9-11 an INSIDE JOB?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The leading surfaces of the plane were obviously crushed as they broke the exterior wall of the building. This created a hole through which the rest of the plane passed. Future collisions inside the building fully destroyed the plane.


That's the problem you see, it's not obvious at all.

Adj.
1.
obvious - easily perceived by the senses or grasped by the mind
 
The leading surfaces of the plane were obviously crushed as they broke the exterior wall of the building. This created a hole through which the rest of the plane passed. Future collisions inside the building fully destroyed the plane.

What about the 'structurally superior' F4 in the video? wall ok, plane gone
 
My kinetic energy theory? The equation to calcuate kinetic energy is no theory, its proven.
Just because basic science and physics is not your cup of tea, does not make it a theory.
 
an aircraft impacting anything head on at high speed, is going to leave barely anything more than little pieces, due to the immense amount of kinetic energy.

Sounds like a theory to me (apart from you forgot the big bits like engines and undercarriage and tail even, then it's mostly little bits)
 
So it's not easily grasped by the mind that the leading edges would be somewhat crushed?

No - it's not easily perceived by the senses in either video. In particular the video by Purdue University, the ones who got the Homeland Security Institute grant after, remember? There's no grasping of any of it - it's not there, obviously
 
There you go. It "seems" unreasonable - from your point of view of incredulity. What I'm saying is that it's very reasonably if you look at the actual physics involved.

Consider this visualization of the impact, why do you think it is wrong?



You asked. I'm telling you why it is wrong
 
If the outer wall broke, then why would you see damage to the plane outside the building? The damaged volumes would almost immediately inside the building.

Which is what you see in the videos, and the simulation.
 
If the outer wall broke, then why would you see damage to the plane outside the building? The damaged volumes would almost immediately inside the building.

Which is what you see in the videos, and the simulation.

I think I've just become a character in a Kafka long short story

What about kinetic energy and the F4 video? - avoiding those? that video looks a lot more realistic than what you're standing up for. Are we watching the same video? Why don't you stick a still of that video up at say, 1 min 5 seconds and let's all have a look at it?
 
Perhaps if the plane crash happened as slowly as LHO's train wreck of an implied (I think - it's hard to tell) physics-revolution hypothesis that the a/c did not deform there might be better video evidence.

Sadly there's no instant replays from 15 camera angles as he seems to expect - very careless of TPTB not to arrange that so they could do their CGI magic and provide him with cast iron evidence that he'd ignore anyway....
 
Perhaps if the plane crash happened as slowly as LHO's train wreck of an implied (I think - it's hard to tell) physics-revolution hypothesis that the a/c did not deform there might be better video evidence.

Sadly there's no instant replays from 15 camera angles as he seems to expect - very careless of TPTB not to arrange that so they could do their CGI magic and provide him with cast iron evidence that he'd ignore anyway....

I'm sure that's all very good. I just don't understand its relation to the discussion.
 
And what's it made of?

10 feet thick concrete.



And even in this example (where it does not break through the wall), the plane seems to sink into the wall, with no deformation behind the volumes that make contact.

Imagine if the wall were thinner, the F4 would just sustain damage to the leading volumes, then the rest would go right through.
 
Why don't you stick a still of that video up at say, 1 min 5 seconds and let's all have a look at it?

Why not make that 1.02 in the Purdue video? Then we can all have a look at it. If you won't do it then please explain how I can.

And what do you think of Firep's kinetic energy theory?
 
Made of concrete, you say? Like the floors in the tower? If the aircraft straddled three floors because of its angle, then where it came into contact with the floors, in cross-section, the steel reinforced concrete floors would have acted as blades on the much softer aircraft parts - the steel r/c floors went all the way from one side of the building to the other, it's a kind of tradition in construction. But according to you and your video, there was no sign of these floors exerting any force on the aircraft; if the building was made of tissue, then your Purdue (you know, Purdue University - the ones who got the Homeland Security Institute grant after producing the video - and the president got put on the board of a Nist & defence contractor's company, you remember, don't you? What's that? No comment?) cartoon makes sense.
 
1:02 from the 1080p version of the video, zoomed in a bit.



You can see damage to the leading few feet of the aircraft's wing. Because the simulation is finite element analysis, the damage shows up on a per-element basis, which is why you get those neat rectangular holes.

Note the the damaged volumes are now INSIDE the building, due to the high speed of the plane. Which is why you don't see them from the outside.

Here's approximately the same point in time from the interior viewpoint (1:38). The fuselage has been significantly ripped apart, partly by impacts with the floors.

 
Last edited:
And what do you think of Firep's kinetic energy theory?

his theory:

an aircraft impacting anything head on at high speed, is going to leave barely anything more than little pieces, due to the immense amount of kinetic energy.

I think it's basically correct. Of course it depends what it hits. If it hits a sheet of paper, then it will just keep going. If it hits anything with any mass, then it's going to be pretty much destroyed.

When something is travelling fast, and it stops, then the kinetic energy has to go somewhere. It either has to be transferred to other objects (as kinetic or possibly potential energy) or converted into heat. This is in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics.

To break something, or bend something or crush something, or start something moving, or accelerate or decelerate or stop something, this requires a certain amount of energy that we can calculate. We can calculate the kinetic energy in the plane, the chemical energy in the flammables, the potential energy in the building, and we can use all that to see if the resultant events are consistent with the energy involved.

There's a good discussion of that here:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

A remarkable feature of the aircraft collisions with the twin towers was that each
Boeing 767 appeared to enter the façade of each building with relatively little
visible impact damage. Additionally, only limited amounts of aircraft debris
subsequently emerged from the opposite side of each tower. These observations
indicate that the outer perimeter wall of the twin towers offered a relatively “soft
target” to the impacting aircraft wings and fuselage while the inner core of the
building represented a “hard target” that rapidly brought the aircraft to a complete
stop. If we assume that 36 exterior columns were severed by the aircraft strike,
and take T. Wierzbicki’s value of 1.139 x 10^6 J as the energy required to sever
one exterior column, we conclude that 4.1 x 10^7 J of energy was dissipated at the
perimeter wall from an aircraft possessing an initial 3.0 x 10^9 J of kinetic energy.
This is equivalent to a velocity reduction of only 1.5 m/s, namely, from 220 m/s to
218.5 m/s.

There's full mathematical analysis in the paper if you'd like to check it. But the above paragraph talks very directly about the events we were just discussing.

If you are not familiar with the notation, it's saying that each column needed 1,139,000 Joules of energy to break. So a total of 41,000,000 Joules to break all the 36 exterior columns. However the kinetic energy of the plane was 3,000,000,000 Joules (3,000 megajoules - extimates vary, but are in the same ballpark). Hence it's only loosing 1.3% of it's kinetic energy due to hitting the exterior wall. (and only 0.68% of the speed, as kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed)

That explains why it does not slow down visibly with this impact.

It also explains the visual difference between slicing through the relatively thin and light exterior wall with a 1.3% energy loss, and hitting a ten feet thick block of concrete with 100% energy loss.
 
1:02 from the 1080p version of the video, zoomed in a bit.



You can see damage to the leading few feet of the aircraft's wing. Because the simulation is finite element analysis, the damage shows up on a per-element basis, which is why you get those neat rectangular holes.

Note the the damaged volumes are now INSIDE the building, due to the high speed of the plane. Which is why you don't see them from the outside.

Excellent. So you had to zoom in 'a bit' (quite a bit?) to show this paltry damage to the wing (singular) - the other wing, one can clearly see, is intact and beyond the perimeter of the building, its leading edge - 'crushed somewhat', according to you - is still a clean, sharp undented line. The steel is peeled back and rent. The intact fuselage and the joint at fuselage and wing can clearly be seen inside the building, beyond the once again peeled steel facade. This zoom in backs up what I said about any deformation to the aircraft being obvious, clearly it is not. This is the image released by the film makers as 'a physically correct' rendering of reality (high fidelity? high quality? state of the art?). What about where the wings contacted the steel r/c floors?

This is one of the most solid laws of the physical universe; it always applies. Here is Newton's third law of motion in words:

If one object exerts a force on another, the other exerts the same force in opposite direction on the one.

Summary: action = negative reaction.

Like I said, in that video there is no visible deformation of the aircraft as you would expect to see on impact. The video shows clearly undamaged parts inside the building, while the steel is history. That defies Newton's law. Please don't give me any rubbish about how the finite this or that function of the video making method is to blame. It's inaccurate from the point of view of Newton's physics and all common sense, so it shouldn't be calling itself 'physically accurate', 'high fidelity', 'high quality' anything - It's a misrepresentation - and thanks for zooming in and making my point clearer. I wonder how Purdue are spending their Homeland Security Institute grant money. What do you reckon?

And what about Firep's kinetic energy theory? want a reminder?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
See above post on kinetic energy.

Yes the video does not show the precise sequence of events accurate to the molecular level. It's a simulation, not a recording of history. It shows roughly what happened at the finite element level. It matches the actual recorded video quite well - but when you zoom in you see the limitations of the simulation and visualization techniques used. Like when you zoom in on a photo you can see the pixels. It a limitation in the resolution of the simulation.

Look at the second photo again - the same point in time, but viewed from the inside.



Also inaccurate, as the plane would not have split into neat straight-edged pieces. But again it's a function of the simulation.

The plane does appear to be rather damaged though. You just won't see that from the outside of the building.
 
Last edited:
This quote from 911 myths.com again! is a complete contradiction of the visual and physical evidence. Your argument is increasingly built on your (and others) need to believe the official narrative. What would happen if you found out that the Bush regime had lied about something? Would that make you think, or even comment, on such things? No. You won't go there. Kafka got nothing on you guys.

These observations indicate that the outer perimeter wall of the twin towers offered a relatively “soft
target” to the impacting aircraft wings and fuselage while the inner core of the
building represented a “hard target” that rapidly brought the aircraft to a complete
stop.


Really, that so? Then how come, if the core made the aircraft come to a complete stop, then about half that aircraft would still be sticking out the building at that moment - wouldn't it? It's rubbish dressed up as fact. Kinetic energy has nothing to do with this discussion, and if you don't know that....I suspect you might know it, but it's hard to tell.
 
See above post on kinetic energy.

Yes the video does not show the precise sequence of events accurate to the molecular level. It's a simulation, not a recording of history. It shows roughly what happened at the finite element level. It matches the actual recorded video quite well - but when you zoom in you see the limitations of the simulation and visualization techniques used. Like when you zoom in on a photo you can see the pixels. It a limitation in the resolution of the simulation.

Look at the second photo again - the same point in time, but viewed from the inside.



Also inaccurate, as the plane would not have split into neat straight-edged pieces. But again it's a function of the simulation.

The plane does appear to be rather damaged though. You just won't see that from the outside of the building.

You know as well as I do that the nose would have been crushed on impact with the exterior - the video shows it breaking up inside the building. This is a violation of Newton's laws. You are, as I said before, defending the indefensible and it's shocking you put so much effort to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Really, that so? Then how come, if the core made the aircraft come to a complete stop, then about half that aircraft would still be sticking out the building at that moment - wouldn't it? It's rubbish dressed up as fact. Kinetic energy has nothing to do with this discussion, and if you don't know that....I suspect you might know it, but it's hard to tell.

A complete stop does not mean it stopped like a train in a station, but rather it stopped like that F4 did when it hit the concrete block.

See the kinetic energy calculations. 1.3% of the energy crushing the plane and breaking the columns on the exterior. the remaining 98.7% in the interior of the building, damaging the structure, and reducing the plane to small pieces.

How can kinetic energy have nothing to do with it?

Where does the 3,000 megajoules of kinetic energy go? That's about the same energy as one ton of TNT exploding.
 
You know as well as I do that the nose would have been crushed on impact with the exterior - the video shows it breaking up inside the building. This is a violation of Newton's laws. You are, as I said before, defending the indefensible and it's shocking you put so much effort to it.

The simulation seems to show the plane undamaged for a single frame after impact. That's just an artifact of the simulation visualization. Here's the first frame after impact:



It shows the plane undamaged, and the column magically turning into a little cuboid. These are artifacts of the simulation, like pixels, or compression artifacts.

Here's the next frame:



Nose is a bit damage, but in an odd polygonal manner. The cuboid has shrunk.

These artifacts do not invalidate the overall calculations.
 
Last edited:
The video also shows a section from the side, with the nose buried in one of the floors and ploughing through it with the intact fuselage trailing behind, if you start to compare different angles, there are big differences in what it depicts.
 
The simulation seems to show the plane undamaged for a single frame after impact. That's just an artifact of the simulation visualization. Here's the first frame after impact:



It shows the plane undamaged, and the column magically turning into a little cuboid. These are artifacts of the simulation, like pixels, or compression artifacts.

Here's the next frame:



Nose is a bit damage, but in an odd polygonal manner. The cuboid has shrunk.

These artifacts do not invalidate the overall calculations.

Yeah?and?so?what? The point is that the building of steel and concrete gives no resistance in the first instance of contact - this is what the film depicts and it is wrong. They manage to show the steel being severed ok, why not some realistic damage to the aircraft?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What the video shows is an explicit contravention of Newton's third law and a blatant piece of propaganda paid for by the Dept of Homeland Security
 
The video also shows a section from the side, with the nose buried in one of the floors and ploughing through it with the intact fuselage trailing behind, if you start to compare different angles, there are big differences in what it depicts.

How about a zoom in?
 
In an inertial reference frame what would happen if the building was moving forward at 1mph and it struck the static plane? Which item would have more force acting upon it?
 
A complete stop does not mean it stopped like a train in a station, but rather it stopped like that F4 did when it hit the concrete block.

No, quite right, it doesn't stop like a train in a station. But if, as you claim, it stopped like the F4, then how come we don't see the tail and rear part of the aircraft disintegrating? Instead it just sails, unimpeded and perfectly formed, right through everything.
 
The video also shows a section from the side, with the nose buried in one of the floors and ploughing through it with the intact fuselage trailing behind, if you start to compare different angles, there are big differences in what it depicts.

As far as I can tell, they are exactly the same. They should be as it's just the same thing rendered from different angles.

Can you say where you think it's different?
 
In an inertial reference frame what would happen if the building was moving forward at 1mph and it struck the static plane? Which item would have more force acting upon it?

Impact forces are symmetrical, action and reaction. Newton's third law.

I'm not sure what you mean by "in an inertial reference frame". In which inertial reference frame? I'm assuming you just mean the static plane, considering motion relative to the plane. Either way it's the same.
 
No, quite right, it doesn't stop like a train in a station. But if, as you claim, it stopped like the F4, then how come we don't see the tail and rear part of the aircraft disintegrating? Instead it just sails, unimpeded and perfectly formed, right through everything.

It sails through the hole made by the front part. It then disintegrates inside the building as it impacts other parts, most specifically the core.
 
Here's the high resolution rendering, so you can download it onto your computer.

http://contrailscience.com/files/WTC-Purdue.mp4

(right click and "Save Link As", it's a large file and best viewed not in the browser).

I would recommend using Quicktime Viewer 7 for Windows, as it allows you to step through frame by frame using the arrow keys:

http://support.apple.com/kb/DL837

You can also use the "Movie Inspector" (on the "view" or "Window" menu) to show the precise video time in 100ths of a second.

 
Last edited:
It sails through the hole made by the front part. It then disintegrates inside the building as it impacts other parts, most specifically the core.

ok, so then if everything disintegrates inside the building, then by the time the tail hits the building it still sails right on through. Is that right? Do you really think that's right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top