The bullet is made of lead. It’s much softer than steel. Yet as you can see, when it hits steel, it does some cool stuff, turning into liquid and splashing about as it creates a crater in the steel.
An airplane is mostly aluminum. Also softer than structural steel. And like I mentioned about, would have about 1/10 the energy of a bullet per unit of mass, so it wouldn’t quite be this dramatic in turning to liquid. On the other hand, the airplane weighs about 100,000 lbs. It’s going to do enormously more damage. Basically like firing off 10,000 kgs of aluminum ammunition all at once. Like 10,000 field artillery guns fired on the building at the same time. It’s a wonder it didn’t do more damage than it did.
This also explains why it was hard to recover much of the aircraft from the wreckage. Also explains the “thermite” residue - molten aluminum is going to react with the iron in the steel girders of the building.
Except, the vertical columns are mostly not steel. They contain hollow tubes wrapped in concrete, which the paper estimates to be tubes of 9mm thick steel of 356x356 cross section. The lateral pieces may be steel, but the paper says nothing about them other than that they exist.
That paper notes that the façade is prefab sections of 3 columns joined to two spandrels (lateral pieces) bolted together in an alternating pattern. The prefab sections were about 9x20’, or so. The paper says that the failure of the façade was primarily where the prefab sections were sheared off their connecting bolts, which makes a lot of sense.
So, before you post a link to an article, maybe you ought to actually read the article.
Jay_Jay is talking about illusions and how the lack of a document from an eyewitness matters. Jay_Jay doesn’t understand the difference between momentum or energy. Reason won’t work.
I’m going to have to ask at this point; how old are you? Were you alive, or yet at the age of reason, when 9/11 happened? Because I don’t think you understand the ludicrousness of what you’re saying.
This isn’t just something we were told happened by “the media” and shown some videos of later. This is a thing that millions of people watched live as it happened - both people in NYC who saw it in person, and millions around the world who saw it live on TV as it was filmed from cameras situated at dozens of different angles all around the city on the ground and on helicopters, by all the major news networks. To assert that a plane didn’t hit the building is simply unjustifiable, as there’s no conceivable way to explain so many different people and so many video recordings documenting the exact same thing happening in the same way at the same instant in time. The greatest CGI available today, let alone 16 years ago, couldn’t render a photorealistic-from-all-angles airliner in 3D moving at high speed in real time, and there’s no such thing as a technology that can project a rapidly-moving 3D hologram into the sky.
Moreover, it remains a fact that this flight took off that morning, that neither the plane nor anyone onboard it have been seen alive or intact since, and that countless artifacts have been recovered that have been positively identified as parts of the plane and as the bodies and physical effects of its passengers and crew.
Moreover, you have to address the fact that the damage exists and was caused by something, and there simply isn’t any explanation for the damage done that better fits the existing evidence than an airplane impact.
Lastly, you have to answer the question - if 9/11 wasn’t what it appears to have been and was committed by some nefarious group of evildoers for some convoluted purpose, why do it in such a clumsy way that anyone could figure it out by applying “the laws of physics”? If they wanted people to believe terrorists flew planes into the building, why not actually fly planes into the building, which they certainly had the ability to do if they had the ability to wire the entire building with explosives? And if they could wire the entire building with explosives, why bother with faking a plane crash? And if this cabal is so amoral and willing to go to such lengths to murder thousands of American citizens in cold blood, why haven’t they tried to silence you or the other “truthers” who’ve been threatening to expose them for 16 years now?
You strike me as a young person who’s just read about Smedley Butler or the Gulf of Tonkin for the first time and thinks you’ve cracked the case on what’s REALLY going on, and everyone would realize it if only they applied the common sense that you’re so sure is common and sensical. I recommend this Popular Mechanics article (from 2005, which shows you how long we’ve been hearing truthers relitigate this stuff for) for a primer on why and how we know what happened.
Oh - and please do work on your sentence structure and punctuation. It’s hard to take you seriously when you type like you’re participating in a poetry slam.
I don’t have the Nielsen ratings on hand, but yes. Millions watched as it happened. The second impact was broadcast live on all the major broadcast and cable news networks in the US, and in most of the rest of the world as well. Anyone who was alive and watching TV that morning can attest to this.
Well, NYC has about 8,5 million people in it. The Twin Towers were very visible and tall parts of the skyline. After the first impact, it seems quite likely that a significant fraction of the population was watching the burning towers.
So it does not seem unlikely that millions may have watched the second impact directly.
Easily. About 4m were watching it on TV in the UK, including me, and that’s just one country:
"Within 10 minutes of the first crash, around 4m people were in front of a TV watching the tragedy unfold.
At 2.15pm, seven minutes after the second hijacked jet had crashed into the World Trade Centre in New York live on TV, 3.6m viewers were tuned into BBC1 and ITV."
I was at work when it happened so not able to watch TV, but even when there was only a single known plane, even when it was still thought that it was a small plane, and that maybe it hit accidentally, it was already a Very Big Deal. I was able to listen to the radio, and even in those first few minutes, half the FM radio stations* in my area had stopped their regular program and were playing live feeds from one of the major news networks, all of which were doing live “we interrupt this broadcast” feeds. So I heard the coverage of second crash live. I don’t doubt at all that millions were actually watching it as it happened.
*by the middle of the day, every FM channel had switched to an “all news, all the time” format, except for a single channel that didn’t change their schedule at all.
There was a reduction in speed - the aircraft stopped inside the building.
I don’t understand - there was structural failure of the airplane - it broke up into teensy pieces.
It didn’t maintain its structural integrity.
You’ve mentioned demolition a couple of times in this thread - I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you think the WTC towers were brought down deliberately. As it happens, the company I was working for at the time had an office in one of the towers, and a dozen or more of my co-workers were in that office. None of them mentioned anyone planting charges in their office in the months before 9/11 - I think they would have noticed.
Also, if it was planned demolition, can you explain how the hijackers were able to crash the airliners into exactly the correct floors in the WTC towers where the demolition charges were planted? That seems like hecka good flying, and the hijackers weren’t that experienced.
And the notion that all the videos were faked is hard to believe - there are hundreds, and they would all have to be faked way ahead of time, distributed to all the bystanders and news media, and all of them convinced to go along with the fake. What inducements did they offer to the tell-lie-vision folks to get them to collude with the murder of thousands of their fellow citizens?
We’re asking the wrong questions. Jay-Jay has demonstrated time and again that he doesn’t understand physics, or math, or engineering, or anything remotely related to projectiles and static object mechanics. We need to give up all hope of ever explaining any of it to him.
The question we should be asking Jay_Jay is why he’s so fully vested in believing counterfactual conspiracy theories. Is it that you want to feel like you’ve got the inside track on some special knowledge that everyone else is oblivious to? Is this really about the events of 9/11? Why you “MAD AS HELL”, bro’?
OK, since an explanation might actually be useful, here:
The force of air resistance can’t be exactly the amount of energy needed, because a force isn’t an energy. That’s like saying that your height is exactly how much weight is being put on the scale you’re standing on.
Energy is not force; it’s a force times the distance the force is acting along. Power, meanwhile, is energy per time, or force times distance per time, or force times speed. So if the force needed to fly at constant speed is proportional to the square of the speed (which, for subsonic gaseous drag, it is), then the power needed is proportional to the cube of the speed.
All these thousands of people conspiring to kill thousands of people…and yet they can’t manage to stop our OP and so many like him from posting “THE TRUTH”. Is this a vast conspiracy of idiot-savants??
The pix you linked to are of the Restaurant at the top of one of the towers, the office windows where only 40% of the total area and the office floors is where the crash allegedly happened.