-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Common sense numbers
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:17:52 +1100
From: Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@iinet.net.au>
To: 'Rosalee Grable' <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
Patrick Burnand wrote
[[ Effectivelely the kinetic is proportional to the square of the speed.
The
kinetic energy can be defined as the energy an object has because of it's
movement.
E [J] = 0.5 * m [kg] * v^2 [m/s]
Which means that the energy (in Joules) is proportional to the mass (in
kilograms) and the square of the speed (in meter per second).
This is the reason why it's possible to kill someone using a handgun, but
taking a bullet in your hand and throwing it at someone won't even even
injur this person. ]]
It's also the reason that the bullet doesn't disintegrate into nothing at
the same time as penetrating the person. It's also the reason that a bullet
bounces off a piece of thick steel plate. Its also the reason that that a
bullet will get stuck part way through a thinner plate, having punched part
of a hole in it. It's also the reason that a glass smashes when you throw it
against a wall, and that if you throw it harder it just smashes more
violently. It's also the reason that a ball bounces off a tennis racquet,
unless it breaks the racquet, in which case it flops to the ground.
It's also the reason that an arrow passes clean through a stretched sheet of
paper with minimal loss of velocity, through a piece of cardboard with
greater loss of velocity (and doesn't disintegrate on the other side), just
sticks into a target board, and bounces of a brick wall, and if you shoot it
harder it just bounces off harder, and if you shoot it really hard, it may
break on contact, perhaps making a little chip in the wall. But the arrow
will do better, if the head is made of steel rather then wood.
Its why they use rubber bullets when they're trying not to kill people, and
put rubber tips on arrows when they don't want then to be dangerous. It's
why riot cops wear face visors, because if someone puches a cop in the face,
the face comes off worst, but someone punches them in the visor, the fist
comes off worse.
It's also the reason that a fist punches through a stretched piece of paper
(and doesn't disintegrate on the other side) makes a punching bag move,
smashes a jaw, bruises itself against an elbow and seriously damages itself
against an iron post.
Its also why a fist bounces off a pillow, but plunges into a bowl of
porridge splashing it everywhere.
It also why a stone thrown into the water, loses velocity and splashes the
water, smashes a window and loses velocity, bounces off a car, leaving a
small dent, and if thrown hard enough against a piece of steel plate, will
fracture.
Its also why mediaeval catapults hurled rocks and not tomatoes, and why
bunker busters are missiles not old planes that aren't needed any more.
It's also why when American Airlines 1420 on June 1 1999 overshot the runway
and collided with a light steel pole, that the pole was undamaged, and the
plane was in at least fives pieces.
Sheesh. People think that science is just writing numbers for the sake of
it! The numbers explain things which happen or don't happen in the real
world, like I've just described above.
The kinetic energy has to go somewhere after the collision. For every action
there is an equal and opposite reaction. Which means that when the moving
object strikes the stationary object, it gets energy imparted back into it.
How each object stands up to that collision energy is dependent upon its
construction.
Which is why a huge glass vase thrown at a wall will smash up just the same
as a little glass vase. Or a vase traveling at double the speed just smashes
up more violently. If thrown hard enough, peripheral damage to the wall may
start appearing too.
Which is why American Airlines 1420 got shredded by a collision with a
flimsy lighting tower, which itself was hardly damaged.
So, even ignoring all this lunacy, assuming that that the plane punched
through the wall and was happily on its way to making a cartoon shape of
itself, then assuming that it was passing through the greater area of core
free space, only 64.5 ft of the 160 ft plane can have passed through before
[[the plane was stopped by the core]]
The wing roots - let alone the swept back outer areas - were still well
short of the building, when [[the plane was stopped by the core ]].
How do the wings which never even reached the building, make a cartoon shape
of themselves? With 95.5 ft of the plane still outside the building when
[[the plane was stopped by the core]], how did tail glide in ?
"Stopped" means to cease motion. Which means that the 95.5 ft of the plane
ceased it's motion (allowing a little delay for slowing and compaction),
when [[the plane was stopped by the core ]]
So the wings and tail can't have even reached the building. Basic stuff !
And this means that there was a 139 ft width of core facing the plane. The
engine span is about 60 -70 ft. Which means that for one engine to shoot
through the building (how did it fly off if the rest of the plane stayed
pristine as it glided in - at the same time as being stopped ?) and miss the
139 ft core, then the plane has to be offset a minimum 40 ft to one side of
dead centre.
Which means that with a 160 ft wingspan against a 208 ft building, one
wingshape has to be - at the very most optimistic - hard up against the very
edge of the building - which it isn't.
And since the plane shape is banked, that's even less width covered.
If you believe this tripe, in order to maintain this lunacy about 767s
hitting the WTC, then you should believe that a 757 hit the pentagon too,
because the issues are identical.
Which reminds me - notice how chummy and buddy buddy Eastman is with his
"brother" Jim Hoffman ?
Playing good cop, bad cop on the pentagon I think.
So manic is Eastman in railing against any suggestion that a 757 hit the
pentagon, that he went ballistic on Morgan Reynolds over this - simply for
not even mentioning it one way or the other ! Except that Morgan devoted a
whole section to debunking the pentagon 757 anyway ! And still copped a
tirade from Eastman, so eager is he to froth at the mouth over the pentagon
issue.
Why then does he refer to arch pentagon 757 disinformationist Jim Hoffman as
his "brother" and defend him against criticism ?
Good cop , bad cop.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rosalee Grable [mailto:webfairy@thewebfairy.com]
Sent: Friday, 24 March 2006 8:18 AM
To: Gerard Holmgren
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [planehuggers] Answers to Holmgren while waiting for
Burnand to reply]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [planehuggers] Answers to Holmgren while waiting for
Burnand to reply
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:10:03 +0100
From: Patrick BURNAND <pburnand@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: planehuggers@yahoogroups.com
To: planehuggers@yahoogroups.com
References: <4421EB8E.8050004@thewebfairy.com>
<00ab01c64e53$c056bd80$e632b2d8@nwinfo.net>
On Thursday 23 March 2006 09:28, Dick Eastman wrote:
> > From: Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@iinet.net.au>
> > Subject: Duck vs WTC Core
> > Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 >
> >
> >
> > Patrick Burnand writes
> >
> > [[The kinetic energy is proportional to the mass and the square of the
> > speed.
> >
> > Even if it were possible for a jet to easily pierce the outer wall, it
> > cannot do so making a cartoon shape of itself *and* destroy itself in
> > the process.
>
> The plane penetrated the outer wall. It was stopped by the inner core.
> The hole made in the South Tower wall roughly fits the shape of the
> plane. The same of the hole fits the shape of the object that pushed
> through it.
>
> > That's simple conservation of energy.
>
> The engery of the moving plane was transferred to the core and to tearing
> up the plane after it hit the core.
>
> > An object cannot exhibit in
> > relation to the other object, both overwhelming strength and fragility
> > at the same time.
>
> The outer wall was not massive enough to absorb the energy of the plane
> at that velocity -- the core was. The wall was penetrated by the force
> of the projectile-plane, the core was not.
>
>
> As explained in more detail by my forensic article and also
>
> > that by Morgan Reynolds. This simply does not happen in the real world.
> > If it did, then arrows would disintegrate after they pass through the
> > target.
>
> Depends on what the target is made of and how fast the arrow is going.
>
> > 2. Plane wings and tails are not battering rams. They are engineered
> > such that the aircraft is considered safe if they break at stresses 1.5
> > times the normal operating stresses.
>
> Your little factoid is being overplayed, don't you think? Portions of
> wing were either massive enough to penetrate the wall at that high speed
> or they were not. The shape of the how indicates that much of the length
> of wing penetrated, but the tips of the wings perhaps did not. It's that
> simple.
>
> > I'd say that having the fuselage that they are attached to destroyed
> > and then having the wings and tailed rammed against steel construction
> > beams built to hold up one of the world's tallest buildings is more
> > than 1.5 times the normal operating stress.
>
> Like I say, you are overplaying your factoid. At that velocity (faster
> than a bullet fired from a handgun) when hitting the wall parts of the
> plane are either going to penetrate, disintegrate or bounce off -- most
> of the plane penetrated the wall. The plane was stopped by the core,
> except for the starboard engine which went flying out through the other
> wall. All what one would expect, your meaningless factoid
> notwithstanding.
>
> > Planes get holes put in them by hitting birds. They don't slice steel
> > construction beams like a guillotine ! Get real, you guys !
>
> Sorry -- if birds can bust through metal cockpits at high enough speeds,
> than a full size airliner can penetrate thin steel and glass walls.
>
> > There are similar examples. A MD jet in 1999, which landed hurriedly
> > trying to avoid a thunderstorm, overshot the runway, and collided with
> > a lightly built steel lighting tower. The tower was virtually undamaged
> > and the plane's wings broke off and the fuselage broke into three
> > pieces and scattered all over the place.
>
> You ignore the fact that the plane was trying to land -- that it was
> going very slow. Planes are flimsy and they break apart easily. But as
> the speed increases the force increases geometrically -- so that the
> force increases much more by added speed than by added mass. As Burnand
> the kinetic energy increases so much that the two cases are not
> comparable.
>
> Remember, jetliners hit the twin towers, but not the Pentagon.
>
> Dick Eastman
> Yakima, Washington
Again, you're right Dick.
This "no-plane" explanation (I won't use the word "theory" here) is mostly
based on the ignorance of basic laws of the physics...
Effectivelely the kinetic is proportional to the square of the speed. The
kinetic energy can be defined as the energy an object has because of it's
movement.
E [J] = 0.5 * m [kg] * v^2 [m/s]
Which means that the energy (in Joules) is proportional to the mass (in
kilograms) and the square of the speed (in meter per second).
This is the reason why it's possible to kill someone using a handgun, but
taking a bullet in your hand and throwing it at someone won't even even
injur this person.
--
Patrick BURNAND <pburnand@yahoo.com>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
* Visit your group "planehuggers
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/planehuggers>" on the web.
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
planehuggers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:planehuggers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Search the archives for political-research at http://www.terazen.com/
Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/rss
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
political-research-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment