ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 1st March 2012, 10:43 PM   #1
MrSkunkwork100
Scholar
 
MrSkunkwork100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 67
Aluminum Airlplanes and Steel Buildings

This is a subject that I'm sure has already been covered here on JREF. I don't have tons of time to spend on research or pour through threads to find on this subject, so I am just going to open this one here. This is stemming from a conversation I had had with a conspiracy theorists out on YouTube. Typically, I don't put much stock in what conspiracy theorists say (and although I am starting this thread, this is really no exception either), because they don't ever provide supportive data for their claims.

I'm sure many of you who have discussed 911 to any extent (either here on JREF or out on YouTube, or elsewhere) have more than likely run into the aluminum planes vs. steel columns concept. I, of course, am talking about the idea they have tried to advance, that the planes--being made mostly of aluminum and being hollow--could not have inflicted the damage observable in the photos, videos, or eyewitness accounts--on the buildings, because aluminum has less density than structural steel. For this, they give a variety of reasons. None of which have truly ever been based on any verifiable scientific data, while data that refutes their claims is in abundance. The conversation that inspired this thread, is one that I have had with other users before.

My basic argument:

While it is true that aluminum doesn't share all of the same physical or mechanical properties as structural steel: the aluminum's "inadequacies" can be more than made up for by the speed at which the aluminum (the airplane in this case) strikes the steel. The structural steel used in the construction of the buildings, is loaded with potential energy--per gravity as well as connections to other steel components. The kinetic energy that a 200,000 lb. (approx.) airliner, travelling at 450 - 500 mph. transfers to the structural steel, is greater than the inertia of the steel at rest within the integration in the building. Add to that, the massive amounts of chemical energy that accompanied the impacting mass of the airliner--on account of the massive quantity of jet fuel exploding at impact. Regardless of the properties of aluminum, we can all agree that the planes literally shred to bits upon impact. As Sir Isaac Newton noted: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Both the area impacted and the planes themselves, were badly damaged. The columns that the plane came into contact with at impact were also spread out almost four feet. The bulk of mass that the planes were met with, when they struck the buildings, was glass and air.
MrSkunkwork100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 10:52 PM   #2
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,859
There is a very detailed analysis of this from a different angle. It is quite hard to read, but the main thrust of the paper is clear if you have a reasonable math background. You can order it on line, if you want. Or you can PM me with your e-mail and I will send it to you.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...34743X02001069
How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625,

The problem of the airplane wing cutting through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center is treated analytically. The exterior columns are thin-walled box beam made of high strength steel. The complex structure of the airplane is lumped into another box, but it has been found that the equivalent thickness of the box is an order of magnitude larger than the column thickness. The problem can be then modeled as an impact of a rigid mass traveling with the velocity of 240 m/s into a hollow box-like vertical member. The deformation and failure process is very local and is broken into three phases: shearing of the impacting flange; tearing of side webs; and tensile fracture of the rear flange. Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column. It was also found that the energy absorbed by plastic deformation and fracture of the ill-fated column is only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing.
__________________
See my blog,
Wonders of the Invisible World
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 11:16 PM   #3
MrSkunkwork100
Scholar
 
MrSkunkwork100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by Scott Sommers View Post
There is a very detailed analysis of this from a different angle. It is quite hard to read, but the main thrust of the paper is clear if you have a reasonable math background. You can order it on line, if you want. Or you can PM me with your e-mail and I will send it to you.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...34743X02001069
How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625,

The problem of the airplane wing cutting through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center is treated analytically. The exterior columns are thin-walled box beam made of high strength steel. The complex structure of the airplane is lumped into another box, but it has been found that the equivalent thickness of the box is an order of magnitude larger than the column thickness. The problem can be then modeled as an impact of a rigid mass traveling with the velocity of 240 m/s into a hollow box-like vertical member. The deformation and failure process is very local and is broken into three phases: shearing of the impacting flange; tearing of side webs; and tensile fracture of the rear flange. Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column. It was also found that the energy absorbed by plastic deformation and fracture of the ill-fated column is only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing.
Scott Sommers:

Yes, thank you. I greatly appreciate that. This is basically the direction I was trying to go in with that particular user. What was he was saying to me, was that basically, almost a sub-atomic reaction takes place between the steel and aluminum that literally repels the aluminum plane away from the building and the plane just drops to the ground like a crumpled-up ball, while the building, basically doesn't sustain even a scratch. I didn't have a chance to get into the fact that the perimeter columns were hollow built-up box style members. The conversation just never matured to that point.

Last edited by MrSkunkwork100; 1st March 2012 at 11:19 PM.
MrSkunkwork100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 11:24 PM   #4
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,859
I'm not sure you stand a chance against this argument under any circumstances. It sounds so bizarre, yet so Truther, that there's no way any one trying to deal with reality can answer it. Has this person never heard of momentum? They've never been hit by a fast moving object, like a car?

I'd be surprised if someone who could argue this will be convinced by science and math.
__________________
See my blog,
Wonders of the Invisible World
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 11:29 PM   #5
MrSkunkwork100
Scholar
 
MrSkunkwork100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 67
"I'm not sure you stand a chance against this argument under any circumstances. It sounds so bizarre, yet so Truther, that there's no way any one trying to deal with reality can answer it. Has this person never heard of momentum? They've never been hit by a fast moving object, like a car?"

I'd be surprised if someone who could argue this will be convinced by science and math. QUOTE]



Scott Sommers:

That's absolutely true. And, no, this person has obviously not heard of momentum at all and, in fact, has said to me many times: "You calculate force, I calculate impact." Which, as I said to that user many times: you can't have an impact without force.

And, this person has also said: "You keep talking about force and energy and I am talking about DAMAGE" As I told them: one leads to another which leads to another, still. Why this user doesn't recognize that, is beyond me. But you're right, there is no solution for a person who is this intentionally disingenuous and dishonest. You're right.

Last edited by MrSkunkwork100; 1st March 2012 at 11:33 PM.
MrSkunkwork100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 12:20 AM   #6
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,859
Is he intentionally disingenuous? He just sounds stupid to me. My impression is that the Youtube and Facebook Truthers are generally very poorly educated and probably have low IQ scores. Seriously, talking to them is like talking to people who trying to construct a science of the world for stupid people.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
See my blog,
Wonders of the Invisible World
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 12:28 AM   #7
MrSkunkwork100
Scholar
 
MrSkunkwork100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by Scott Sommers View Post
Is he intentionally disingenuous? He just sounds stupid to me. My impression is that the Youtube and Facebook Truthers are generally very poorly educated and probably have low IQ scores. Seriously, talking to them is like talking to people who trying to construct a science of the world for stupid people.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Scott Sommers:


I couldn't agree more and like I said, I don't put a lot of stock in what they say. The only reason I put the thread up, is simply because A) it's a conversatoin I have had many times before and B) this last time around talking about it, got me thinking about the enormity of the forces involved and the physics involved with the impacts and destruction in the immediate aftermath.

Last edited by MrSkunkwork100; 2nd March 2012 at 12:32 AM.
MrSkunkwork100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 12:31 AM   #8
MrSkunkwork100
Scholar
 
MrSkunkwork100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 67
P.S.

It's both with him: he has a low IQ AND he's being completely disengenuous.
MrSkunkwork100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 12:35 AM   #9
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,494
Originally Posted by MrSkunkwork100 View Post

That's absolutely true. And, no, this person has obviously not heard of momentum at all and, in fact, has said to me many times: "You calculate force, I calculate impact." Which, as I said to that user many times: you can't have an impact without force.

And, this person has also said: "You keep talking about force and energy and I am talking about DAMAGE" As I told them: one leads to another which leads to another, still. Why this user doesn't recognize that, is beyond me. But you're right, there is no solution for a person who is this intentionally disingenuous and dishonest. You're right.
You could always do what I do .... invite the Truther to practice his tennis strokes against a greenhouse. Then ask him how the hard glass managed vs. the ball made of felt+rubber
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 12:42 AM   #10
MrSkunkwork100
Scholar
 
MrSkunkwork100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
You could always do what I do .... invite the Truther to practice his tennis strokes against a greenhouse. Then ask him how the hard glass managed vs. the ball made of felt+rubber
GlennB:

Normally, I would. But I think that would be way above his head considering his responses to the facts. I couldn't get the conversation to mature past the fact that the plane was made from aluminum and the building from steel.

I would love to have been able to get the conversation to experiments.
MrSkunkwork100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 12:47 AM   #11
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
As soon as I saw the sub atomic line I know you are not in for a rational evidence based debate with your freind ths is abndied about so much as ot be useless unless you are a physicist or someone with a deep understanding of physics
Dcdrac is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 12:48 AM   #12
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,494
Originally Posted by MrSkunkwork100 View Post
GlennB:

Normally, I would. But I think that would be way above his head considering his responses to the facts. I couldn't get the conversation to mature past the fact that the plane was made from aluminum and the building from steel.

I would love to have been able to get the conversation to experiments.
Maybe you shouldn't discuss tecnical matters that he can't/won't understand?

Present him with a quick list of softer things that easily penetrate harder things:

water jets cutting steel
lead bullets penetrating steel car doors
....

etc. Perhaps it might just make him stop and think. Good luck!
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 12:53 AM   #13
IdiotWhacker
Thinker
 
IdiotWhacker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by MrSkunkwork100 View Post
Scott Sommers:

Yes, thank you. I greatly appreciate that. This is basically the direction I was trying to go in with that particular user. What was he was saying to me, was that basically, almost a sub-atomic reaction takes place between the steel and aluminum that literally repels the aluminum plane away from the building and the plane just drops to the ground like a crumpled-up ball, while the building, basically doesn't sustain even a scratch. I didn't have a chance to get into the fact that the perimeter columns were hollow built-up box style members. The conversation just never matured to that point.
That sounds like a interesting science.. if you're living in a cartoon.
__________________
He who destroys a good book kills reason itself.
IdiotWhacker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 12:54 AM   #14
MrSkunkwork100
Scholar
 
MrSkunkwork100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Maybe you shouldn't discuss tecnical matters that he can't/won't understand?

That would be EVERYTHING where this particular user is concerned.

Present him with a quick list of softer things that easily penetrate harder things:

water jets cutting steel
lead bullets penetrating steel car doors
....

etc. Perhaps it might just make him stop and think. Good luck!
Actually, I went over all of those exact comparisons with him and he still couldn't get it.

I have to say that I am amazed at how brazenly some people will be in trying to "re-create" science.
MrSkunkwork100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 12:57 AM   #15
MrSkunkwork100
Scholar
 
MrSkunkwork100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by IdiotWhacker View Post
That sounds like a interesting science.. if you're living in a cartoon.
IdiotWhacker:

You can say that again!

The arguments that have been proposed by him on this subject are far and wide, completely void of ANY credibility whatsoever!


But don't forget that this is a "movment" which has a scholar who holds cardboard boxes in his hands and proclaims the science contained within the NIST report is false.

Last edited by MrSkunkwork100; 2nd March 2012 at 01:08 AM.
MrSkunkwork100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 01:08 AM   #16
fourtoe
Graduate Poster
 
fourtoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,029
Show them this video:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
***My old username used to be knife fight colobus, but it was totally too long.***
-Here's my YouTube Channel where I either debate crazies (Kirk Cameron, Westboro Baptist Church, Truthers etc.) or play Zelda
-I sooo have a blog.
-The thread for discussing/reviewing and posting any 911 related debates one can find!
fourtoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 01:10 AM   #17
MrSkunkwork100
Scholar
 
MrSkunkwork100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by fourtoe View Post
Show them this video:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
That would overload his mental circuitry!
MrSkunkwork100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 01:14 AM   #18
MrSkunkwork100
Scholar
 
MrSkunkwork100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by Dcdrac View Post
As soon as I saw the sub atomic line I know you are not in for a rational evidence based debate with your freind ths is abndied about so much as ot be useless unless you are a physicist or someone with a deep understanding of physics
Dcdrac:

Something as fundamental as kinetic energy at impact and the forces acting on an object, should be something that both parties agree on. The person I am referring to, can't even accept these basic facts. Routinely, over the course of the conversation (which lasted something like four days), he would resort to throwing the usual "don't beleive everything the govt. says" line at me (that truthers are notorious for). He never provided supportive data that refutes the basics of kinetic energy and forces acting on an object.
MrSkunkwork100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 04:00 AM   #19
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,706
Originally Posted by MrSkunkwork100 View Post
Actually, I went over all of those exact comparisons with him and he still couldn't get it.

I have to say that I am amazed at how brazenly some people will be in trying to "re-create" science.
How about this thought experiment:

Imagine you are in the World Trade Center on the morning of 9/11, a beautiful sunny day. You're looking out the window, enjoying the spectacular view north over Manhattan. And then - you spot this plane, going more than 400 mph, headed directly toward you.

Suppose you had a magic device that would beam you instantly to ground level, only thing is it costs you half the money you have if you use it. The alternative, as the plane is now only a couple of seconds away, is to step behind the column between two windows and hope that you are safe in its wake.

What would you do to protect your life: Spend half of your wealth to get out of the way entirely, or save the money, hoping that the plane will bump off the column that you are behind? Remember, if you stand behind that column, it's only like 3 feet that separates you from the plane crash outside.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 04:10 AM   #20
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,859
I'm wondering why the military isn't in on this. The whole idea that you could make a ship that shells or missiles would bounce off is just amazing. Or is it that if the ship is aluminum and the missile is also aluminum, then there'll be some sort of destruction-kind-of-thing happening? So the real military engineering problem isn't making more destructive explosives or better armor. No, no...it now appears the real military problem is to guess what metal the bad guys built their ships and tanks and stuff out of so that we can use the same metal and get one of those destruction-kind-of-things happening

This can't be real. Skunk must be making this up. Even I have trouble believing someone could be this stupid - even a Truther.
__________________
See my blog,
Wonders of the Invisible World

Last edited by Scott Sommers; 2nd March 2012 at 04:12 AM.
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 04:17 AM   #21
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Scott Sommers View Post
This can't be real. Skunk must be making this up. Even I have trouble believing someone could be this stupid - even a Truther.
The well of truther stupidity is bottomless.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 08:04 AM   #22
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,354
Well if aluminum planes can't pierce steel, then how can wooden boards pierce metal in a tornado?
(Board through a refrigerator)
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 08:29 AM   #23
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Here's another video to show them. Water has less resilience than even aluminum.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 10:18 AM   #24
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
 
Sabretooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Wyoming, NY
Posts: 6,710
Tsunamis must not be dangerous either, because water can't destroy concrete and steel...

(dammit, Dave beat me to it)
__________________
--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

Sabretooth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 10:30 AM   #25
njslim
Graduate Poster
 
njslim's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,075
Or aluminium airplane pierce steel side of a ship

USS HINSDALE (APA 120)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hi...-_kamikaze.jpg

USS STERETT ((DD 407)

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...000/h98062.jpg

Biggest issue is that the aircraft did not so much as penetrate the exterior wall as push it
away The box columns was arranged in a lattice work pattern. The columns were
grouped in threes held together by spandrel plates welded to columns. The sections
were then bolted into place in 30 ft high sections

When the aircraft hit it sheared off the welds/bolts connecting the columns together

The broken columns were pushed out of the way

It was the welds and bolts which were the weakest point that failed

Hit the clown with this

It is column section from North Tower lying in street after being dislofged from WTC

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...wtc1-panel.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...eelcolumns.jpg

Notice aircraft wheel embedded in the section
njslim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 11:51 AM   #26
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by MrSkunkwork100 View Post
Scott Sommers:

Yes, thank you. I greatly appreciate that. This is basically the direction I was trying to go in with that particular user. What was he was saying to me, was that basically, almost a sub-atomic reaction takes place between the steel and aluminum that literally repels the aluminum plane away from the building and the plane just drops to the ground like a crumpled-up ball, while the building, basically doesn't sustain even a scratch. I didn't have a chance to get into the fact that the perimeter columns were hollow built-up box style members. The conversation just never matured to that point.
There is an entire engineering sub-discipline called "impact & collision". It is a specialty that takes mechanical engineers years to to become familiar with, and decades to become accomplished in.

If the entire field reduced to "which material is (harder / stronger / heavier / whatever), then those engineers that took so long would be pretty dim bulbs.

I can assure you that they are not dim bulbs.

Anyone who says that "a passenger jet is just a hollow tube" has never looked below the passenger deck of one. Otherwise s/he would see a "hollow tube crammed full of heavy equipment, cargo, storage" etc.

Last edited by tfk; 2nd March 2012 at 11:52 AM.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 12:56 PM   #27
George 152
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
Explain it as 120 ton of mass moving at 450 knots and not an aluminum aircraft and a steel structure...
George 152 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 02:09 PM   #28
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,514
Originally Posted by George152 View Post
Explain it as 120 ton of mass moving at 450 knots and not an aluminum aircraft and a steel structure...
Elegantly simple. Well said.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 06:10 PM   #29
MrSkunkwork100
Scholar
 
MrSkunkwork100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 67
[quote=Oystein;8074249]How about this thought experiment:

Imagine you are in the World Trade Center on the morning of 9/11, a beautiful sunny day. You're looking out the window, enjoying the spectacular view north over Manhattan. And then - you spot this plane, going more than 400 mph, headed directly toward you.

Suppose you had a magic device that would beam you instantly to ground level, only thing is it costs you half the money you have if you use it. The alternative, as the plane is now only a couple of seconds away, is to step behind the column between two windows and hope that you are safe in its wake.

What would you do to protect your life: Spend half of your wealth to get out of the way entirely, or save the money, hoping that the plane will bump off the column that you are behind? Remember, if you stand behind that column, it's only like 3 feet that separates you from the plane crash outside.[/QUOTE]


See, NOW you're making sense and that is the complete antithesis of what this particular user was doing.
__________________
Just another blue-collar guy
MrSkunkwork100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 06:13 PM   #30
MrSkunkwork100
Scholar
 
MrSkunkwork100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 67
[quote=tfk;8075369]There is an entire engineering sub-discipline called "impact & collision". It is a specialty that takes mechanical engineers years to to become familiar with, and decades to become accomplished in.

If the entire field reduced to "which material is (harder / stronger / heavier / whatever), then those engineers that took so long would be pretty dim bulbs.

I can assure you that they are not dim bulbs.

Anyone who says that "a passenger jet is just a hollow tube" has never looked below the passenger deck of one. Otherwise s/he would see a "hollow tube crammed full of heavy equipment, cargo, storage" etc.[/
QUOTE]


Indeed! I have explained all of this many times over. As Scott Sommers pointed out: the Truthers out on YouTube are a far cry from sensible or intelligent people. I have explained that the aluminum has mass and therefore has energy--which was met with a bunch of illiterate hand-waving and subject change. But, you're right, the engineers who specialize in impact physics are anything but dim bulbs.
__________________
Just another blue-collar guy
MrSkunkwork100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 06:15 PM   #31
MrSkunkwork100
Scholar
 
MrSkunkwork100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 67
[quote=Scott Sommers;8074265]I'm wondering why the military isn't in on this. The whole idea that you could make a ship that shells or missiles would bounce off is just amazing. Or is it that if the ship is aluminum and the missile is also aluminum, then there'll be some sort of destruction-kind-of-thing happening? So the real military engineering problem isn't making more destructive explosives or better armor. No, no...it now appears the real military problem is to guess what metal the bad guys built their ships and tanks and stuff out of so that we can use the same metal and get one of those destruction-kind-of-things happening

This can't be real. Skunk must be making this up. Even I have trouble believing someone could be this stupid - even a Truther.[/QUOTE]


Just imagine my frustration in trying to have a rational discussion with someone who is as clueless as this particular user is.
__________________
Just another blue-collar guy
MrSkunkwork100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2012, 06:44 PM   #32
MrSkunkwork100
Scholar
 
MrSkunkwork100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by njslim View Post
Or aluminium airplane pierce steel side of a ship

USS HINSDALE (APA 120)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hi...-_kamikaze.jpg

USS STERETT ((DD 407)

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...000/h98062.jpg

Biggest issue is that the aircraft did not so much as penetrate the exterior wall as push it
away The box columns was arranged in a lattice work pattern. The columns were
grouped in threes held together by spandrel plates welded to columns. The sections
were then bolted into place in 30 ft high sections

When the aircraft hit it sheared off the welds/bolts connecting the columns together

The broken columns were pushed out of the way

It was the welds and bolts which were the weakest point that failed

Hit the clown with this

It is column section from North Tower lying in street after being dislofged from WTC

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...wtc1-panel.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...eelcolumns.jpg


Notice aircraft wheel embedded in the section
Those are both excellent photos--which I've seen before. He would probably dismiss them as "fakery" or something along those lines. It's not an intelligent, honest debate he's trying to advance: it's simply an attempt to clog the conversation, so as to avoid the core issues. Remember: this is a person who has said that there is a sub-atomic reaction that takes place, that actively repels the planes as they impact. Even though, according to him, the aluminum is just a "softer material" which, also according to his version of physics, doesn't require any active response from the steel. AND this particular person is forgetting that this is steel that was milled back in the mid-60's, which someone would have to explain to me where they obtained this highly-specialized steel from.
__________________
Just another blue-collar guy
MrSkunkwork100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2012, 12:27 AM   #33
nomuse
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 779
Originally Posted by Scott Sommers View Post
There is a very detailed analysis of this from a different angle. It is quite hard to read, but the main thrust of the paper is clear if you have a reasonable math background. You can order it on line, if you want. Or you can PM me with your e-mail and I will send it to you.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...34743X02001069
How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625,

The problem of the airplane wing cutting through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center is treated analytically. The exterior columns are thin-walled box beam made of high strength steel. The complex structure of the airplane is lumped into another box, but it has been found that the equivalent thickness of the box is an order of magnitude larger than the column thickness. The problem can be then modeled as an impact of a rigid mass traveling with the velocity of 240 m/s into a hollow box-like vertical member. The deformation and failure process is very local and is broken into three phases: shearing of the impacting flange; tearing of side webs; and tensile fracture of the rear flange. Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column. It was also found that the energy absorbed by plastic deformation and fracture of the ill-fated column is only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing.
Interesting!

In my mind, I wasn't thinking of the airplane as behaving as a rigid structure. My instinct was that you'd treat it simply as mass...that it would have the same effect on the buildings if it was any relatively incompressible material -- like gypsum sand, or like mercury.
nomuse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2012, 01:41 AM   #34
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by nomuse View Post
Interesting!

In my mind, I wasn't thinking of the airplane as behaving as a rigid structure. My instinct was that you'd treat it simply as mass...that it would have the same effect on the buildings if it was any relatively incompressible material -- like gypsum sand, or like mercury.
It's a very clever paper. It's far outside my field so I can't comment on its validity, but the authors appear to be significant figures in research on high velocity impact
http://meche.mit.edu/people/index.html?id=96
__________________
See my blog,
Wonders of the Invisible World
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2012, 12:05 PM   #35
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by Scott Sommers View Post
I'm not sure you stand a chance against this argument under any circumstances. It sounds so bizarre, yet so Truther, that there's no way any one trying to deal with reality can answer it. Has this person never heard of momentum? They've never been hit by a fast moving object, like a car?

I'd be surprised if someone who could argue this will be convinced by science and math.

I hit someone with my car once.......they made a large dent in my steel car.
According to twoofers I should only have dented the person (they were to blame and fully recovered)
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2012, 01:10 PM   #36
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills View Post
I hit someone with my car once.......they made a large dent in my steel car.
According to twoofers I should only have dented the person (they were to blame and fully recovered)
[truther] obviously it makes a big difference that the steel car was moving while the soft human was not. with the towers its the opposite![/truther]

where i live its very common for car/deer collisions to result in the car being a writeoff. deer here weigh around 300 lbs. in the case of hitting 1000 lb moose even large trucks require a tow truck.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2012, 01:18 PM   #37
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
such truthers seem to be able to ignore the fact that these supposed weak hollow aluminum tubes do manage to easily support and carry 100 or more people, their luggage, thousands of pounds of fuel , and engines that weigh as much as their car.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2012, 06:51 PM   #38
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
I spent a bit of "quality time" arguing with nope lamers at Icke. The gross kinetic energy of the plane at impact was roughly equal to half a ton of TNT. Doesn't matter if the kinetic energy is carried by aluminum, steel, or dixie cups filled with red koolaid -- it will still impact the target and the target will need to absorb the energy.

One argument was that the plane would deform and absorb all the energy (the person making this argument accused ME of not understanding Newtonian physics ) and just fall to the ground, because a weaker object could not leave a profile hole in a stronger object; further, a profile hole would only happen when the projectile went through a target without being destroyed. When videos of pumpkins being fired through houses and car doors were presented the subject was, predictably, changed.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2012, 10:11 PM   #39
MrSkunkwork100
Scholar
 
MrSkunkwork100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
such truthers seem to be able to ignore the fact that these supposed weak hollow aluminum tubes do manage to easily support and carry 100 or more people, their luggage, thousands of pounds of fuel , and engines that weigh as much as their car.
jaydeehess:


Yes, they absolutely do. I have asked truthers (whenever this subject comes up) if they can explain how the supposedly weak and ineffective aluminum is able to carry the 200,000 - 300,000 lb. plane up to altitude, maintain airspeed during cruise operations, and then suffer the brute forces of landing--if aluminum is so docile. They're short on answers and quick on subject changing.
__________________
Just another blue-collar guy
MrSkunkwork100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2012, 10:18 PM   #40
MrSkunkwork100
Scholar
 
MrSkunkwork100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 67
Wink

Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
I spent a bit of "quality time" arguing with nope lamers at Icke. The gross kinetic energy of the plane at impact was roughly equal to half a ton of TNT. Doesn't matter if the kinetic energy is carried by aluminum, steel, or dixie cups filled with red koolaid -- it will still impact the target and the target will need to absorb the energy.

One argument was that the plane would deform and absorb all the energy (the person making this argument accused ME of not understanding Newtonian physics ) and just fall to the ground, because a weaker object could not leave a profile hole in a stronger object; further, a profile hole would only happen when the projectile went through a target without being destroyed. When videos of pumpkins being fired through houses and car doors were presented the subject was, predictably, changed.
ApolloGnomon:

That's almost EXACTlY what happened to me (about the Newtonian Physics and the plane just falling to the ground, while the building sustains relatively no damage). The same with the abrubt subject change. That happens regularly in fact.
__________________
Just another blue-collar guy

Last edited by MrSkunkwork100; 3rd March 2012 at 10:18 PM. Reason: typo
MrSkunkwork100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:56 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.