Physical Impact Model Video

[psikeyhackr]

And now for a video that is completely different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

No one else seems to be demanding to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every floor.

The NIST tells us the building oscillated for 4 minutes. How do you compute how much kinetic energy shook the entire building versus how much did structural damage at the point of impact? Isn't that necessary to do an accurate computer model?

psik

[PhilosophyGenius]

I think a better model would have been showing a few floors on the top of that model getting knocked off or squshed down and seeing how fast the whole thing collapses- if at all.

[psikeyhackr]

The model is intended to demonstrate that the behavior of the structure changes with the distribution of mass. The questions point out that we have not been told the distribution of mass in steel and concrete in 6 years.

The trouble with building an accurate collapse model is the strength to weight ratio of matter increases as things get smaller. An ant is stronger than you in relation to its size. An accurate collapse model could not be built without the information which I am saying we are not being told.

psik

[dMole]

No one else seems to be demanding to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every floor.

The NIST tells us the building oscillated for 4 minutes. How do you compute how much kinetic energy shook the entire building versus how much did structural damage at the point of impact? Isn't that necessary to do an accurate computer model?
psik

I kept getting interrupted when I tried to watch the video, but the physics appeared sound to me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ewt.html#ntcon

I remember Newton's own words saying that an applied force is proportional to the rate of change of momentum of the body (not F=ma per se). F=dp/dt, if you will. It's really a matter of semantics for classical mechanics though. In quantum mechanics and optics, photon momenta and radiation "pressure" gets a little "trickier" since you can't weigh the things...

There are a few places that mention the steel and concrete floor masses/loads.

[metric units from my review]
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...tc/godfrey.htm

http://www.911research.com/papers/tr...lysisFinal.htm

http://911research.wtc7.ent/mirrors/...ews-record.htm

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...TwinTowers.pdf

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...lueprints.html

[I've found some questionable findings in this MIT paper IMHO]
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfil...Structures.pdf

[Very suspect findings in this paper with gems like:]
"Additionally, the FEMA team carried the computer analysis only to a point in time immediately after the impacts; they did not consider the effects of the fire."
http://132.236.67.210/EngrWords/issu...ensonC_PR1.pdf

Regarding the WTC Tower oscillations, these should be impulse-driven, damped oscillations (likely harmonic due to the symmetry in Tower construction). Impulse physics is not well understood AFAIK (usually instrumented crash-test-dummy type stuff). And yes, these SHOULD BE accounted for in an ACCURATE computer model... Who has the source code of the simulations exactly?

[dMole]

How do you compute how much kinetic energy shook the entire building versus how much did structural damage at the point of impact?
psik

Hi again Psi,

I made an inquiry about the engine rotational energy over at Pilots 4 Truth (P4T). Unfortunately, I've been unable to find any data on the jet engines' Moment of Inertia (I), needed for a rotational energy calculation.

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_Fo...ost&p=10063991

Linear KE is easy (= 1/2 m * v^2), if you can find an accurate number/concensus on the combined plane/passenger/fuel mass (good luck- I haven't so far). Oh yeah, UA175 that struck the South Tower WTC2 appears to have been traveling MUCH faster than a Boeing 767's maximum cruise velocity [which SHOULD BE faster than low altitude V_max], too.

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_Fo...ost&p=10011348

Hmmmm...

d

[psikeyhackr]

Some people at Purdue made this simulation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

I sent them this email about it:

Greetings,

Congratulations on a great looking simulation.

Since some of the kinetic energy caused the entire building to shake and some did damage at the impact zone I was wondering how it was determined how much did what?

In six years I have not heard how much steel and concrete were on each level of the buildings so I am wondering how that information can be obtained.

You see I made my own video but the simulation is based on a physical model. I am having trouble understanding how this incident can be analyzed without the distribution of steel and concrete being taken into account. How many tons of steel were on the impact floors of the south tower to weaken in 56 minutes? I haven't heard that in 6 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

Sincerely,

-----------------------------------------

I got this respone from Chris Hoffmann:

Thanks for your interest.
Please contact Professor Sozen regarding the building particulars.
Best wishes, Chris Hoffmann

______________________
Christoph M. Hoffmann, Computer Science
Director, Rosen Center for Advanced Computing
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
ph: 765-494-6185, fax: 765-494-0739
www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh
______________________

I emailed Professor Sozen the same day but I have gotten no response so far.

psikey

[dMole]

I got this respone from Chris Hoffmann:

Thanks for your interest.
Please contact Professor Sozen regarding the building particulars.
Best wishes, Chris Hoffmann

______________________
Christoph M. Hoffmann, Computer Science
Director, Rosen Center for Advanced Computing
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
ph: 765-494-6185, fax: 765-494-0739
www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh
______________________

I emailed Professor Sozen the same day but I have gotten no response so far.

psikey

Don't you know that we were supposed to accept the MSM and Kean Commission versions of physical laws? Hell, just to humor we "CT'ists", they did [government appointed and funded] FEMA/ASCE and NIST studies, not to mention all that wonderful PM (Pseudo-Mechanics) and pHistory Channel "debunking."

It looks to me like Mr. Hoffmann was QUITE quick to wash his hands of your inquiry. I'd stay on Professor Sozen until he responds (but it took me 3 years to get here, and I've been studying the WTC "attacks" for 3 years more, and I don't plan on going away any time soon- that is what the OCT and PTB would prefer, you know).

[psikeyhackr]

This certainly puts an interesting spin on the IMPACT if true.

http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=x2upl977dsY

But lots of people involved with large commercial planes should have known this years ago. Aeronautical engineering students should have known it. If it is true what does it say about our engineering schools?

This is a site with info on aerodynamics:

http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sflight2.htm

It says the air density at sea level is 4 times that at 30,000 feet therefore the drag on the airliner would be 4 times as great. The engines would need 4 times as much power to overcome that drag. It seems unlikely that a normal airliner would have engines that over powered.

These are videos of large aircraft at low altitudes:

Low Pass

Hot Dog

So if the planes in the videos were doing 300 mph and drag is proportional to the square of velocity.

300 * 300 = 90,000 500 * 500 = 250,000

250,000/90,000 = 2.8

Going from 300 mph to 500 mph at the same altitude means 2.8 times as much drag. But going from 700 feet to 30,000 feet means 1/4th as much drag.

2.8 * 0.25 = 0.7

So doing 500 mph at 30,000 feet is less drag on the planes than 300 mph at 700 feet. So if the engines were only using 50% of their maximum thrust when cruising at 30,000 feet they could not produce enough thrust to do 500 mph at 700 feet. I think there is a very good chance that ex-Boeing engineer is correct. Since MIT says the plane that hit the south tower was doing 503 mph this makes 9/11 look very weird.

And the weirdness just doesn't stop.

Switched Planes

psikey

[dMole]

These are videos of large aircraft at low altitudes:

Low Pass

Hot Dog

So if the planes in the videos were doing 300 mph and drag is proportional to the square of velocity.

300 * 300 = 90,000 500 * 500 = 250,000

250,000/90,000 = 2.8

Going from 300 mph to 500 mph at the same altitude means 2.8 times as much drag. But going from 700 feet to 30,000 feet means 1/4th as much drag.

2.8 * 0.25 = 0.7

So doing 500 mph at 30,000 feet is less drag on the planes than 300 mph at 700 feet. So if the engines were only using 50% of their maximum thrust when cruising at 30,000 feet they could not produce enough thrust to do 500 mph at 700 feet. I think there is a very good chance that ex-Boeing engineer is correct. Since MIT says the plane that hit the south tower was doing 503 mph this makes 9/11 look very weird.
...
psikey

Also see this New Zealand 757 video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50BRFzVxDH8&NR=1

All 3 planes looked "flapped" to the stops IMHO, and the 757 had landing gear extended in one pass (increased drag), but they looked MUCH closer to stall or landing speeds than 500mph (or even 300mph) to me. I grew up near the Bonneville Salt Flats speedway, so I've seen several 400+ mph ~4100 feet ASL "low altitude" "cars" and nearly 300mph top-fuel "1/4 mile" dragsters live, but perhaps I can't estimate velocity...

I'd bet that all 3 planes were EXTREMELY "light" (i.e. NO passengers and small flight crew) for lower-liability "stunt" flying. I doubt the fuel load was much either for logistics and risk reasons (but fuel "slosh" is a common problem in aerospace engineering). Less weight = less lift needed, no?

I'm fairly certain that the Boeing 727 has a much smaller moment of inertia (and MUCH higher roll rates) than a 757/767 due to the 727's three engines being MUCH closer to the fuselage centerline than the 2 massive wing-mounted engines for a B757/B767 (or B777 and B787 for that matter).

B727 shows a "Zero fuel weight" of 100,000 lb / 45,360 kg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_727#Specifications

B757 shows an "Operating empty" weight of roughly 128,000 lb / 58,000 kg

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=101

B767-200 shows "Empty weight" of 176,650 lb / 80,130 kg

B767-200ER shows "Empty weight" of 181,610 lb / 82,380 kg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Specifications

B707-120B shows "Operating empty weight" of 122,533 lb / 55,589 kg

B707-320B lists "Operating empty weight" of 146,400 lb / 66,406 kg

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=87

Based on my physics, I'd say your older B727 and B707 are the "sporty" Boeing models, with the B757 getting an honorable mention. Of course, we would need to add a reasonable amount for fuel load and a minimal flight crew to each of the above numbers, based upon my 2 assumptions about "stunt" flying above.

As an aside that indicates Boeing could likely answer our "low altitude" speed questions, NASA says of the B767-200:

"Although of conventional configuration, the detailed aerodynamic design of the 767-200 is highly refined, as might be expected by the nearly 25 000 hours of wind-tunnel time required in the development of the aircraft. To place this wind-tunnel effort in perspective, 14 000 and 4000 wind-tunnel hours were expended in developing the Boeing 747 and 727, respectively."

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/ch13-6.htm

[N320AW]

[QUOTE= Oh yeah, UA175 that struck the South Tower WTC2 appears to have been traveling MUCH faster than a Boeing 767's maximum cruise velocity [which SHOULD BE faster than low altitude V_max], too.

/QUOTE]

Could you be a little more clear on what the above means? I lost ya on that!

N320AW