IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

8 Pages V  « < 6 7 8  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Simple Calculations Showing The Official 911 Story Is Impossible, An explanation for the intelligent layman.

SanderO
post Jun 21 2011, 09:48 PM
Post #141





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Talayo,

911 was a complex technical event and puzzle to solve. It does not lend itself to sound bites. Good luck with that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
talayo
post Jun 21 2011, 10:25 PM
Post #142





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 31
Joined: 18-November 07
Member No.: 2,492



sanderso

You reply gives the impression that you do not have much of a sense of humor.

That was supposed to help to relax the exchanges!

Somebody states categorically that does not find you obnoxios in any manner and that is all you can respond.

I guess you decide to shelve Tolstoy and be brief with a sound bite.

The issue is as complicated as you want to make it.

If the towers were brought down by initial explosive charges, that is all that will need to be proven in court to dismisss the standard narrative.

The rest is interesting details, but you do not seem to think so.

Please let me know that whether your hypotesis is correct or the advocators of further demolition charges are correct what difference does it make from a legal stand point. A crime was committed. Now we are arguing about the "size of the crime". Either hypotesis is sufficient to put somebody in jail for a very long time, if not face capital punishment.

By the way, I do not believe that your hypothesis is correct or the multiple explosives is either.

Something very extraordinary took place that day that no theory/hypothesis formulated so far covers all the unusual events that took place that day.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jun 21 2011, 10:39 PM
Post #143





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Absolutely correct in that a crime is a crime is a crime. The research into what happened reveals facts about what the crime actually was... and can lead to how extensive the plot or conspiracy was...how long it may have taken to set up and so forth. Of course this leads to WHO may have done it. Sure if we have a dead body with bullet holes in it we know someone or one's likely murdered the person. But we have to solve the ACTUAL details of the crime.

Or as Mies Van Der Rohe said... "god is in the details".

So I don't believe the official story... but I don't accept the entire alternate one either because unfortunately.. I believe it too is plagued with incorrect statements... We don't want to "convict the wrong perp9s)... and we don't want to let anyone get away with the crime. We are a ways from solving this one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trimble
post Sep 11 2011, 07:10 PM
Post #144





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 10-August 09
Member No.: 4,537



QUOTE
So it seems that when high rise buildings made with lightweight concrete slabs collapse from 700+ feet not much of them or the contents on them seems to survive. We don't have much of anything in the historical record to refer to... no buildings collapse with massive piles of concrete and contents.. and none of that size has ever collapsed or been CDed... with the tallest structure being 25 stories of so... completely different animals.


There is a lot of dust generated shortly, much less than 25-stories, after initiation. Arguing that pulverisation is a unique preserve of very tall building demolitions won't cut it. What is unique about the aerated concrete and steel floorpan sections? If nothing, what else could explain the difference? As much as I agree that collapse propagation was through a chaotic collapse from dynamic overload (resulting localised air pressures and velocity of components would be enormous), I cannot understand the quantities of observed DUST, even appearing well above (!) the collapse front, being expelled perhaps 10 stories after initiation. There surely must be an active agent at the start of collapse to produce such volumes of dust so early on.

An observation. Take a look at the second tower collapse. At the very start of collapse, in order to achieve collapse, an overloaded floor or floors (in a fragmentary but unpulverised state - chaotic collapse ...) will obviously have to start to fall, and then impact the one below. For this to happen, all the air below these floor fragments, which we might presume to be very large indeed courtesy of the interconnected floor structure, must either make its way above those fragments, or out of the side of the building. But there appears to be little expulsion of anything out of the sides of the building at first, and this must suggest very fragmented floor pans : this would support a chaotic collapse initiation and propagation method over "pancakes" (and, rather neatly, suggests the loss of rigidity of your tube). It also begs the question: how can an entire floor or floors become massively fragmentary across their entire area (ie. not just at the impact damage sites). We would expect little sideways expulsion around the impact site, but lots more on more distant sides. We do not see that disparity. What we DO see is little expulsion anywhere at the apparent external collapse front. Indeed, and very oddly imo, we get more expulsions much further up the tower (smoke not dust I assume?). Something has caused massive breakup of the floorpans. And are the floorplans broken for many floors above the visible collapse front, for we are getting instant displacement of smoke many stories above (no, its not ducting or a vacuum)?

