researchers that shoots a blade of water capable of penetrating steel is headed to U.S. troops in Afghanistan to help them disable deadly improvised explosive devices, or IEDs — the No. 1 killer and threat to troops in Afghanistan, according to the Pentagon.

Source

reply to post by snowcrash911

These are pertinent questions, and you need to answer them. I understand you want me to go away, because it beats having to answer these questions forthrightly.

Wrong again; you're not so imposing as to be avoided, it's that your questions are irrelevant and have already been answered. If you must have the floor, stop nipping at my heals like an attention-starved Pomeranian; read the thread and ask something new and important, or even better, answer the question asked in the OP. Try to come up with something original and I might give you the time of day.

reply to post by ProudBird

Show your work, show the math.

It's the OS entitlement, stupid!

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

Wrong again; you're not so imposing as to be avoided, it's that your questions are irrelevant and have already been answered.

False.

reply to post by snowcrash911


Sorry, did I miss your explanation of how jet wings can better explain the left-to-right damage of columns 145-152? Apologies if I did.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by septic

 

But it's not irrelevant to the topic at all, septic. Your whole theory depends upon the idea that aluminum can't cut through steel, no matter how fast it's going! This well know effect of a waterjet cutting through steel should cause us to question that.

So it's very relevant, on topic, and not a distraction. Go ahead and answer the question.

Pressure.

Now answer mine.