OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
None of the planes were dirty and in controlled flight.
A Cruise Missile Slammed Into the Pentagon on 911
- Thread starter Martin Timothy
- Start date
heckler73
Well-Known Member
No problem. Including the core,
Okay. g = 9.81 m/s^2 , but what does Density Altitude have to do with calculating dynamic pressure? We aren't discussing plane flight here. Adaptations of the ideal Gas Law are good enough to estimate air density.
Like the barometric equation:
~97.1kPa at the 89th floor or so
Integrate what WRT what?
Is this integral definite or indefinite?
It seems, to me, there are two issues in your hypothesis.
1) For this pressure wave to function as an impulse, it requires a sealed space between coaxial cylinders (the geometry of the wave and boundary conditions necessitate that)
2) The floor/ceiling surfaces must be smooth to the extent turbulence doesn't break up the wave.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with Bazant's calculations for the "pressure wave", but it is more in line with fluid dynamics principles (and he doesn't use pilot charts).
However, an identifiable, problematic assumption in his calculations is a lack of accounting for density changes as dust becomes one with the air at the interface (the windows), never mind his overall "crush-down, crush-up" idea.
Do you remember how that physicist was able to calculate the power of an atomic bomb by comparing the scale of the blast with time lapse information from a few photos (way back when it was all TOP SECRET hush-hush science)? Have you seen some of the calculations for how much energy went into creating the huge clouds of dust (using an avg. particle size of 60E-6 m), which blotted out the sun at ground level for several minutes? There was not enough potential energy in the buildings to generate anywhere near the estimates. But they are just rough estimates, right? They could be prone to some hefty errors...
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html
(be careful with the math on that one. I haven't checked it, and I don't know if anyone else has.)
The video evidence also pokes holes in the hypothesis. The advance of the collapse was rather asymmetrical. The only theory I've seen from the progressive collapse side of things which appears most plausible is the ROOSD.
But even there, the theory fails to take into account a lot of collisions and repercussions from different angles of impact for all the pieces. The resulting webs of structural members will create a clusterfuck of rubble levers and trusses.
I'm not even sure they've calculated any of the moment connections (first place to start is with the truss seats, IMHO). Perhaps they have, and i just missed it. It shouldn't take longer than a few hours to figure out the yield, shear, etc. with an AISC manual in hand. Granted, that would only be for a couple connections (but very important ones in any collapse hypothesis).
In essence, the only way to make pancakes I know of, is to beat up a lot of flour with milk and eggs, or use explosives. Just ask the spinning Pancake Bunny:
I wonder what the fictitious centrifugal force is?
Speaking of which...
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
I always looked at the collapse as the terminal velocity increasing as each floor hit the next and never reaching terminal velocity.
Kinda like filling a ball with water as it is falling. But my math is very limited to +/- = a lot.
Kinda like filling a ball with water as it is falling. But my math is very limited to +/- = a lot.
I meant KNOTS not MPH, my mistake its so easy to do.
All Boeing airplanes hit their targets flying straight and level.
I don't set the Maximum speeds for the Airplanes, Boeing does and the Max speed of a 767 at less than 10,000 feet is 360 knots, otherwise the plane breaks up in mid flight and is uncontrollable as you approach the limit.
But you can believe the government all you want, they have credibility right?
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
My numbers are from MIT data collected and Boeing statement from Boeing. The second plane swooped down to near level flight and turned near impact to effect more floors.
A Boeing 7-6 can climb vertical, no lift all thrust. It is highly maneuverable as all Boeing 7 series are.
I`ve seen footage of a 707 do a barrel roll, and a 7-4 do a coark screw decent over my F`n house, I`ve seen footage of a 52 at 30ft AGL buzz a Supercarrier at 400+mph.
First of all, any plane can fly vertically, even a glider can do it. But no passenger jetplane ever built can do it from takeoff or for very long. It isn't a question of airframe capability its a question of thrust vs weight and a 400,000 lb aircraft cannot fly vertically with 2 engines providing 100,000 pounds of total thrust in any environment but a weightless one. About the only Military Jet I am aware of with enough thrust to enable vertical flight from takeoff was the F4 Phantom, other than Actual VTOL aircraft. The last F4 in use in the US was in the early 90's.
A 707 doing a Barrel roll ( Actually called a Chandelle) is easy peasy, chandelles are very easy maneuvers that apply almost no stress to the airframe whatsoever. What does that have to do with max speed of a boeing passenger jet at sea level?
You saw a B52 bomber buzz a carrier? Does a B52 bomber carry 200 passengers and designed for easy cruising at altitude with the ability to make a profit doing it? WTF does a B52 have to do with anything? Its not comparable at all. I have personally seen a FA-18 hornet fly in excess of 782 MPH at sea level on the Aircraft Carrier CVN-72 in which I was assigned as Marine Detachment. So what? Is a FA-18 a passenger jet built by Boeing? Fuck no!