This post has been edited by trimble: Sep 11 2011, 07:14 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
goprisko
post Jan 10 2014, 09:13 AM
Post #145





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 5-January 14
Member No.: 7,649



QUOTE (Munkle @ May 16 2011, 04:32 PM) *
Reposted from DailyPaul.com

by James_Madison_Lives


An explanation for the intelligent layman.

The impossibility of the official story of the WTC tower collapses on 911 can be shown by a relatively simple set of calculations. These will show that the fuel required for the steel structures to reach temperatures necessary for them to weaken to the point of catastrophic failure was simply not present. Discussions over the temperatures which the fires may have reached misunderstands the concept of heat transfer. Not only must the fuel, in this case office synthetics and kerosene, burn hot enough; it must burn hot enough, long enough, and over a wide enough area to heat the steel frame to the point of failure. Steel is an excellent heat conductor. The steel frames were well-connected with extensive cross-bracing and gusset plates, allowing for efficient conduction. Thus the heat applied to the steel would have dissipated throughout the entire structure, which consisted of about 96,000 tons of steel, according to most estimates. This is similar to how if you stick one end of a crowbar into a fireplace, you will quickly feel the heat on the other end. This is heat conduction. This well-known property of steel applies regardless of scale, whether we are talking about a crowbar or the end of an I-beam over a bonfire.

Every material has a property called a specific heat, which is the energy required to raise one gram or other weight unit of that substance by one degree. Whether it is water, wood, aluminum, steel, or any other metal, these are well-known and established scientific values. Heat energy is measured in calories, joules, or BTU, which like feet and meters, are simply different ways of measuring the same thing. By definition, the energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree is called a calorie.

Some specific heats, in British Thermal Units (BTUs required to raise one pound of substance by one degree F):

aluminum: .22 BTU/lb.
copper: .09 BTU/lb.
iron: .11 BTU/lb.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific...tals-d_152.html

Another well-established fact of science is that different fuels have different heat contents, that is, amounts of heat energy, measured in calories, joules or BTUs which a weight unit of that fuel can deliver.

Some heat-energy content values:

wood: 7870 BTU/lb.
paper: 6500 BTU/lb.
gasoline: 19000 BTU/lb.

How much heat is actually delivered depends on how "clean" the burn is, meaning how well-supplied with oxygen and how thoroughly it combusts. The kerosene in a jet engine is atomized, that is, sprayed into the combustion chamber as an aerosol and mixed with heated, compressed air, which fires a very efficient, clean burn into carbon and water. The role of oxygen in a burn is important. Open air fires are often described as taking place under "atmospheric" or "ambient" conditions, which means the air supply consists of only what is available in the surrounding environment. This is in contrast to combustion under a forced air supply which causes any fuel to burn much hotter and faster.

Anyone who has tended a fire knows that even if a fire is dying out, if you put a new logs into the coals and stoke them with a bellows or a newspaper, the coals will glow red hot and the new log will burst into flames. This same principle is how a blast furnace generates so much heat, so named because air is "blasted" through coal or coke, in order to melt iron ore or steel. Convection currents are still considered atmospheric pressure. The idea that convection currents can provide the kind of mechanically forced air supply needed to bring steel to high temperatures is nonsense. However, we will grant the assumption in the official story that convection currents somehow "sucked" air in from the gashes in the buildings and replicated the mechanically forced air supply of a blast furnace.

Using the specific heat of steel, let us calculate the amount of energy it would require to heat the steel in the towers to 1800F, a significant temperature increase even though steel does not melt until it reaches 2700F. Again, specific heat is the energy required to raise a weight unit of a substance, like water or steel, by one degree, and steel is an excellent heat conductor. The towers contained 96,000 short tons of steel, about 35,000 of those in the strong central core, and most of the rest in the perimeter columns. The specific heat of carbon steel is .12 BTUs per pound. Doing a weight conversion from tons to pounds of steel, this means the energy required to bring this much steel to 1800F would be approximately:

1800 degrees F x .12 BTU/lb. x 192,000,000 lbs of steel = 41.5 billion BTU of energy


Much of the energy of the fuel in a blast furnace is lost to the atmosphere or heating of the interior walls of the melting chamber. The proportion of the energy in a burning fuel which is actually transferred to the target ore or scrap metal is called heat transfer efficiency. In the steel business, in a typical blast furnace, heat transfer efficiency is about 30 percent.

Burning office synthetics, acrylic carpet, composite upholstery, partitions, and computer plastics, yields a maximum of 38 million BTUs of energy per ton in an efficient, forced air burn. Therefore, if the total energy required to bring one tower's 96,000 tons of steel to 1800F is 41.5 billion BTU, and one ton of office synthetics potentially delivers 38 million BTUs, then making the very generous assumption that heat transfer efficiency in the towers approached that found inside a blast furnace, the number of tons of the office fuels needed to raise the temperature of the steel in a tower to 1800F would be:

41.5 billion BTU/(38 million BTU per ton of fuel x .30) = 3333 tons

Some of the burning material would have been paper, but paper contains less energy than plastic, about 13 million BTU/ton, versus 38 million/ton for plastic. Therefore, by assuming all the burning material was plastics, we are continuing to err on the side favorable to the official story.

The maximum amount of kerosene jet fuel which could have spilled into the buildings was about 30 tons, which was the fuel load for each flight. It is clear now that this amount of kerosene present, which also delivers a maximum of 38 million BTU/ton, comes nowhere near the more than 3000 tons of burning fuel required to raise the temperature of the steel frames this much, which is why the jet fuel is rightly dismissed as insignificant. This is also assuming every drop was retained in the buildings and none was lost in the fireballs, another generous assumption.

The fires in the WTCs were confined to a small number of floors, according to extensive survivor testimony and simple observation. However, in order to grant the assumptions most favorable to the official collapse theory, we will posit that fires were rampant across the top thirty stories of each building, the upper quarter of each. Tower One was hit at the 78th floor and Tower Two at the 92nd. Given our known energy requirement, and knowing that each floor of the Towers provided office space for an average of 136 workers, this means that the carpet etc. burning in the engulfed floors would amount to nearly 1 ton <i>per worker</i> of paper, computer plastic, carpet and cubicle partition, all burning in an oxygen rich, blast furnace environment, or over 120 tons of burning carpet etc. per floor.

Making the assumption fires were burning on every floor of the towers, then each of the 15,000 workers in each tower would have to account for over 400 lbs. of carpet, upholstery, and paper, all burning at maximum efficiency under a forced air supply. This would exclude the metal parts of computers like metal chassis, as well as metal file cabinets and server racks.

It is unlikely that heat was transferred from fuel to steel with anywhere near the heat transfer efficiency of a blast furnace designed for such a process, so the values arrived at here would most likely have to be doubled, tripled, or more under more realistic assumptions.

It is hard to imagine how each worker in an office can account for one ton of combustible office synthetics (again, excluding metal.) This is the weight equivalent of a Nissan Maxima parked next to every other worker. That's a lot of carpet.

Finally, one challenge which could be raised to this analysis is the assumption that such a scenario requires all the steel in the building to be heated to the same temperature in order to exhibit onset of failure characteristics. But if we discard the known fact that steel is an excellent heat conductor, and would wick the heat to all parts of the steel structure rapidly and evenly, and that the entire 96,000 tons was absorbing energy, and suppose that somehow all the heat was concentrated around the points of impact, which somehow melted or buckled only in these places, then we run across another problem. The problem with this hypothesis is that it leaves the 90% of the steel frames below the points of impact with all their strength intact, which would have made a free-fall collapse through the path of greatest resistance utterly impossible. We cannot hold that a free-fall collapse was possible because the steel in the towers was greatly weakened by the heat, then at the same time hold that the heat was focused in one place. One cannot have it both ways.

