The following was posted by a truther with the moniker of CB:
"To address the critics of the no-planes point of view, I provide the following: Case of an airliner striking a wall, and bearing in mind that said wall has behind it decks spaced at 3.6 meters vertically and the airliner striking the wall has a 5 meter diameter body. In the process of either destroying the nose of the airliner, or penetrating, the aircraft can be expected to have to give up some energy and the only energy that it has to give is its forward velocity. Note als...o that given a velocity of 240 meters/second, the airliner would take at a minimum 0.04 second from the time of first contact nose to wall, to the time of the wings having any possibility of touching the wall, so if the airliner were to decelerate by just 2% over that 0.04 second, that is 12 g force, that is everything in the aircraft would exert 12X its weight against what ever it was bolted to, so now people are going to tell me that airliners are built so well as to sustain a 12g load to the structure for 0.04 seconds.
Hypothetical view of why may have happened in the case of the alleged "FLT175". First of all it is a given that the airliner upon contacting the wall of the WTC tower, would have to experience some slowing down, OK, lets assign a number to this, and say that in the first 0.04 sec, the airliner would lose 1% of its velocity, that then would produce deceleration of 6g, so the aircraft is under stress in that each bit of it that is bolted together would be under 6X stress from ...this deceleration, so because the airliner was supposed to have struck the tower at 12.5 deg off perpendicular, the port side jet engine would contact the wall before the starboard side, This would produce asymmetrical stress of the airplane and for a structure that was already stressed by 6g deceleration, this additional jolt would be then the Straw that Broke the Camels Back, so WHY should it be assumed that the airliner would maintain its shape so as to be able to make that plane shaped cut-out in the side of the tower? What justification could possibly be offered up to allege that a commercial airliner made that gash? Note that the places where the wall is backed up by decks ( and decks that are spaced 3.6 meters apart vertically ) would be much more resistance, than breaking through the places that are between decks, so why should the gash be as uniform as it is?"
"To address the critics of the no-planes point of view, I provide the following: Case of an airliner striking a wall, and bearing in mind that said wall has behind it decks spaced at 3.6 meters vertically and the airliner striking the wall has a 5 meter diameter body. In the process of either destroying the nose of the airliner, or penetrating, the aircraft can be expected to have to give up some energy and the only energy that it has to give is its forward velocity. Note als...o that given a velocity of 240 meters/second, the airliner would take at a minimum 0.04 second from the time of first contact nose to wall, to the time of the wings having any possibility of touching the wall, so if the airliner were to decelerate by just 2% over that 0.04 second, that is 12 g force, that is everything in the aircraft would exert 12X its weight against what ever it was bolted to, so now people are going to tell me that airliners are built so well as to sustain a 12g load to the structure for 0.04 seconds.
Hypothetical view of why may have happened in the case of the alleged "FLT175". First of all it is a given that the airliner upon contacting the wall of the WTC tower, would have to experience some slowing down, OK, lets assign a number to this, and say that in the first 0.04 sec, the airliner would lose 1% of its velocity, that then would produce deceleration of 6g, so the aircraft is under stress in that each bit of it that is bolted together would be under 6X stress from ...this deceleration, so because the airliner was supposed to have struck the tower at 12.5 deg off perpendicular, the port side jet engine would contact the wall before the starboard side, This would produce asymmetrical stress of the airplane and for a structure that was already stressed by 6g deceleration, this additional jolt would be then the Straw that Broke the Camels Back, so WHY should it be assumed that the airliner would maintain its shape so as to be able to make that plane shaped cut-out in the side of the tower? What justification could possibly be offered up to allege that a commercial airliner made that gash? Note that the places where the wall is backed up by decks ( and decks that are spaced 3.6 meters apart vertically ) would be much more resistance, than breaking through the places that are between decks, so why should the gash be as uniform as it is?"
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1LZRgy6
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire