- #36
hookes law
- 10
- 0
Alibongo,
Do you have a video of the impact that is in slo-mo, and perhaps stabilised?
Do you have a video of the impact that is in slo-mo, and perhaps stabilised?
hookes law said:Alibongo,
Do you have a video of the impact that is in slo-mo, and perhaps stabilised?
xxChrisxx said:The other two vids are of the second crash, and the simulation is of the first.
xxChrisxx said:The physics of the second crash are slightly different as the flight is more level and the contact isn't perpendicular to the wall.
xxChrisxx said:i'm really not sure to be honest, i'd assume some rotational motion but not enough to see on the videos. i could be wrong though.
alibongo said:Although the 911 plane hit footage only has 25-30 frames per second, you can still see there's no deceleration, and no breakage of the plane.
Most film only has 25-30 frames per second, yet other crashes, such as in F1 racing, you can still see deceleration present.
I understand why the frame rate is such an issue. The plane doesn't slow down as it meets with the tower wall.
When should the deceleration present itself?
buffordboy23 said:The frame rate is not fast enough then for you to see any deceleration. You need a faster frame rate.
Here's another scenario. Wet a paper towel and have your friend hold it perpendicular to the floor. You now punch your fist through it as fast as you can. While there is a deceleration upon your fist during the impact, you will never see it.
xxChrisxx said:A thin wall of the WTC will in no way provide that amount of deceleration when something traveling around half the speed of sound and weighing probably 80 - 100 tons. The momentums and kinetic energies involved are not even in the same league.
slider142 said:What do ad hominem attacks have to do with crash physics? This thread needs to be closed.
xxChrisxx said:This thread is conerning the 1st imapct, which takes place roughly perpendicular to the outer wall of the building.
xxChrisxx said: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.
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.alibongo said:It seems you're trying to invent a theory to fit the event shown in the videos.
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.shouldn't 500,000 tons of steel slow down the plane?