The "straw man" often used by defenders of the official story is that skeptics are claiming "fire does not melt steel," which is clearly absurd. Fire melts or makes steel malleable all the time, in a blast furnace. As always with such oversimplifications, the issue is not whether fire can melt steel, but what kind of fire, burning how hot, how long, and over what area. As we have seen, how high the temperatures may or may not have gotten is only one consideration. You can raise the temperature of the steel in a very small area to melting very quickly with the 5000F point flame of a blowtorch. But you are unlikely to take down the towers with that blowtorch. It is total energy delivered which is important.

The official account of the three towers' collapses, even Building 7 which was not hit by a jetliner, centers around the ridiculous notion that somehow the steel frames lost enough of their tensile strength through heat to become like "clay," and that the top floors where the damage was the greatest finally "buckled" and started a chain reaction in which the accumulating weight and momentum of collapsing floors forced the rest of the steel frame down. But it can be observed that even clay has a tensile strength and does not squash itself flat at free-fall speed. Moreover the <a href="http://dailypaul.com/node/151054">"momentum"</a> from a light body, the upper floors, cannot "plunge" through the upward static resistance of a much heavier body, the massive central core which remained largely undamaged.

In any event, the speed of such an unlikely collapse would have to be considerably slower than free-fall, to account for the resistance of the "clay." Free-fall speed could only be attained by all of the steel in the structure reaching melting point of 2800F, a condition which would require the adding of even more tons of office materials burning with the heat and efficiency of a blast furnace. The only other way for a steel frame to come down at free-fall is for it to be cut into small pieces all at once or in rapid progression, so that the remains of the structure are falling through air. This is precisely what a demolition is.

Keep in mind 1800F is far short, by about a thousand degrees, of the melting point of steel of about 2700F. Much more fuel would have been needed to raise the temperature of the frames to the melting point. Even if the steel had weakened appreciably at this temperature, and we have seen that it is unlikely that this much fuel was even available, never mind burning, on the floors on which there were fires, chief WTC engineer John Skilling said the perimeter columns alone, which were not the structures' main support (the cores were) could handle an increase in live loads of 2000% before failure.

In order to focus the argument, speculation over how the towers did come down has been deliberately placed outside the scope of this essay. Our purpose is to establish once and for all, according to the basic laws of thermodynamics, how they could not have.

---------

Weight, length, temperature unit converter
http://www.metric-conversions.org/

Specific heat unit converter
http://online.unitconverterpro.com/unit-co...cific-heat.html


On the web one can find videos of BLEVYs of various materials. The LPG BLEVY is the classic case, but Fuel OIl BLEVYs have occurred and have been documented. Of particular note was the BLEVY of a fuel oil tank in a refinery.

For those unfamiliar with BLEVYs, a BLEVY occurs when a flammable liquid is heated to it's critical temperature while confined in a vessel and that vessel subsequently fails catastrophically. The flammable material is instantly vaporized into a cloud with entrained air, which conflagrates.

BLEVYs of LPG have a yellow-orange color with very little black smoke.

BLEVYs of Fuel Oil/Jet Fuel have a red-brown color with a great deal of black smoke.

It is essential that one keep in mind that a BLEVY requires heating of the fuel to it's critical temperature, such that failure of it's containment causes immediate change of state from liquid to gas.

In the case of an aircraft collision with a building, however, there is no heating of the fuel prior to failure of the fuel tanks. Instead the fuel tanks rupture through collision with the building and the fuel is released at ambient temperature and is not pressurized. The fuel is dispersed in droplets and streams very much like water released from a water baloon hitting a wall. In such a case, rather than a BLEVY, one should see streamers of flaming fuel flying in all directions.

