We previously saw a Fox News pie chart that had a couple extra slices (here). Now, fair and balanced math adds up to 120 percent of voters indicating that they view the science on global warming to be rigged.
This is an interesting Rasmussen poll when you add up the number and discover that you are in a parallel universe.
The question is: “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?” According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren’t sure).
This rather dubious poll is offered to show that people are dubious about the science and math of global warming experts.
For the full story, click here
Slarti: “Simple physics tells us that more damage was done by UA 175 than was done by AA11.”
I’m done.
Bob said: “AAL 175 did not cut the interior columns; it nicked the corner of the building and burst into flames onto the front pages of all the major newspapers.”
UA 175 had 3.66 GJ of kinetic energy (at NIST velocity), virtually all of which was dissipated (not much came out the other side). Since crushing the entire plane requires only 2.45 GJ, this means that something like twice the energy needed to collapse every single column on a floor was dissipated in the impact. It also likely severed the corner core column (this is significant, I’ll tell you why later). Simple physics tells us that more damage was done by UA 175 than was done by AA11.
Slarti: “You’ve provided absolutely no evidence that the reaction:
3Fe(solid) + 4H20(gas) -> Fe3O4(solid) + 4H2(gas)
could not have occurred (or would not have occurred fast enough to generate significant heat) given the conditions present in the rubble. Until you can do that, it cannot be ruled out as a possible source of heat. I’ve only claimed that this reaction (and combustion of the generated hydrogen) MIGHT have been a source of heat in the rubble.”
Bob said: “Seeing that the rules of argumentation frown upon proving a negative, I’m afraid the burden of production and persuasion is on you.”
You don’t really want to go there, do you? Experiments could be done in order to establish if there is heat generation via Lane’s process under the sort of circumstances present in the rubble (and how that depends on things like the temperature of the steel and the presence of liquid eutectic mixtures. How do you plan of proving that the WTC collapse was initiated or accelerated by thermitic charges? I guess that I don’t have to prove they weren’t there – too bad I’ve already come up with substantial evidence to that effect…
Slarti: “You’ve provided absolutely no evidence that the reaction:
3Fe(solid) + 4H20(gas) -> Fe3O4(solid) + 4H2(gas)
could not have occurred (or would not have occurred fast enough to generate significant heat) given the conditions present in the rubble. Until you can do that, it cannot be ruled out as a possible source of heat. I’ve only claimed that this reaction (and combustion of the generated hydrogen) MIGHT have been a source of heat in the rubble.”
Seeing that the rules of argumentation frown upon proving a negative, I’m afraid the burden of production and persuasion is on you.
Byron: “How does that syllogism apply to my question about the energy remaining to destroy interior columns?”
That syllogism is intended to illustrate the importance of keeping counter-factual premises out of an argument. Period.
Byron: “I didnt say there was enough energy to cut the interior columns I asked if there was. Just by observation I would say there was or the plane would not have cut columns on the reverse side of the building and if it didnt cut columns on the interior it would have probably cut more on the reverse. The interior structure dissipated some of the energy of the plane.”
AAL 175 did not cut the interior columns; it nicked the corner of the building and burst into flames onto the front pages of all the major newspapers.
Why does anyone continue to participate in Slarti’s flights of fancy?
Because it is obvious to any intelligent reader who isn’t hopelessly in the grips of a confirmation bias that I know what I’m talking about.
[Slarti] “There’s no evidence to suggest that the massive debris couldn’t have been thrown the observed distances by the air pressure generated by the collapse (and calculations which suggest that air pressure (and height) could give the needed velocity to, for instance, hit WTC7 with a large piece of debris).”
Massive debris (up to 20 tons) was thrown 500 ft by air pressure???
Ahh, the whimsical mind of the mathematician knows no bounds.
Anybody who believes that air pressure was responsible for sending massive pieces of the building 500 ft. away is probably standing in line to buy a bridge.
Then do the math and prove me wrong. All you have to do is make a reasonable estimate of the sail area of your 20 ton piece of debris and determine the magnitude and duration of pressure necessary to accelerate it to 18 m/s (a object ejected horizontally from the vicinity of the 95th floor at a velocity of 18 m/s will land 500 ft away). For extra credit, determine how quickly a floor would need to collapse to generate the given pressure (you can’t do more that roughly approximate this because you don’t know the total surface area which the air is escaping from). If I have the time, I’ll find estimates of the velocity of air escaping the building, but since you’ve offered nothing to support your assertions, I’m not making it a priority.
