What’s your point?
The reason a water cutter needs to be placed close to the steel is that the water will very quickly lose velocity once it exits the nozzle. A plane, with its jet engines imparting velocity has no such limitation.
You are missing the point: with suifficient velocity almost anything can penetrate an object that is otherwise solid.
NO the B-25 did NOT penetrate “like a hot knife through butter”
it STOPPED before the entire aircraft entered the building.
there is a HUGE difference between coming to a full stop
and having the airliner continue on to completely disappear inside.
the airliner was 178 ft long and even if one claims the shorter version was used
it was at least 150 ft long. So then WHY should the B-25 incident be a valid example of how “FLT175” penetrated completely?
Your reply was useless, and failed to address the issue. You triumphed with a ‘I rest my case’ when you had made no case whatsoever.
My reply was quite appropriate.
He’s not missing the point. He’s frantically avoiding the point.
I would love to discuss the issues. However, you are simply stating a belief, e.g. that a plane cannot make a plane-sized hole, how about some proof that this cannot happen? You started this thread about physical laws. These are generally expressed mathematically, so how about some math? Show us that mathematically a plane could not have made the hole and maybe you’ll gain some traction. If you just want to blah blah blah about how it cannot have happened, well, I’m disappointed, I was really expecting something with respect to the laws of physics from a thread with that in the title.
Ping pong balls are also hollow. Regardless of the exact configurations of matter in the planes that hit the towers, they each had a far higher density of mass per unit of volume than a ping pong ball.
You’ve already quoted the formula for kinetic energy (KE = 0.5 x m x velocity squared). You should try applying it in context. Thousands of pounds of jet fuel were in a wing-like shape (due to being stored in wing fuel tanks) and traveling at several hundred miles per hour when they collided with the WTC. As a consequence, there were two wing-shaped holes left as an indicator of the destruction this mass of fuel wreaked upon thin glass/steel walls.
Again, what would you have expected to see? And what evidence is that based on? How many jetliners have you seen flying into skyscrapers recently?
Critical bit here is “almost anything” the fact is that for a physical object >150 ft long and having wings, the structure of the airliner is in question for this example, if the object to be used as a projectile is a single unified bit such as a ping pong ball, OK, however the moment that the airliners nose contacts the target, the whole aircraft will be subjected to forces that will cause its break up, it may make a hole in the wall, but in the process destroy the airliner such that the wings could not possibly make that wing shaped gash.
And you have the math to back this up right?
**Jay_Jay **, if they put a model plane in that gun instead of a ping-pong ball, would you volunteer to stand in front of it for $1000?
No. This is not how the universe works. No signal can exceed the speed of light. Nothing is truly instantaneous (and of course, there is also no absolute frame of reference). The dissolution of the airplanes happened extremely quickly to the human eye, but at a rather slow speed, cosmically speaking.
Bolding mine.
Why? Why wouldn’t the wings make their own mark? The sides of the WTC towers were not excessively strong (compared to say the walls of the Pentagon.) So what calculations have you made that demonstrate the the wings would not make a hole?
The B-25 weighs 17.5 tons with a max speed of 272 mph. Half the speed and only 8.8% of the weight. Far, far less kinetic energy.
It would crumple if it hit a sufficiently solid wall.However, it hit glass with little supporting structures at the exterior of the building. The core, in the middle, was the main support for the Towers.
Notice the Towers did not feature a concrete wall 12 feet thick.
Notice also, the plane is destroyed progressively, not instantaneously.
Were the wings moving at the same rate of speed as the nose of the airplane?
Did the wings have mass and momentum?
Were the wings roughly 75 feet from building when the nose first made contact?
What laws of physics are you describing in your analysis that lead you to your counterfactual conclusions?
Wait…do you think that the official story is that there was no damage to the plane? Maybe that’s the disconnect: do you think that we all believe that the plane flew straight through the building?
The plane was destroyed by the crash. The destruction just didn’t happen instantaneously as soon as the nose touched the tower. There was enough time for the entire airplane to crash into the building (something to do with physics, I believe).
All this shit you bring up has been brought up, discussed and torn apart by people who have the scientific background to actually know what they are talking about hundreds(if not thousands) of times, here at this board and many other places. Your questions are not new, and neither are your sites.
For what reason should we start all over again as if the previous 16 years of discussion never happened? Are the already-answered questions you rehash any different just because you are the one asking them?
The ESB had a density per cubic foot about 4 times the WTC. Had the WTC owners sacrificed a little office space for further support, perhaps the Twin Towers would not have collapsed.
“glass with little supporting structures” REALLY PEOPLE
how many times do I need to clarify this, the wall was 60% steel by area
had decks spaced at 3.6 meters behind the wall and there were welded steel spandrel plates holding the box columns together. this was no “wall of glass” this was structure.