So, there are two problems with the videos of the plane impacts at WTC.

a) The flame color of the BLEVYs shown are those of LPG BLEVYs, not Jet Fuel BLEVYs.

b) The impact would not have generated a BLEVY of the plane's fuel in the first place.

You may argue with me if you wish, but before you do................

I majored in Chemistry and in Biology and minored in Physics, Calculus, History, Economics, at Purdue on the BS. Then I majored in Geology and Limnology and minored in Operations Research on the PhD.

I worked as a Chemist in a refinery which made Jet Fuel among other things and was responsible for Testing it and certifying that it conformed to specs.

I worked in various Steel Mills on the shop floor rolling steel, and later, creating controls systems for furnaces which made steel.

I studied beam theory, strength of materials, etc.

In short, unless you have an education in the physical sciences, don't yell at or flame me. I'll yell back.

Dr. George


Dr. George
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
goprisko
post Jan 10 2014, 10:22 AM
Post #146





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 5-January 14
Member No.: 7,649



QUOTE (goprisko @ Jan 10 2014, 08:13 AM) *
On the web one can find videos of BLEVYs of various materials. The LPG BLEVY is the classic case, but Fuel OIl BLEVYs have occurred and have been documented. Of particular note was the BLEVY of a fuel oil tank in a refinery.

For those unfamiliar with BLEVYs, a BLEVY occurs when a flammable liquid is heated to it's critical temperature while confined in a vessel and that vessel subsequently fails catastrophically. The flammable material is instantly vaporized into a cloud with entrained air, which conflagrates.

BLEVYs of LPG have a yellow-orange color with very little black smoke.

BLEVYs of Fuel Oil/Jet Fuel have a red-brown color with a great deal of black smoke.

It is essential that one keep in mind that a BLEVY requires heating of the fuel to it's critical temperature, such that failure of it's containment causes immediate change of state from liquid to gas.

In the case of an aircraft collision with a building, however, there is no heating of the fuel prior to failure of the fuel tanks. Instead the fuel tanks rupture through collision with the building and the fuel is released at ambient temperature and is not pressurized. The fuel is dispersed in droplets and streams very much like water released from a water baloon hitting a wall. In such a case, rather than a BLEVY, one should see streamers of flaming fuel flying in all directions.

So, there are two problems with the videos of the plane impacts at WTC.

a) The flame color of the BLEVYs shown are those of LPG BLEVYs, not Jet Fuel BLEVYs.

b) The impact would not have generated a BLEVY of the plane's fuel in the first place.

You may argue with me if you wish, but before you do................

I majored in Chemistry and in Biology and minored in Physics, Calculus, History, Economics, at Purdue on the BS. Then I majored in Geology and Limnology and minored in Operations Research on the PhD.

I worked as a Chemist in a refinery which made Jet Fuel among other things and was responsible for Testing it and certifying that it conformed to specs.

I worked in various Steel Mills on the shop floor rolling steel, and later, creating controls systems for furnaces which made steel.

I studied beam theory, strength of materials, etc.

In short, unless you have an education in the physical sciences, don't yell at or flame me. I'll yell back.

Dr. George


Dr. George


Now to the collision itself.....................

The diameter of the fuselage of a 767 is 4.72 m = 188 in = 16 ft. It is made of aluminum skin on longitudinals supported by circular frames. All sections are ~ 0.06" thick.

The floor spacing in the WTC towers is 12 ft.

The perimeter columns were spaced on 52 in centers = 3' 4". They were box beams 14" square. At the point of impact their wall thickness was > 3/4"
They were unitized by horizontal beams "spandrels" on 12' centers. Construction was welded.

This means that the 767 fuselage impacted at least one and possibly two floors and 4 to 5 columns.

To visualize this cut the bottom off an aluminum pop can and insert it into a french fry maker. Then press the handle.

The 767 fuselage is essentially open at the front. The nose is covered by a plastic radome, which has been dented in the past from striking birds.

The structural strength of the plastic radome can be neglected.

Upon impact, the fuselage will behave in similar manner to automobile bodies striking walls, or trees. The tree surrogate is the floor(s) in it's path and the columns.