Here are a few more of the assertions made by Slarti that didn’t pan out.
If all of these are so wrong, then why haven’t you provided references to debunk any of them?
1. Lanes process, in the presence of water, at atmospheric pressure.
You’ve provided absolutely no evidence that the reaction:
3Fe(solid) + 4H20(gas) -> Fe3O4(solid) + 4H2(gas)
could not have occurred (or would not have occurred fast enough to generate significant heat) given the conditions present in the rubble. Until you can do that, it cannot be ruled out as a possible source of heat. I’ve only claimed that this reaction (and combustion of the generated hydrogen) MIGHT have been a source of heat in the rubble.
2. A eutectic mixture, derived from gypsum, but absent a distribution of calcium to tie it to that source.
You obviously haven’t read the reference that I provided, since it describes how sulfur would be released from gypsum as SO2 (and in what quantities). Where is your reference indicating calcium should be present?
3. Vertical impact jolt without the impactor (WTC2)
A good analysis of the tilting of the upper block of WTC2 (and subsequent collapse) can be found in Bazant et al.
4. An open system behaves the same as an isolated system.
The same laws of physics apply to both. Energy is conserved. Period.
5. 45 degree cuts on core columns are the result of having enough energy.
I have made it clear that I believe 45° cuts were made by workers during cleanup. I provided video showing workers making such cuts.
6. 45 degree cuts on core columns were made by a thermic lance, not nanothermite, but it’s not important to demonstrate that a thermic lance was ever brought to the site.
I merely suggested that there were other possible sources of thermitic material other than deliberately placed cutter charges (which wouldn’t have produced the results in the photo you are referring to, anyway). After taking a closer look at Dr. Jones’ paper, I now believe that his results are highly dubious at best and feel no need to respond to his unsupported allegations.
7. Core columns must have buckled, but the fact that no buckled core columns were noted is due to them being too common to notice.
All I said was that buckled columns would have been expected and unremarkable. Do you get excited and tell all of your friends that you saw a tree when you were walking in the forest?
8. The effect of dropping 1 million pennies from 1400 ft, over an area the size of 4 football field will have the same effect as dropping 2500 kilograms from the same height onto the head of a pin.
I never said or implied anything of the sort. (If you want me to answer your straw man allegations, you should at least take a quote of mine out of context to support it.)
9. That the energy used to destroy the building is not directly related to the impact velocity. (i.e. If half of the GPE is used to destroy the building, the impact speed must be reduced by at least 50%.
Sorry, Mr. Physics, but energy does not depend linearly on velocity (energy is proportional to the square of velocity). Half of the impact energy means 71% of the impact velocity.
10. That seismic readings can only be related to visually observed events. (i.e. destruction of the core columns just prior to the collapse would not produce seismic readings)
All of the events seen on the seismic record can be explained by events observed during the collapse. If you would like to dispute this, please tell us your interpretation of the seismic record (and please give a reference to back it up.
I could continue, but Slarti would never come to understand it.
I’m sorry that I find your ignorant version of science impossible to understand. Maybe if you provided references to back up what you say (like I have) then I would be able to determine what you meant. Surely if I am so confused debunking me should be a piece of cake.
Robert:
I think the pieces of the building 500′ away were parts of the exterior column system after all the building was over 500′ tall.
I dont think he said the outcome of 1×10^6 pennies would be the same as a 2500 kg dropped from 1,400′ just that the energy created would be the same if the masses were equal.
How do you know there were no buckled core columns? How would you be able to tell what happened to them once they were bent in the collapse.
There were no lower level columns with 45 degree cuts that I saw, they were all from upper floor columns. Which would make sense because they would be at the top of the debris pile and the welders would need to cut them to clear them out.
There is no way that building would be in free fall because it would need to overcome each of the floors below, it would gather speed as the momentum increased from additional floors.
The buildings were destroyed by planes and gravity. It is simple and straightforward. Once the exterior columns were compromised that was the end of those buildings. It wasn’t like a pencil hole in a screen door or some such nonsense from someone that should have known better. A large number of supports were cut by the impact of the plane, then redistribution of forces which allowed them to remain and then collapse.
Planes-Lose of support-failure. Sans explosives sans governmental cabal.
Much more evidence for planes than thermite or CD. I.E. we saw them impact the buildings.
Bob:
“All celestial bodies are made of green cheese
The moon is a celestial body
Therefore…”
How does that syllogism apply to my question about the energy remaining to destroy interior columns?
I didnt say there was enough energy to cut the interior columns I asked if there was. Just by observation I would say there was or the plane would not have cut columns on the reverse side of the building and if it didnt cut columns on the interior it would have probably cut more on the reverse. The interior structure dissipated some of the energy of the plane.
But in any event if I knew that Mars and Jupiter and Neptune were made of green cheese, it would not be a leap to assume the other planets in our solar system were also made of green cheese and the moon as well. I may be wrong in that assumption but it would have been made with first hand knowledge.
Why does anyone continue to participate in Slarti’s flights of fancy?
[Slarti] “There’s no evidence to suggest that the massive debris couldn’t have been thrown the observed distances by the air pressure generated by the collapse (and calculations which suggest that air pressure (and height) could give the needed velocity to, for instance, hit WTC7 with a large piece of debris).”
Massive debris (up to 20 tons) was thrown 500 ft by air pressure???
Ahh, the whimsical mind of the mathematician knows no bounds.
Anybody who believes that air pressure was responsible for sending massive pieces of the building 500 ft. away is probably standing in line to buy a bridge.
Here are a few more of the assertions made by Slarti that didn’t pan out.
1. Lanes process, in the presence of water, at atmospheric pressure.
2. A eutectic mixture, derived from gypsum, but absent a distribution of calcium to tie it to that source.
3. Vertical impact jolt without the impactor (WTC2)
4. An open system behaves the same as an isolated system.
5. 45 degree cuts on core columns are the result of having enough energy.
6. 45 degree cuts on core columns were made by a thermic lance, not nanothermite, but it’s not important to demonstrate that a thermic lance was ever brought to the site.
7. Core columns must have buckled, but the fact that no buckled core columns were noted is due to them being too common to notice.
8. The effect of dropping 1 million pennies from 1400 ft, over an area the size of 4 football field will have the same effect as dropping 2500 kilograms from the same height onto the head of a pin.
9. That the energy used to destroy the building is not directly related to the impact velocity. (i.e. If half of the GPE is used to destroy the building, the impact speed must be reduced by at least 50%.
10. That seismic readings can only be related to visually observed events. (i.e. destruction of the core columns just prior to the collapse would not produce seismic readings)
I could continue, but Slarti would never come to understand it.
Slarti: “{despite the fact that significantly more kinetic energy was dissipated in the impact of UA175 on the south tower and there was considerably more weight bearing on the impact zone.}”
AAL175 missed the core.
Slarti: “I notice that you didn’t respond with your own comprehensive theory of the collapse which requires controlled demolition.”
Would you like Buddha to explain it again for you?
Slarti: “Much of the 480 GJ of GPE was converted to heat by work done to ’shred’ the building.”
The foregoing sentence results from your problem with defintions;
to wit:
Slarti: “work is the process by which energy is converted from one form to another”
Once again, energy is the capacity for doing work; Work refers to an activity involving a force and movement in the direction of the force (e.g. vector); Power is the rate of doing work or the rate of using energy. Work is not the ‘process by which energy is converted from one form to another.’ Why? Because WORK IS THE USE OF ENERGY.
Accordingly, when you say “Much of the 480 GJ of GPE was converted to heat by work done to ’shred’ the building” you’ve said nothing meaningful; since work and heat remain two distinct energy components to be subtracted from the initial 480 GJ and you have not added a single predicate to either.
Therefore, when you say “I believe that enough heat to liquify over 500 metric tons of iron (assuming the iron is at room temperature) was generated in the collapse of each tower.”
You have said that 450 GJ was used up when that heat ‘was generated’ — leaving only 30 GJ (using your 2007 Ulrich numbers) for ‘work’ in tearing down the tower.
Total work done does not include heat generated. Heat generated represents excess energy used in the process; not a part of the work.
Slarti: “I have my doubts that you will ever understand the physics involved no matter how clear my explanations are. But I could be wrong, Meat.”
Keep insulting me; I’m sure in your world that form of argumentation makes you sound all the more convincing.
Slarti: “Since the rest of this paragraph contains factually true statements that can be verified (although the final one is merely a statement about my perception) I don’t really feel the need to defend them”
Let’s take quick look at the inanity of the following:
Slarti: “If you look at both plots, you will see that both aircraft descended over 30,000 feet in the 10 minutes before impact. As you should know by now, this means an enormous amount of GPE was dissipated – in fact, the GPE dissipated was the equivalent energy of the planes traveling 835 knots!
Wow; so I guess 30,000 feet in 10 minutes isn’t 29.6 knots? It’s 835 knots? So if the plane descended 845,000 feet in ten minutes, then how fast would it REALLY be traveling?
Slarti: “This means that if the planes were dropped from 30,000 feet with no air resistance, they would be going 835 knots at impact.”
Really? Move over Bernoulli, here comes a plane that sustains altitude in a vacuum! I find it laughable that you’re willing to venture so far into your absurd metaphors as to remove the very predicate that makes the existence of the object of your analysis possible; while asking your audience to ‘believe’ it could ever apply to the real world problem at hand.
Slarti: “Given this fact, it seems easily possible for both planes to reach their observed impact speeds given the kinetic energy gained in their descent (plus from their engines).”
Given the fabricated fact that a plane, i.e. an object that owes its existence to air, is able to accelerate free fall in a vacuum, WHILE using jets that would have NO EFFECT without said existence of air to push through said jets (yes folks, this is Slarti world) then the planes would reach their observed impact speeds (i.e. those speeds physically precluded by the existence of said air at sea level.)
Slarti: “Anyone still reading this can judge my grasp of the physics”
Indeed.
Slarti: “We know that a similar plane in a steep dive (EA 990) can reach Mach 1 or thereabouts,”
Near Mach 1 at 22,000 feet while accelerating straight down…
Slarti: “so just slightly decreasing from cruising velocity during the descent seems well within the realm of possibility. Especially given that the 767-200 is an overpowered plane.”
Hint: The WTC wasn’t 22,000 feet tall; it existed in, how shall we say, MUCH DENSER AIR at sea level. But why should facts like that bother you Slarti.
Slarti: “I’d be willing to wager that I’ve spent a lot more time studying this problem than you.”
Which is why you were beating your chest about holes in the primary radar when you had ABSOLUTELY no idea what you were talking about? Why do you find the need to do that? Were you ignored as a child?
Slarti: “Then please, by all means, explain what you mean by a ‘hole in primary radar’. You should also tell us what the sampling rate of the radar involved is and what information is gathered in each sample.”
I should what? There you go again; making demands on a topic as to which you’re completely clueless.
Here’s a glimpse of how the holes in the primary radar evolved between June 2000 and 9/11/01
Michael P. McNally: “In the rush to modernize enroute centers, we must retain current system safeguards, such as primary radar—which FAA plans to deactivate beginning June 2000. Primary radar is the least sophisticated type of surveillance, but it is the only tool currently available to detect aircraft or objects without an operating transponder. If a plane is equipped with a transponder, it can fail for many reasons, including electrical and mechanical failure; however, pilots can also choose not to turn them on. You can imagine that people involved in illegal activities would certainly like to keep themselves invisible—and that’s what will happen if primary radar is turned off.”
http://nlc.natca.org/OLD%20files/MM%20Feb%2099%20senate%20test.htm
Like I said, why don’t you ask your brother in law what charts he’s privy to that contain the locations of gaps in the primary radar; after all, if the lack-luster terrorist pilots could find them I’m sure he can too.
Oh wait, that information is classified isn’t it; like it was classified on 9/11/01.
Many people know that Benedict Arnold was a traitor, but few know the details of the treason found within Major John Andre’s boot. You see, if the British knew when Arnold planned to replace a link in the chain across the Hudson protecting West Point with a piece of rope…
Well it would be like knowing where those holes in the primary radar were on 9/11/01 now wouldn’t it?
