Wiley Coyote outlines of jets

SpringHallConvert said:
Lawlsauce!
Click to expand...
Midas laughs at the ass' ears you have grafted to yoursef this time. You have proven that you lack the background to understand what the damage done by an aircraft would look like.

The USS Hinsdale was hit by a twin-engine attack bomber. The damage is consistant, based on the apparent diameter of the fuselage entry hole, wing span and placement of the engines, with a strike by a Mitsubishi G4M, JIN designation Navy Type 1 Attack Bomber, popularly known as the "Hamaki" (Cigar) because of the shape of the fuselage. An aluminum aircraft doing no more than 300MPH can hit steel with enough force to cause it to fail.

The steel in the perimeter columns of the WTC was not case-hardened armor plating. It was relatively soft and flexible. It had to be so to have some give and rebound in a strong wind.

The force of the airliners striking the perimeter columns was enough to flex them beyond their recovery points. The welds failed.

You can see that the outlines of the jet are distorted somewhat by the fact that joints above and below the impact point failed. The result is rather similar to the pixelation of an image in a program that cannot provide any better sesolution.
 

Attachments

  • APA-120_Hinsdale-kamikaze.jpg
    APA-120_Hinsdale-kamikaze.jpg
    31.8 KB · Views: 3
  • Betty.jpg
    Betty.jpg
    14.6 KB · Views: 223
I've about had it with all these retarded Truther scientists and their insane claims....an orbiting Death Star...holograms and the like...ALL of these arguments have been dealt with before. Our Truther scientists know this and are just pretending they don't. Every single argument here has been done to death elsewhere.

So I post once again, the definitive paper about the impact into the WTC. If you do the actual math - you've heard of this math stuff - right?, you will see that what happened is exactly what you'd expect to happen.

Wierzbicki, T. and Teng, X. (2003). “How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center.” J. of Impact Enrg. 28, pp.601–625

Yes. yes, we know all about all the Truther PhDs and their research scientists. I doubt they can understand this paper. Anyone who wants can pm me an e-mail address and I will forward it to them.
 
Last edited:
Dash80 said:
^ who is this idiot?
Click to expand...

9/11 Truther, Holocaust denier, believes that anyone who doesn't buy into his acid-trip fantasies believes everything the government/TV says, seems to think everyone is American...
 
And anyone who disagrees is a paid shill of aforementioned all powerful evil gubmint that can't seem to stop them posting.


Or


A spectacularly successful troll.
 
Ah, I see. I've been away, I didn't have the misfortune of bumping in to this particular troll until now.

Lawlsauce... how very mature. :rolleyes:
 
Dash80 said:
Ah, I see. I've been away, I didn't have the misfortune of bumping in to this particular troll until now.

Lawlsauce... how very mature. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He was on a 30-day leave of absence at the time you returned. He basically treats everything with a liberal dose of personal incredulity, and if challenged, resorts to "But you believe everything the gubmint/media complex says, therefore your argument is invalid."
 
thedopefishlives said:
He was on a 30-day leave of absence at the time you returned. He basically treats everything with a liberal dose of personal incredulity, and if challenged, resorts to "But you believe everything the gubmint/media complex says, therefore your argument is invalid."
Click to expand...

Lovely.

Meh... Course I believe what the gubmint tell me, that's what us shills are paid for right?

:D
 
Scott Sommers said:
I've about had it with all these retarded Truther scientists and their insane claims....an orbiting Death Star...holograms and the like...ALL of these arguments have been dealt with before. Our Truther scientists know this and are just pretending they don't. Every single argument here has been done to death elsewhere.

So I post once again, the definitive paper about the impact into the WTC. If you do the actual math - you've heard of this math stuff - right?, you will see that what happened is exactly what you'd expect to happen.

Wierzbicki, T. and Teng, X. (2003). “How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center.” J. of Impact Enrg. 28, pp.601–625

Yes. yes, we know all about all the Truther PhDs and their research scientists. I doubt they can understand this paper. Anyone who wants can pm me an e-mail address and I will forward it to them.
Click to expand...

In a nutshell:

  • They assume that the mass of the wings+engine is 30 metric tons, distribute that mass evenly throughout the wingspan, assume an average wing height of 0.48 m, and apparently imply a material density of 2.9 g/cm3, which is slightly more than that ot aluminium (2.7), but well below that of steel (7.8).
  • They model the wing as a box beam, just as the WTC columns are box columns (this is justified by citing literature)
  • The equivalent thickness of the "skin" of the wings, given their assumed mass and dimensions, is then 112mm, which is more than 10 times that of the perimeter columns
  • As the wing spans over 50 columns, they assume that 1/50 of the mass of the wing, or 600 kg, interacts with each column
  • Some more assumptions about plane speed (240 m/s), steel grade (A36) seem to be pretty close to fact, as far as I can check them.

Being actual experts on impact engineering, and citing relevant litarture, they point out that such impacts are largely governed by local inertia, not by material hardness and such things - even though of course certain material properties determine how much energy is disspipated by plastic deformation and fracture.