The thin skin will fold under the impact, spreading the load from the initial paper thin section into a much wider area. Momentum will force more material into the impact zone
which will wrinkle. This crushing of the fuselage against the building structure absorbs significant energy, which among other things decelerates the aircraft.

~ 90 ft of fuselage lies in front of the wing. That is, 90 ft of fuselage must be crushed before the wing engages the structure.

For those bent upon driving this paper thin structure through the building, keep in mind that the fuselage is like a very thin soda can, and the building is like an old fashioned
wrought iron fence, only it has > 90,000 tons of mass in it's steel structure and the floor is 1/3 acre foot of reinforced concrete, essentially on edge.with a mass of 1200 tons.

In collision the 150 ton 767 is engaging 1200 - 2400 tons of floor, which is firmly tied into a 100,000 ton structure.

Yes, we have mv^2, but we have a ratio of masses on the order of 1:10, which means the ratio of v^2 is also 1:10. A 767 moving at 350 mph could accelerate the floor to 110 mph, if it could transfer all of it's energy into the floor. But the building structure transfers the energy into the balance of the structure so the ratio of masses is 1:1000
and the building could only be accelerated to 11 mph. The videos tell us that the building was not put into motion, that the structure resisted being accelerated.

So, given the building did not move, the plane's momentum had to carry it into the structure. Given the disparity between the two structures, the fuselage had to give, first.
The fuselage had to be crushed, shortening it. This crushing absorbed considerable energy.

The mass of the aircraft is divided as follows:

Fuselage - 34 tons
Wing - 50 tons
Empennage - 7 tons
Landing Gear - 3 tons
Fuel - 56 tons
Pax/Cargo - 24 tons

By the time the wing arrived at the building 17 tons of fuselage structure and 12 tons of payload were stationary.

Some 29 tons of mass had decelerated from impact velocity to zero. This significantly decelerated the remaining structure.
This rapid deceleration most likely sheared the wing structure, such that the wing encountered the building along it's entire length, rather than just at the root.

Encounter of the wing with the building further declerated 109 tons of mass to zero. The wing encounter lay across at least 3-4 floors and ~ 36 columns.

Remaining to be decerated was the aft half of the fuselage and the empennage and half the payload 36 tons.

Assuming an impact velocity = ~ Vne = 350 mph, it is likely that the wing impacted the structure at ~ 150 mph, and the aft half of the plane's fuselage stopped moving
about the time the aft part of the wing lay crushed against the building.

Yet no part of the planes was visible and no part of the planes fell from the building onto the forecourt.

I also note that despite unlimited funds, no full scale tests of this collision were made against a mockup.

For these reasons and the fire chemistry, the official scenario of the destruction of WTC is a hoax.

Yet to be determined is actuality.

Dr. George


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
goprisko
post Jan 21 2014, 03:04 PM
Post #147





Group: Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: 5-January 14
Member No.: 7,649



QUOTE (goprisko @ Jan 10 2014, 09:22 AM) *
Now to the collision itself.....................

The diameter of the fuselage of a 767 is 4.72 m = 188 in = 16 ft. It is made of aluminum skin on longitudinals supported by circular frames. All sections are ~ 0.06" thick.

The floor spacing in the WTC towers is 12 ft.

The perimeter columns were spaced on 52 in centers = 3' 4". They were box beams 14" square. At the point of impact their wall thickness was > 3/4"
They were unitized by horizontal beams "spandrels" on 12' centers. Construction was welded.

This means that the 767 fuselage impacted at least one and possibly two floors and 4 to 5 columns.

To visualize this cut the bottom off an aluminum pop can and insert it into a french fry maker. Then press the handle.

The 767 fuselage is essentially open at the front. The nose is covered by a plastic radome, which has been dented in the past from striking birds.

The structural strength of the plastic radome can be neglected.

Upon impact, the fuselage will behave in similar manner to automobile bodies striking walls, or trees. The tree surrogate is the floor(s) in it's path and the columns.