But don’t worry Slarti, from your perspective, it has nothing to do with the ‘natural causes’ for the destruction of the WTC.
Bob posted:
Bob,
You decry premises which are not counterfactual and cling to the counterfactual conclusion that explosives and/or incendiaries were used to initiate and accelerate the collapses on 9/11 and that they are the only possible source of continuing heat in the rubble. There were no observed effects of explosives on 9/11 and no need for incendiaries to account for any of the observed effects. I don’t think that this is a strong foundation for you to lecture Byron on truth since your knowledge has no agreement with its object whatsoever.
Once again you resort to the puerile tactic of inserting your premises into my argument and reducing them to absurdity.
Slarti: “Your theory (as near as I can tell, please add additional detail or correct any misstatements): Planes hit the WTC[,] doing an insignificant amount of damage (in terms of compromising structural integrity [especially in WTC2) and touching off fires which were neither hot enough nor lasted long enough to weaken the structure and initiate the collapse”
Everything else you wrote was a waste of bandwith.
Slarti: “Again, I said there was enough energy stored in GPE in the WTC to melt 533 tons of iron, not that 533 tons of iron was melted.”
Your lack of clarity and overall inability to master the mother tongue is duly noted. However, since you ‘resolved’ to account for the collapse as well as the molten metal at ground zero at the inception of this debate your entire argument is now in question.
For when you make a statement such as
Slarti: “I believe that enough heat to liquify over 500 metric tons of iron (assuming the iron is at room temperature) was generated in the collapse of each tower.”
The key words are “WAS GENERATED.”
Thus the statement reads that 450 GJ was used up when that heat ‘was generated’ — leaving only 30 GJ (using your 2007 Ulrich numbers) to tear down the tower.
Perhaps if you devoted more time to clarifying your language and less time inventing new ways of insulting me we wouldn’t have this problem.
Finally, I’ve truly grown weary of responding to some of your more incredulous knee-jerk counter-arguments. Perhaps you were in a rush, but this little ditty took the cake:
Slarti: “If you look at both plots, you will see that both aircraft descended over 30,000 feet in the 10 minutes before impact. As you should know by now, this means an enormous amount of GPE was dissipated – in fact, the GPE dissipated was the equivalent energy of the planes traveling 835 knots! This means that if the planes were dropped from 30,000 feet with no air resistance, they would be going 835 knots at impact. Given this fact, it seems easily possible for both planes to reach their observed impact speeds given the kinetic energy gained in their descent (plus from their engines). We know that a similar plane in a steep dive (EA 990) can reach Mach 1 or thereabouts, so just slightly decreasing from cruising velocity during the descent seems well within the realm of possibility. Especially given that the 767-200 is an overpowered plane.”
There’s something so inane yet telling about the foregoing paragraph; if it only stands as an example of how intoxicated you get on the concept of GPE. It also shows you have no grasp whatsoever of the problem or the concepts involved; and you have the audacity to insult MY knowledge of physics? Once again, perhaps if you spent more time studying the problem instead of trying to insult me (e.g. by calling me ‘meat’) you wouldn’t have written such thoughtless crap. In fact, your entire critique of the Pilots for 9/11 Truth video falls into the same category.
Finally, please note that you have absolutely no idea what a hole in the primary radar is; making that last paragraph of yours regarding same a pile of horseshit befitting a 7th grade English student trying to bullshit his way through a book report for a book he never read.
to wit:
Slarti: “My brother-in-law didn’t say anything about radar – he just said all of your objections about the speeds were blatantly wrong. And no one found gaps in the radar – if you had actually looked at the link I provided for the altitude data of AA11 (what a shock, Bob didn’t look at (or understand, anyway) the information that I linked to – is it another day ending in ‘Y’ already?), you would have seen that instead of a solid curve there are a bunch of points (that’s what all of the little triangles are – the primary radar returns) indicating radar positions at various times. Have you ever seen the radar dish at the airport spinning around? It only paints the plane’s position (not it’s speed) when it is pointed at it. That’s why you see a radius sweeping around updating positions on a radar display. There are a whole bunch of data points for the middle of the flight (when the plane was in the coverage of multiple radars), but they get much thinner at the end (about 5 returns in the 2 minutes before impact). This is not very good data to calculate impact velocity with – video of the impact is far better (although still not ideal).”
