The one you link to seems to be a different visualization for that segment. The high res one does not show the floors. They do use the visualization with the floors later, when showing the fuel.
Visualization is separate from the physical simulation.
Also 18. You can't see much beyond the 18th column, due to the closer crop.
That's great. Can you overlay the aircraft onto that? As the wingtips pass through the perimeter?Here's the HD damage overlaid over the LD (low definition) image, so you can match the columns:
I think the damage beyond the 18th column is there in the LD version as well, there is some lighter grey material behind that shows through, but it's somewhat visible in this image:
If you explain what you are getting at, then I'd be happy to help. But I don't really see where this is going.
Here are the two clips frame synchronized. They are exactly the same (in terms of the order, number and nature of exterior column damage):
No, because I've no idea what you are looking for so I don't know if I'm wasting my time. Explain, and I'll help.
I agree with that. But what's your point?
Those don't represent the exact same instant, as far as I can tell. I'd have to create a synced version of the clips. Maybe later, if you explain what the discrepancy is.
Sorry about the problem's uploading, I think that was my fault, as some of the image types had very low size limits. I've upped them all to 10MB now, so if you'd like to try again it should work.
They don't represent the same instant, that's not my point. The point is coming.
This still from the video is a little further advanced than the one I was looking at, but no matter. What it represents is the fuel tanks in the aircraft. If you play the video you can see (and just about in this still) that there are three full tanks of fuel, two in the wings and one central. Agreed?
there is no visible deformation or damage on the aircraft at the first moment of impact with the perimeter columns as you would expect; that there is no specifiic deformation or damage to the a/c coming into contact with the perimeter is counter-intuitive and counter to Newton's third law (that every action has an equal and opposite reaction);
When I have finished with falsifying this Purdue simulation that so many people went to so much trouble to produce, and that you once held up as evidence, will you take a different stance to it? Will you never use it again as evidence? Will you debunk it? Will you use your not inconsiderable intellect to demolish it for what it is - a lie?
Three full tanks. Good. If you go to http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=101356 and click on the pdf link, you will end up here http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101356 which is the document NIST NCSTAR 1-5A where, on page 79, you can find NIST saying that the centre fuel tank of AA11 was empty.There's three fuel tanks, they look fairly full.
Those don't represent the exact same instant, as far as I can tell. I'd have to create a synced version of the clips. Maybe later, if you explain what the discrepancy is.
Three full tanks. Good. If you go to http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=101356 and click on the pdf link, you will end up here http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101356 which is the document NIST NCSTAR 1-5A where, on page 79, you can find NIST saying that the centre fuel tank of AA11 was empty.
Who got it wrong? NIST or Purdue?
Add to that: at this moment in the video, we should (with the aircraft 'switched-on' to visuals) see a specific deformation relating to the spandrel which has not yet broken - the a/c nose has presumably been split in two by this large steel element and we should be seeing peeled aluminium skin, exposed airframe etc. as the tube is split by the harder steel elements. The video doesn't depict that.
And last - the core. This image relates only to alleged damage to the core columns.
The a/c has been largely 'switched off' via the visual controls of the simulation - it is partially visible in the moving video, but very hard to see in the still image here. What is easy to see is the cut core column about 3/4 of an inch from the left of the screen and about an inch and a half up from the bottom of the screen. In the visualization, this column is clearly cut by the port wing.
Can you begin to see where support for Purdue might begin to unravel?
There's three fuel tanks, they look fairly full.
I apologise for this sleight of hand, but it is an issue of psychology. This image clearly shows that the port tank is at about half the capacity of the starboard tank. I just wanted to demonstrate how easy it is to trick the human mind - even one that is switched on to the subject.there are three full tanks of fuel, two in the wings and one central. Agreed?
There's three fuel tanks, they look fairly full.
I'm not sure what you mean there, the aircraft nose is quote clearly ripped to pieces in the simulation. It's not that obvious from behind, but viewed from the front it is.
The fact is that Purdue represented this part of their visualization inaccurately. They obviously put the wrong data into the simulation, it is clear. It is wrong.
And last - the core. This image relates only to alleged damage to the core columns.
The a/c has been largely 'switched off' via the visual controls of the simulation - it is partially visible in the moving video, but very hard to see in the still image here. What is easy to see is the cut core column about 3/4 of an inch from the left of the screen and about an inch and a half up from the bottom of the screen. In the visualization, this column is clearly cut by the port wing.
Can you begin to see where support for Purdue might begin to unravel?
This image is contradicted by this one
Because in this image the nose is in between two floors, and in the image above, the a/c has gone either side of the spandrel/floor. It doesn't appear to represent the same image from different angles at all.
You are comparing to different moments in time. Look at the initial point of impact:This image is contradicted by this one
Because in this image the nose is in between two floors, and in the image above, the a/c has gone either side of the spandrel/floor. It doesn't appear
to represent the same image from different angles at all.
Further to that, and as an aside to the main point above, I say there should be a specific deformation relating to this visible from the outside view - taking into account Newton's third and the second law of thermodynamics which says that any disorder is likely grow over time...in other words, the peeling of the fuselage and its contents should be visible in advance of the a/c entering the building due to the forces being impressed upon the structure of the a/c by the floor/spandrel - what do you think?
Here's an enhanced version:
Are you saying that's physically impossible?
It's your "assumptive thinking" that's getting in the way......not by my postings here.Given all the evidence available - yes. I would say that it is as near physically impossible as I can say without being absolutely sure, ie. by being a first-hand witness to the event.
Correct me if I'm wrong
It's your "assumptive thinking" that's getting in the way.........the overall explanation (animation) covers most of it.
I'm not sure why you think the vast majority of engineers' opinions who agree with NIST...the animation....is false? .
Perhaps take the matter up with engineers and airline designers....then get back with us.
Given all the evidence available - yes. I would say that it is as near physically impossible as I can say without being absolutely sure, ie. by being a first-hand witness to the event.
Nobody is "positively sure" of anything, 100%.
Did anyone involved in the study not notice what what you are saying ?....unable to notice that they were wrong ? After all....they had figures and numbers. You on the other hand, have visualization as your tool, as well as a certain bias. Combine visualization + bias, and the result is easily far away from the results found with their figures and numbers. Their "visualization" (animation) .....yes, had biases based on the input data being fed to them. But it seems you then take their generalized animation, to mean it is 100% literal.....you can't do that. The animation is just that....an "animation" to plainly describe the detailed circumstances of that day. If I animate an image of a pear (fruit) in a computer rendering....certainly you could say, "but it's still not a pear".......and you'd be right.
That section of the wing is still several tons of very strong aluminum alloy travelling at several hundred miles per hour hitting a column at its shear point (the base of a vertical section). It does not seem entirely implausible that it might fail. At least get severely damage. The end of the column snapping off seems a bit unintuitive. More likely it would just separate and bend - but intuition might not be best metric here.
That section of the wing is still several tons of very strong aluminum alloy travelling at several hundred miles per hour
this is a fallacy. You need to think about how a column might be given a problem - where it is close to a junction with other steels which are tied to it via welding and bolts, you need to consider the amount of leverage a blow to that section might impart to the welds and the bolts and when you look at this in detail, you'll find that a blow to the centre of the column/beam would impart more energy on those couplings. It is also worthy of note that the bolt connections of steels have a higher tensile strength than the steels themselves. This is all easy to research.hitting a column at its shear point (the base of a vertical section)
The end of the column snapping off seems a bit unintuitive. More likely it would just separate and bend - but intuition might not be best metric here.