The thin skin will fold under the impact, spreading the load from the initial paper thin section into a much wider area. Momentum will force more material into the impact zone
which will wrinkle. This crushing of the fuselage against the building structure absorbs significant energy, which among other things decelerates the aircraft.

~ 90 ft of fuselage lies in front of the wing. That is, 90 ft of fuselage must be crushed before the wing engages the structure.

For those bent upon driving this paper thin structure through the building, keep in mind that the fuselage is like a very thin soda can, and the building is like an old fashioned
wrought iron fence, only it has > 90,000 tons of mass in it's steel structure and the floor is 1/3 acre foot of reinforced concrete, essentially on edge.with a mass of 1200 tons.

In collision the 150 ton 767 is engaging 1200 - 2400 tons of floor, which is firmly tied into a 100,000 ton structure.

Yes, we have mv^2, but we have a ratio of masses on the order of 1:10, which means the ratio of v^2 is also 1:10. A 767 moving at 350 mph could accelerate the floor to 110 mph, if it could transfer all of it's energy into the floor. But the building structure transfers the energy into the balance of the structure so the ratio of masses is 1:1000
and the building could only be accelerated to 11 mph. The videos tell us that the building was not put into motion, that the structure resisted being accelerated.

So, given the building did not move, the plane's momentum had to carry it into the structure. Given the disparity between the two structures, the fuselage had to give, first.
The fuselage had to be crushed, shortening it. This crushing absorbed considerable energy.

The mass of the aircraft is divided as follows:

Fuselage - 34 tons
Wing - 50 tons
Empennage - 7 tons
Landing Gear - 3 tons
Fuel - 56 tons
Pax/Cargo - 24 tons

By the time the wing arrived at the building 17 tons of fuselage structure and 12 tons of payload were stationary.

Some 29 tons of mass had decelerated from impact velocity to zero. This significantly decelerated the remaining structure.
This rapid deceleration most likely sheared the wing structure, such that the wing encountered the building along it's entire length, rather than just at the root.

Encounter of the wing with the building further declerated 109 tons of mass to zero. The wing encounter lay across at least 3-4 floors and ~ 36 columns.

Remaining to be decerated was the aft half of the fuselage and the empennage and half the payload 36 tons.

Assuming an impact velocity = ~ Vne = 350 mph, it is likely that the wing impacted the structure at ~ 150 mph, and the aft half of the plane's fuselage stopped moving
about the time the aft part of the wing lay crushed against the building.

Yet no part of the planes was visible and no part of the planes fell from the building onto the forecourt.

I also note that despite unlimited funds, no full scale tests of this collision were made against a mockup.

For these reasons and the fire chemistry, the official scenario of the destruction of WTC is a hoax.

Yet to be determined is actuality.

Dr. George



I have recently come across an analysis of the video footage of the WTC during the morning of 9/11.

http://www.septemberclues.info/imagery_analyses.shtml

I found several downloads of his full analysis, ~500Mb, titled:
September.Clues.(2008).DVDRip.Xvid.avi

This analysis is compelling.

He postulates that NO CIVILIAN AIRLINERS IMPACTED WTC or the Pentagon.

That no passengers died

That planes were NOT HIJACKED

That Al-Quaeda WAS NOT INVOLVED

That the WTC portion was for the purpose of demolishing obsolete buildings

That the Pentagon attack was for the purpose of destroying the record(s) of malfeasance exceeding 2.6 billion $$$$

That the entire op was for the purpose of enabling a grab of Mid-Eastern & Central Asian Resources. and to keep
the NeoCons in power.

INDY
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 21 2014, 05:01 PM
Post #148





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Dr. George

Welcome to the forum. Have you read the work of Jeff Prager regarding mini-nukes?

Do you think the nose landing gear assembly on a 767 might make it through one of the spaces where the windows were? And what about the main landing gear assemblies?

Do you think it possible that the strike points were prepared with other explosive devices that might have assisted penetration?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  « < 6 7 8
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th September 2014 - 11:53 PM