Picked up at Ningens Blog A MUST READ!
I have previously raised questions about Steven Jones' failure to disclose data from a peer-reviewed engineering journal that contradicts a major part of his "planes" thesis, here:
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/my-concerns-about-professor-jon...
One of Jones' three main arguments in support of his "planes" thesis, which he presents as a rebuttal of the "no planes theory," is the deceleration argument, as follows:
An 18% deceleration of "Flight 175" during its impact with the South Tower, which Jones states can be observed in a video by Evan Fairbanks, is consistent with the expected loss of kinetic energy from such an impact as modeled by Tomasz Wierzbicki, Professor of Applied Mechanics in MIT's Department of Ocean Engineering and director of the department's Impact and Crashworthiness Laboratory.
My criticism is that Jones does not address subsequent research done by Karim and Hoo Fatt who are on the engineering faculty at the University of Akron, and who address Wierzbicki's model in concluding that a much higher amount of kinetic energy would be lost in such an impact.
I have added these two conclusions together the best I can as a non-engineer with high school math and physics, and concluded that these models prove that a real Boeing 767 would have shown much higher deceleration and deformation upon impact with the South Tower.
My analysis and conclusion on this issue can be read, along with some rhetoric about thinking for myself, here:
Thanks, Rick
The title post is actually here:
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/does-nist-prove-no-planes-and-h...
lack of comparisons
the plane doesn't even look like it slows down to me, but we will never create a model capable of copyin the exact situation, but i am convinced that some of the plane would need to stop. ie the tail stabiliser should never enter the building. i watched a docko the other nite about a pilot who was agitating a boeing rudder too much and it fell off!!1. it turns out it is secured with two large bolts ?!?!!?. there is no way the alloy shell wouldn't be stripped or fall off. i will never believe it.
I'm not capable of assessing these models
but the models of Chen/Wierzbicki and Karim/Hoo Fatt, combined, show massive loss of kinetic energy to get through the external columns and floors. This is really obvious and a matter of common sense. The only response I have heard is the Sandia labs video of a fighter jet hitting a concrete wall and turning to confetti. This is supposed to show no deceleration, but all it shows to me is that if there is no deceleration, that means the entire kinetic energy is converted to destruction of the airplane. Would that not mean the entire plane ends up outside the building? NIST, and Jim Hoffman, claim that the plane was converted to confetti and all that confetti passed into the building. How can this be? The plane is destroyed and converted to small debris, AND pierces the building? This is the absurdity that I understand Morgan Reynolds to have been pointing out.
The last time I looked, the Sandia F-4 crash test did not show the aftermath of the crash, though it said that the wing tips were not converted to very small debris. Now, it appears that Sandia has put up a new video:
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.html#rocketsled
Some of the shots in the "F-4 test video stream" show fairly large pieces of debris surviving and flying to the sides or forward over the top of the wall. In one shot, I think I can see large wingtip shooting off to the right side.
If anyone knows how to get this video, please do so, as it may not remain available.
The .mov file links appear faulty, so only streaming video is available.
If anyone knows how to get
If anyone knows how to get this video, please do so, as it may not remain available.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=JYZTXF9U
the plane didn't become "confetti"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wCkjuuJmuMY
Mark G
Mark
Coffinman
That video is as fake as the others.
The plane did not become confetti, and it did not remain intact either, there was no plane.
Here's some pics:
http://www.coffinman.co.uk/crash_wreckage.htm
agreed said photos and videos are faked...
Just to be clear, I didn't postulate anything to the contrary...
Mark G
Confetti is NIST's claim
In NIST NCSTAR 1-2B, Chapter 9, they say the plane broke into small pieces within the building.
Nothing I wrote should suggest that I think this is true - I have merely been saying what NIST, Jim Hoffman, and Eric Salter have claimed.
The whole point of my discussion is to show that the videos are fake -- is that not clear? I am questioning whether what the videos show could be true, and trying to show that since it cannot be true, the videos must be fake.
yes but
you are onto it when you said the medium is diff. if the nose entered the building, maybe, but then would the wings push thru clean?. i think not. they aren't that strong. and the wingtips in that experiment only survived because the plane was wider than the wall. the wall is by the way, made for a nuclear power plant. the test is actually designed to test the wall. i suggest that in plane vs. plane accidents [alloy vs. alloy] any part of each plane that comes into contact is affected, tales come off, wings drop off. they do not remain intact. NEITHER PLANE. so if we replace 1 plane with a strong steel structure surely the effect is the same. i can imagine the plane not slowing down, but the wings not entering, and especially not the stabiliser. no fuckin chance.
good points, Ghengis
Sandia said about the F-4 Crash test - "The test established that the major impact force was from the engines." I doubt whether the nose would actually penetrate at all, and thought that was an unrealistic assumption of Karim/Hoo Fatt in their article (which is now posted on my blog).
Morgan Reynolds links to this telling picture of what a low-speed collision does to the nose of a plane:
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/n571pe/2.shtml
I was talking about this with a guy I met whose brother is an airline pilot, and he pointed out that luggage is stored under the flight deck up to the nose or close. So there could be a fair amount of mass in the lower part of the nose, but still, I do not see it faring much better on collision with a steel building, particularly at the higher speed.
Incidentally, the speed is an artifact of the fake videos, is already unrealistic at sea level, and is as high as could be claimed. But for purposes of analysis, I guess we have to take the speed as claimed and show that even at that speed - really, especially at that speed - the plane would be destroyed on the outside. The higher speed could not result in significant penetration, though it might result in some, but would rather only increase destruction of the plane outside. The only penetration I see is where the engines are, and along the wing spar between the engines where most of the fuel is stored. That impact would be hugely explosive and decelerating and deforming of the aft portions of the plane.
That's my speculation, anyway.