Idiot.
Byron: “If the plane was going less than 390 knots why is that a problem? In my mind the real issue is how fast would it have to be going to punch a hole in the building?”
Truth is the agreement between knowledge and its object. We know the planes penetrated the building; if only based on the video evidence. The problem lay in accepting premises that are counter-factual on their face. Accepting prima facie counterfactual premises leads to such problems as concluding that the moon is made of green cheese.
All celestial bodies are made of green cheese
The moon is a celestial body
Therefore…
Bob, do you actually think about what you write before you post it, or is this just an illogical stream-of-consciousness?
Bob posted:
Slarti: “As has been your typical modus operandi, you throw out some (poorly supported) arguments that you feel support your case without in any way trying to work them into a comprehensive theory of the collapse. Until you put a comprehensive theory of the collapse forward, you have no scientific theory to compare to the ‘impact-fire’ theory”
Talk about projection.
From my reply that I was working on; until your last post which makes me wonder just how thorough you are in your professional life.
…
Slarti: “That’s to melt the entire impacting object.”
No, that’s the energy required to melt one kg. That’s one kg in the 553 thousand kg’s of iron you claim the GPE in the WTC was capable of liquefying. Funny though, when you begin with the 400 GJ of energy you claim to be stored in the WTC, we end up with a 97 GJ deficit; since you need 497 GJ to melt 553 metric tons of iron. That’s a deficit of 97 GJ before any accounting for the energy required to shred the tower.
The irony of it all being that said molten iron, according to you, both exists and yet, as you claim, we have no evidence of its existence.
This in turn brings to mind a comment you made to me in an email;
to wit:
Slarti: “if I had done my energy calculation and come up with, say, 600 GJ in sinks and 400 GJ of GPE I would be telling you that your suspicions were highly likely and agreeing with you that further investigation was necessary (I certainly don’t need any more evidence to think that the Bush administration was a bunch of criminals). “
Slarti: “205 GJ was dissipated in destroying the structure, pulverizing materials, ejecting the pyroclastic flow and debris,”
Plus 497 GJ to melt the 553 metric tons of iron, that’s … 702 GJ
Furthermore, getting back to that one equation I stressed from the beginning, i.e. Q=MC(delta-T), we find that we need EVEN MORE ENERGY to keep all that metal in a molten state for the months afterwords.
But don’t let that bother you; you can always excuse yourself in in the guise of ‘adjusting figures’ as you go along.
BTW, why don’t you ask your brother in law what charts he’s privy to that contain the locations of gaps in the primary radar; after all, if the lack-luster terrorist pilots could find them I’m sure he can too.
Right Slarti?
Bob,
I find it amusing that after months of arguing that the WTC designers used such a significant safety margin that the towers couldn’t possibly have failed after they were subjected to severe damage in the impacts which dislodged fire protection (which was apparently unnecessary in Bob’s World) and then heated by un-fought fires (which, I should mention, Dr. Greening believes were unnecessary – according to him the collapse would have happened later if there weren’t fires, but it would have still happened) you would come out with an argument that Boeing engineers have their rated maximums so close to the actual failure points (more on this below) that briefly exceeding them (or just approaching them) would ‘shear their own wings off’.
From the ‘Pilots for 9/11 Truth’ website ( http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed ):
First off, I’m going to have to give you a D- on your reading comprehension – the original value that I was using was 404 knots for AA11 (which you objected to) and the corrected values which I gave (I’ve converted them to knots) were:
383 +/- 26 knots for AA11, and
468 +/- 21 knots for UA175
As you can see, even by the EA990 standard (which isn’t so good as we will see) the speed for AA11 is fine and the speed for UA175 is only 43 +/- 21 knots over this ‘maximum’. Now, what about the comparison to EA990 – first, they are different models. EA990 was a 767-366, not a 767-200. The 366 is a more massive plane and may have other differences which would effect performance. We also don’t know the maintenance and flight history of all three planes – this would be an important piece of information in evaluating whether the 9/11 planes had a higher or lower failure point than EA990. Perhaps most significantly, the velocity at which EA990 broke up is suspiciously close to Mach 1 – could there have been some effect caused by breaking the sound barrier that caused or contributed to the structural failure? Finally, the cause of EA990’s crash is disputed – Egyptian authorities believe that the cause was mechanical failure, not a deliberate act by the pilot. I’m also a little dubious about tying the failure point of the plane to equivalent airspeed – there may well be other variables in the flight profile that are significant here. Realistically, without wind tunnel data there’s a whole lot of wild ass guessing going on – none of which seems strong enough to state that the observed flight profiles were impossible.
