Crash Physics: Deceleration & Material Properties

[shure]

Your right "xxChrisxx" you have taken this thread in a poor direction from your first post. The nonsense you come up with to justify what we are seeing in the video is astounding.

 

[slider142]

What do ad hominem attacks have to do with crash physics? This thread needs to be closed.

 

[alibongo]

What do ad hominem attacks have to do with crash physics? This thread needs to be closed.

Please don't close the thread, I came here for answers and haven't had a decent explanation yet.

 

[alibongo]

This thread is conerning the 1st imapct, which takes place roughly perpendicular to the outer wall of the building.

This thread is not concerning the first impact, where did you get that idea xxChrisxx?
Hookes Law has already pointed out it's not relevant to compare a simulation of the first impact with a video of the second impact.

To clarify, this thread is about the alleged video footage showing the second impact.

 

[alibongo]

The main thing that confuses me about the impact is why the wings weren't ripped off, I would have expected this to happen due to the distributed load along the wing gausing a large moment at the wing/fuselage joint.

I agree with you xxChrisxx, this is most confusing. You're keen on simulations, look at the sim for the Pentagon hit. The wings fold back and break off at impact.

Shure posted some very relevant points, but you resorted to insults, like you did when I posted relevant questions.

It seems you're trying to invent a theory to fit the event shown in the videos.

Why don't the wings break off in the vids I posted xxChrisxx?

 

[Doc Al]

Enough already. Closed pending moderation.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry, folks, but 9/11 conspiracy theory threads are not allowed here. This thread slipped by us or it would have been locked sooner. Here's the problem with such threads:

It seems you're trying to invent a theory to fit the event shown in the videos.

Well good, because that's how science works! You take evidence and try to explain the evidence in terms of known physical theory. But I see that you never did approach this thread that way - you posted a youtube link to a 9/11 video clip and called it a fake. See, the problem here is that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists have simply chosen to believe that the evidence is not evidence and as a result are not looking for an explanation of that evidence, but only a confirmation of their preconfirmed opinion. That's not scientific, but it is the reason why these threads go in circles to nowhere.

The issues here really aren't that difficult if one choses to investigate them with an open mind. Start by reading the [real] scientific reports on the subject. I like to help those with open minds, so if you pm me with truly honest/open minded questions, I'll answer them. But the thread stays locked.

[edit]
I'll give you one tidbit that may help here though:

shouldn't 500,000 tons of steel slow down the plane?

That's an improperly asked question because it assumes that the building did not slow down the plane - it did. What you may really mean is 'shouldn't the building slow the plane to a stop, with part of the plane intact, outside the building' (like in the simulation where the tail never gets to the building). The answer is no, but not because of the strength of the building, but because of the strength of the plane. The plane is nowhere near strong enough to keep itself together at impact. If it hit an impenetrable wall, it would simply fold up like an accordion and break apart as it did - every bit of the aluminum structure would be pulverized. Now that isn't what happened, but the point is that there is no no impact scenario under which any part of a plane could slow to a stop, intact. Parts of it can punch through with little deceleration and other parts could disintegrate on impact, but since the video doesn't show what is happening inside the building, it is difficult to see which is happening to what.