Also, any aircraft buzzing an aircraft carrier would have to be way higher than 30 feet AGL seeing as the deck of a carrier is about 120 feet above the water and the antenna array is a further 80 feet. So actually you saw a B52 fly at probably several hundred feet in the air and not 30 like you claim.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Really ??............That`s Ranger, just a slant deck.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
The Air Boss had to be told to look down.
Not even close to 30 feet.
Does this prove that a Boeing 757 can fly at 500+ MPH at sea level?
Nope, not at all.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
All I`m try`n to prove is that Boeing planes exceed specs. and can reach cruising speeds at any altitude. The plane that hit the pentagon was a 7-5/200 and can do what they said it did.
Only fuel injected planes/radial can climb at rates vertically and rolls are susceptible to sheer if not built for it.
Keep telling me............
Only fuel injected planes/radial can climb at rates vertically and rolls are susceptible to sheer if not built for it.
Keep telling me............
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Not even close to 30 feet.
Does this prove that a Boeing 757 can fly at 500+ MPH at sea level?
Nope, not at all.
Alright, I`ll admit it, my guess was way off and that is closer to several hundred feet, you were right again.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
It`s below deck so take the tail height away from the waterline and what do you get ?
So the Boeing 767 has a fuel injected radial engine?
Any citation?
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
I`m taken back that you served on honest Abe.
It isn't below deck, a military pilot is not going to jeopardize a $ billion aircraft to show off. There is ground effect at low altitudes and also columns of air mass that can abruptly change, making a maneuver like that highly dangerous. It looks lower than the deck because it is in the foreground.
Why?
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
No problem. Including the core,
Okay. g = 9.81 m/s^2 , but what does Density Altitude have to do with calculating dynamic pressure? We aren't discussing plane flight here. Adaptations of the ideal Gas Law are good enough to estimate air density.
Like the barometric equation:
~97.1kPa at the 89th floor or so
Integrate what WRT what?
Is this integral definite or indefinite?
It seems, to me, there are two issues in your hypothesis.
1) For this pressure wave to function as an impulse, it requires a sealed space between coaxial cylinders (the geometry of the wave and boundary conditions necessitate that)
2) The floor/ceiling surfaces must be smooth to the extent turbulence doesn't break up the wave.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with Bazant's calculations for the "pressure wave", but it is more in line with fluid dynamics principles (and he doesn't use pilot charts).
However, an identifiable, problematic assumption in his calculations is a lack of accounting for density changes as dust becomes one with the air at the interface (the windows), never mind his overall "crush-down, crush-up" idea.
Do you remember how that physicist was able to calculate the power of an atomic bomb by comparing the scale of the blast with time lapse information from a few photos (way back when it was all TOP SECRET hush-hush science)? Have you seen some of the calculations for how much energy went into creating the huge clouds of dust (using an avg. particle size of 60E-6 m), which blotted out the sun at ground level for several minutes? There was not enough potential energy in the buildings to generate anywhere near the estimates. But they are just rough estimates, right? They could be prone to some hefty errors...
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html
(be careful with the math on that one. I haven't checked it, and I don't know if anyone else has.)
The video evidence also pokes holes in the hypothesis. The advance of the collapse was rather asymmetrical. The only theory I've seen from the progressive collapse side of things which appears most plausible is the ROOSD.
But even there, the theory fails to take into account a lot of collisions and repercussions from different angles of impact for all the pieces. The resulting webs of structural members will create a clusterfuck of rubble levers and trusses.
I'm not even sure they've calculated any of the moment connections (first place to start is with the truss seats, IMHO). Perhaps they have, and i just missed it. It shouldn't take longer than a few hours to figure out the yield, shear, etc. with an AISC manual in hand. Granted, that would only be for a couple connections (but very important ones in any collapse hypothesis).
In essence, the only way to make pancakes I know of, is to beat up a lot of flour with milk and eggs, or use explosives. Just ask the spinning Pancake Bunny:
View attachment 3172367
I wonder what the fictitious centrifugal force is?
Speaking of which...
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
No you twister, don`t you see the slash ? Radial engines are different prop.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
You stretch the truth a bit. JFK would appear to be a better assignment. Don`t you have a sense of Humor to help figure thing out ? Stay with me and don`t say I make no sense or you don`t understand me, it`s normal and frequent for me to hear.
You said that Boeing 757's can fly vertically, but then said that only radial fuel injected planes can fly vertically.
Do you see the credibility problem you are plagued with?
Edit: I think you mistakenly are trying to equate a turbine engine and a fuel injected engine as equivalent.