What about achieving these speeds near sea level? Well, altitude is the key here – the planes weren’t flying level when they hit the towers – the angles of impact were:
10.6°+/- 3° for AA11, and
6°+/- 2° for UA175
(both planes were oriented downward) But do we know about how their altitude changed before impact? It turns out we do. Page 4 of each of the following two NTSB documents is a plot of altitude vs. time for each flight:
www(dot)ntsb(dot)gov/info/Flight_%20Path_%20Study_AA11.pdf
www(dot)ntsb(dot)gov/info/Flight_%20Path%20_Study_UA175.pdf
If you look at both plots, you will see that both aircraft descended over 30,000 feet in the 10 minutes before impact. As you should know by now, this means an enormous amount of GPE was dissipated – in fact, the GPE dissipated was the equivalent energy of the planes traveling 835 knots! This means that if the planes were dropped from 30,000 feet with no air resistance, they would be going 835 knots at impact. Given this fact, it seems easily possible for both planes to reach their observed impact speeds given the kinetic energy gained in their descent (plus from their engines). We know that a similar plane in a steep dive (EA 990) can reach Mach 1 or thereabouts, so just slightly decreasing from cruising velocity during the descent seems well within the realm of possibility. Especially given that the 767-200 is an overpowered plane.
The Pilots for 9/11 Truth also make a fuss about the NTSB estimates (which I believe – based on the videos Bob posted – were higher than the NIST estimates) and the worry that inaccuracies in these estimates have ramifications for air safety. I would point out that the NTSB estimates come from radar samples (I seem to remember reading somewhere that these samples were taken approximately once every 30 seconds, but I can’t recall where, so I’ll just point out that they have a much lower sampling rate than, say, video of the crashes). I would expect estimates from video of the seconds before impact to be more accurate (and slower) – also, difficulties in measuring distance in video records would account for a spread of velocities calculated from different records (something cited as evidence in the ‘no planes’ theory).
Another aspect of the videos which I found highly disingenuous was one of the pilots (who had logged airtime as captain of the plane flown into the south tower) was discussing the difficulty of doing touch-and-gos on an aircraft carrier (I believe he was referring to a 737, but I’m not sure what sort of plane it was). During this discussion an image of an aircraft carrier (standing on end) was placed next to an image of the WTC in an obvious attempt to compare the difficulty of hitting the deck of an aircraft carrier during a landing to hitting the WTC – this is obviously bullshit. Pilots landing on carriers are able to position their planes horizontally on the deck of a carrier EVERY SINGLE TIME (if a pilot missed to the port or starboard, I suspect they wouldn’t be a naval aviator for very long). The 9/11 hijackers didn’t have to be overly concerned about what floor they hit – just that they hit as close to center as possible. Also, the 9/11 hijackers are universally described as bad students in flight school – this judgement makes the implicit assumption that they wanted to learn to be good pilots. Since they had no concern about taking off or landing (and certainly couldn’t tell that to their instructors) they could easily have been concentrating on the skills that they wanted (controlling a plane already in flight) and ignoring the rest. It seems likely that this would make them appear to be poor students in their instructors eyes while giving no indication of their level of skill in the areas that they were focused on.
In order to double-check my research on this, I decided I should talk to an actual pilot. My brother-in-law is a former naval aviator and commercial pilot (who has flown large commercial airliners) so I gave him a call and asked him about attaining the reported speeds near sea level, the probability of structural failure at those speeds and the impossibility of controlling the aircraft. His response was that you (or Pilots for 9/11 Truth) were blatantly wrong on all three counts. He did say that the aircraft would be sensitive at such speeds, but characterized hitting the towers as ‘lucky’ rather than ‘impossibly good’. He also mentioned that the 767 is an overpowered airplane and he thought it easily capable of attaining the observed speeds – especially at the end of a descent and he didn’t think that structural failure was a worry (he did say that the planes would require inspection after such a maneuver to determine if structural fatigue or damage was sustained – which is obviously impossible in this case). After our conversation, I wondered if the planes could have been flown by autopilot (i.e. manually adjusting the heading and altitude settings and letting the autopilot actually perform the maneuvers) – I’ll follow up on this next time we talk and report back.
Also, you referred to the comment I quoted as being by ‘Mr. Keith’ which is incorrect. The comment was by an anonymous poster (like you ;-)) – Mr. Keith is the whackjob on the mp3 that I posted who thinks (among other things) that a 767 should have impacted on the face of the building rather than penetrating into it.
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make about the speeds – are you questioning that the WTC was hit by a stock 767-200? That the speeds given by NIST are incorrect? If so, I will point out that Pilots for 9/11 Truth don’t have any problems with the upper end of the NIST margin for error for AA11 (409 knots). The differences in velocities between the two planes and the location of the hits (horizontally and vertically) seem consistent with the intervals between impact and collapse of both towers – the south tower was hit lower and with more energy (and farther from the core of the building) resulting on more weight bearing on a more heavily damaged region (although a smaller damaged region) resulting in more eccentric loading of the remaining structure leading to a quicker failure. As has been your typical modus operandi, you throw out some (poorly supported) arguments that you feel support your case without in any way trying to work them into a comprehensive theory of the collapse. Until you put a comprehensive theory of the collapse forward, you have no scientific theory to compare to the ‘impact-fire’ theory. This is a serious problem as many of your partial theories can’t be reconciled with each other, let alone the facts.
If you want to argue for the ‘No Plane’ theory, then you should start working on your argument to refute this:
911research(dot)wtc7(dot)net/essays/salter/review.html
Just be sure that you don’t discredit the whole site… 😉
You know, you’ve repeatedly claimed that you’re not wearing a tinfoil hat and you’ve got a nice woolen cap on ala Michael Nesmith of the Monkeys (or a tuque if you’re from the Great White North), but we keep seeing flashes of something shiny underneath…
What’s next, Meat?
(In case you didn’t get the reference, it’s what the veteran catcher (played by Kevin Costner) calls the rookie pitcher (played by Tim Robbins) he is mentoring in the movie ‘Bull Durham’.)
Byron,
Don’t worry about the money – that just the Illumanti messing with your head… As for the velocities – the last numbers I ran were for a speed of 383 knots, which gave enough kinetic energy to crush the entire plane plus 50 MJ, so cutting through the perimeter columns seems like it wouldn’t likely have been a problem (remember it only takes 600 MJ to cut through ALL of the columns on a floor). And I wouldn’t worry too much about Bob’s ‘wings ripping off’ ideas, either…
I also found this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMgGC9W-ks8&feature=fvw
I dont know what to think now.
Bob Esq and Slarti:
If the plane was going less than 390 knots why is that a problem? In my mind the real issue is how fast would it have to be going to punch a hole in the building? So does it matter what speed it was going as long as it destroyed columns and caused a fire?
I guess the question then becomes – how fast does the plane have to go to shear through the exterior and interior columns? The fire would have started once the fuel tanks were ruptured so the real question is speed, kinetic energy to cut the exterior and interior columns. And was there enough energy and plane left to shear the interior columns.
We know, by visual observation, there was enough energy to punch through the exterior columns on both sides of the buildings. So we know that all of the kinetic energy of the planes was not dissipated on the obverse side of the buildings. So was there enough left after the first impact to shear columns in the interior?
Slarti: (quoting Mr. Keith): “THe Egypt air crash of a 767 many years ago seemed to indicate that the airframe stayed intact in the dive untill after the plane passed mach 1 in a dive. So 500 mph is not that unfeasable esp. if you had a pilot who obviously carred little for the stress he was puttin on the airframe.”
Recall that I stated “at or near sea level” (not 22,000 feet)
Start the first video at time mark 6:30 and continue watching here to see why: