I have stated what I think actually happened.
Where?
I have stated what I think actually happened.
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.
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.
Your lack of knowledge of basic physics, is rather bewildering at times.
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.
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
So it's not easily grasped by the mind that the leading edges would be somewhat crushed?
So it's not easily grasped by the mind that the leading edges would be somewhat crushed?
So it's not easily grasped by the mind that the leading edges would be somewhat crushed?
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?
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.
The wall in the F4 video does not break.
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....
And what's it made of?
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?
And what do you think of Firep's kinetic energy 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.