VeteranXV Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khushi
an apple hitting the pentagon at 100,000mph would do more damage than this plane... (assuming no wind resistance to burn it up)
|
you obviously haven't taken physics.
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by [THE]Perrin
I think it was god.
Smiting us for being heathen.
Or a 757.... But probably god.
|
i bet many mormons died that day... yet i was probably chillin in bed thinkin about how lame mormons are. it just shows faith and irony are two gay lovers.
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribalbob
you obviously haven't taken physics.
|
i have, and im right
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribalbob
you obviously haven't taken physics.
|
I'm not going to bother doing the math, but let's verbalize it:
apple (mass... i dunno, 300g? 500g?) with an acceleration of 100,000mph: F=MA.
The plane is probably a few orders of magnitude heavier than an apple, but it's also travelling a few orders of magnitude slower.
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
(duh its late) :ofn:
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
There is a ****LOAD of weight in the fuselage of an airplane. There is much less in the wings.
1. The wings break off on impact.
2. The much higher mass fuselage goes 40 feet into the building.
|
|
|
VeteranXV Contributor
|
he said velocity not acceleration :P
but that's all irrelevent because the apple would go splat.
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
It would go splat with a lot of force. I drill you in the face with an apple and I bet it would hurt more than gently knocking you with a brick.
And it's acceleration only because I'm making the simplistic assumption it stops dead and transfers all its force to the building instantly.
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
first off, "steel reinforcement" simply means that the structural support (columns and crossbeams) are made from mild steel, which has tensile strength characteristics that make it perfect for structures that need to be tall, support alot of weight, flex somewhat, or take a large impact. likewise, any concrete that has a structural support function is reinforced by mild steel rebar, usually 1/2 to 1" in diameter and arranged in a weave with 1' spaces between intersections. this does not mean that there are huge ****ing 3' thick plates of the stuff hiding underneath the Pentagon's drab exterior. in all likelyhood the steel pillars ARE the very things that began the initial shredding process of the aircraft. the video pwns itself by showing some of the other crashes where there was hardly any wreckage to be found... even when the plane impacts in an empty field, let alone going through a shredder of steel beams and rebar.
-lovely simulation of pillar shredding
http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x...agon_fine8.gif
-detail of conical shaped pillar damage, as would be expected
http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x...6570C-009.html
-chances are a small jet would not have the wingspan to clip these light poles, a missile sure as hell wouldn't
http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x..._Inside_A.html
second, while we're talking about debris, many of the photos taken were AFTER the clean up process begins. to anyone who thinks large chunks are going to survive through that, you're wrong. most aircraft of this size are going to be constructed of aluminum, and magnesium alloy with the occasional bit of steel and titanium. true, airframes are designed to be placed under a great deal of stress and be somewhat flexible (flexible enough i'm told by a Delta pilot that a wide body jet liner's wings can withstand a flexing in the neighborhood of 6' up or down). face it, the plane may be sturdy, but you slam it into a solid object that's filled with steel beams and rebar, it's going to look like a piece of paper going through a shredder. the plane will crumple, fold, bend, snap, and shred. trust me, in my training i've seen many a pilot turf thier bird and seen some strange things happen to the plane that you wouldn't expect to have happen when they do crash. granted, there are not many photos of the wreckage as it existed in it's original state, but what everyone has to remember is that this did occur at a rather sensitive place as far as the government is concerned and the feds are probably not going to let Joe Blo come waltzing in there with his camera just because he's wearing a badge that says he's with the 6 o'clock news team. the g-men are not about to let the press go poking around in a place like this until it's been cleared of anything they feel would be compromising to national security. of the pictures actually released of the wreckage, two of them are particularly damning to this silly little video. both of them happen to be of none other than "large" pieces of wreckage actually sitting inside the perimeter of the Pentagon.
-part of the combustion chamber housing
-part of the high pressure compression stage of the jet engine
and for the finale....
the photos indicate that is part of a Rolls-Royce RB211 535E series engine. what you will find is that these particular engines are used, as far as i know, EXCLUSIVELY by two aircraft... one being the Russian made Tupolev Tu-204 (since 1989) which you will probably never see flown by any major American airline, the other being the Boeing 757-200 series and the 757-300 series (since 1984).
There that settles it.
|
|
Last edited by Evil Engineer; 09-15-2004 at 03:47..
|
VeteranXX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeckeL
why would the government lie about whether a jet hit the pentagon or a missile
|
I don't know.. but looking at the holes it made, it looks more and more like a shaped charge of some kind. Do cruise missiles have shaped charge warheads? Now, I don't know, I think the same things you do, where the heck did the actual PLANE go if it didn't hit the pentagon.But looking at the images, I get that question even when I look at the pictures. There's the hole. Where the hell is the plane? And where are the photographic evidence of the crash?
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
I can't believe people are still debating this stupid ****
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
Re: Evil engineer's post: Those lightposts would probably remove the wings, or large portions thereof, as well, so when the fuselage hit it would just leave a big ass round hole.
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainZero
I can't believe people are still debating this stupid ****
|
im just here for the food
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Great link, thread over.
As to "But the guy had lousy scores!" yea well, maybe he didn't let on what he really knew.
|
|
|
VeteranX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khushi
i have, and im right
|
uhh
thats like saying a bullet will do more damage than a bomb to the pentagon
just because you have greater force doesn't mean it will do more damage
damage isn't even strictly defined, if you want to talk physics
that's just retarded
|
|
|
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Engineer
first off, "steel reinforcement" simply means that the structural support (columns and crossbeams) are made from mild steel, which has tensile strength characteristics that make it perfect for structures that need to be tall, support alot of weight, flex somewhat, or take a large impact. likewise, any concrete that has a structural support function is reinforced by mild steel rebar, usually 1/2 to 1" in diameter and arranged in a weave with 1' spaces between intersections. this does not mean that there are huge ****ing 3' thick plates of the stuff hiding underneath the Pentagon's drab exterior. in all likelyhood the steel pillars ARE the very things that began the initial shredding process of the aircraft. the video pwns itself by showing some of the other crashes where there was hardly any wreckage to be found... even when the plane impacts in an empty field, let alone going through a shredder of steel beams and rebar.
-lovely simulation of pillar shredding
http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x...agon_fine8.gif
-detail of conical shaped pillar damage, as would be expected
http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x...6570C-009.html
-chances are a small jet would not have the wingspan to clip these light poles, a missile sure as hell wouldn't
http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x..._Inside_A.html
second, while we're talking about debris, many of the photos taken were AFTER the clean up process begins. to anyone who thinks large chunks are going to survive through that, you're wrong. most aircraft of this size are going to be constructed of aluminum, and magnesium alloy with the occasional bit of steel and titanium. true, airframes are designed to be placed under a great deal of stress and be somewhat flexible (flexible enough i'm told by a Delta pilot that a wide body jet liner's wings can withstand a flexing in the neighborhood of 6' up or down). face it, the plane may be sturdy, but you slam it into a solid object that's filled with steel beams and rebar, it's going to look like a piece of paper going through a shredder. the plane will crumple, fold, bend, snap, and shred. trust me, in my training i've seen many a pilot turf thier bird and seen some strange things happen to the plane that you wouldn't expect to have happen when they do crash. granted, there are not many photos of the wreckage as it existed in it's original state, but what everyone has to remember is that this did occur at a rather sensitive place as far as the government is concerned and the feds are probably not going to let Joe Blo come waltzing in there with his camera just because he's wearing a badge that says he's with the 6 o'clock news team. the g-men are not about to let the press go poking around in a place like this until it's been cleared of anything they feel would be compromising to national security. of the pictures actually released of the wreckage, two of them are particularly damning to this silly little video. both of them happen to be of none other than "large" pieces of wreckage actually sitting inside the perimeter of the Pentagon.
-part of the combustion chamber housing
-part of the high pressure compression stage of the jet engine
and for the finale....
the photos indicate that is part of a Rolls-Royce RB211 535E series engine. what you will find is that these particular engines are used, as far as i know, EXCLUSIVELY by two aircraft... one being the Russian made Tupolev Tu-204 (since 1989) which you will probably never see flown by any major American airline, the other being the Boeing 757-200 series and the 757-300 series (since 1984).
There that settles it.
|
nice ****ing post
thread over
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
^
|
|
|
Whiny BitchX Contributor
|
Who says the plane was level when it hit?
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
AGENT: claudebot / Y
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:29.
|