So, for a layperson, the interesting thing to realize is that the wings, far from being thin, flimsy skins, put a lot more material and mass to each wing-to-column impact that the steel columns do, and that's why they "win" in the sense that they keep moving instead of being stopped. Both however get destoyed, of course. Destruction of the plane occurs locally "inside" the box columns, that's why it can't be seen from the outside


If I were to look critically into this work, I'd poibt out the following things:
  1. Estimating wing mass as 1/4 plane mass seems very crude - I'd have to check how this is justified (they do have a reference to their own earlier work)
  2. The plane mass of 120 tons apparently includes some 30-35 tons of fuel, much of which would be found in the wings. This is ok as mass inertia, not hardness, governs the pressures and forces of the collision, but I am not sure if it ok to lump this mass into the 112m wall thickness of the "box beam" that model the wing
  3. The engines each have a mass of 4-4.5 tons; I think their mass should not be counted towards that of the wings. This would reduce the mass of the wings alone from 30 to 21-22 tons, and the modeled skin thickness of the wings from 112 mm to about 80 mm
  4. From the wing span, they should have deducted the width of the fuselage, and reduce it from 47.57 m to 42.54 m. This would in turn increase wall thickness from 80 mm to about 90 mm
  5. I am not sure to what extent the mass proportion of the wing that bypasses the columns adds to the force on the columns, and if and how this is considered in their calculations


Most of the paper is a lot of engineering, physics and mass where they asses the importance of the the shape of the collsision partners (low), and model the collision in three phases ("shearing of the impacting flange; tearing of side webs; and tensile fracture of the rear flange").

Their results, in a nutshell:
  • Columns are easily cut by an average wing segment
  • less than 7% of the wing's kinetic energy is dissipated in the collision
  • Wing velocity is thus still 223 m/s after having passed through the columns, down from 240 m/s.
  • They estimate that a plane flying slower than 155 m/s might have been stopped by steel columns of the assumed plate thickness and grade at impact location. The same might have been true at 240 m/s, had the plane hit very near the foot of the towers, where perimeter column plates were much thicker. These estimates are sensitive to assumptions of course
 
thedopefishlives said:
He was on a 30-day leave of absence at the time you returned. He basically treats everything with a liberal dose of personal incredulity, and if challenged, resorts to "But you believe everything the gubmint/media complex says, therefore your argument is invalid."
Click to expand...

Or a well-reasoned ''Ha ha ha''
 
Dash80 said:
Lovely.

Meh... Course I believe what the gubmint tell me, that's what us shills are paid for right?

:D
Click to expand...

That reminds me. Could you tell the Controller that the NWO owes me six months back pay?
 
Oystein, thank you very much for the summary. I took their model for granted and would not have been able to offer suggestions for a more accurate version. This is very helpful for me in understanding this kind of modeling.

You list what were for me the significant aspects of the study in your summary of results.
Their results, in a nutshell:
1. Columns are easily cut by an average wing segment less than 7% of the wing's kinetic energy is dissipated in the collision
2. wing velocity is thus still 223 m/s after having passed through the columns, down from 240 m/s.
3. They estimate that a plane flying slower than 155 m/s might have been stopped by steel columns of the assumed plate thickness and grade at impact location. The same might have been true at 240 m/s, had the plane hit very near the foot of the towers, where perimeter column plates were much thicker.
Click to expand...
I am especially interested in this last point. Just after 9/11, I was speaking with a good friend who is one of Taiwan's most experienced steel-framed building designers. He told me it was his opinion the terrorists were aware of weaknesses in the construction of the towers and planned their attacks accordingly. It was significant to him that Mohamed Atta has detailed knowledge of high-rise building construction.
 
Last edited:
Remember these jets were loaded with fuel. And that would add to the mass of the wings. Even if you removed the wings and the fuel tanks, the mass of all that fuel would do some damage at 450mph.

Fact is you can cut steel with water using a water jet cutter. Velocity is a harsh mistress.
 
The vertical steel beams in the towers were not contiguous from top to bottom, I think they were built in 30 foot sections and bolted together. So you would not need to cut the steel, more likely these beams would fail at their bolted connections or weld joints.
 
cjnewson88 said:
Truthers are ignorant of facts.

[qimg]http://i962.photobucket.com/albums/ae107/sniperNZSAS/Pent.jpg[/qimg]

Looks like a aircraft sized hole to me.
Click to expand...

Yup, but they prefer to show the image where the big part of the hole is hidden by the jet of foam...

pgimeno-agujero-oculto.gif



Re the paper on cutting the columns, there's another one publicly available that gives some explanations, from the MIT collection. I don't remember what it exactly said though, but it may be interesting to the people in this thread.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
 
Scott Sommers said:
...
I am especially interested in this last point. Just after 9/11, I was speaking with a good friend who is one of Taiwan's most experienced steel-framed building designers. He told me it was his opinion the terrorists were aware of weaknesses in the construction of the towers and planned their attacks accordingly. It was significant to him that Mohamed Atta has detailed knowledge of high-rise building construction.
Click to expand...

I read interviews with Atta's professor, and/or thesis advisor, in Hamburg. It didn't occur to me that Atta had anything at all to do with highrise construction, let alone the structural response dynamics thereof. He studied urban planning more than architecture.

I think it is totally conjecture and speculation when one says the terrorists ecpected or planned this or this outcome. Did they hope to bring the towers down? Quite likely. Was this an integral objective that defined success or failure of the operation? Quite likely not. Did they thus get hold of blueprints, construction details, did they run FEA's or undertake engineering studies like the one you refered to? I personally doubt it very much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom