| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » 2 Hour 20 Year Architect Talk of WTC Demolition.
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
|
| Author |
Message |
| Tim Ward |
 Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:qhiFi.15786$ya1.6638@news02.roc.ny...
Quote:
Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:
knowsnothing> wrote
Just keeping the truth out there.
I haven't seen anything of the truth from what you post.
Well, if you and Kirby are so sure, maybe you can help me find where I
got the math wrong. I'll post it again in case you have missed it.
http://lakeweb.com/F77/F77.htm
It's been a long time, Dan, but as I recall, you were getting your topo
information from a web source of some kind. A large area was pasted
together from smaller maps. There was a boundary between maps somewhere
very near the Pentagon. The maps were at the same horizontal scale, but the
topo line intervals were different. You may find that your estimated
elevation data has some error in it. I thought I posted something about it
at the time and you agreed with me, but perhaps I'm hallucinating.
If you were using the NTSB visualization for your flight path, you should be
aware that the final approach angle is off by twice the local magnetic
variation. Whoever created it plotted heading data from the flight
recorder, then tried to correct the final heading from the magnetic in the
flight recorder to true so it would match the map he underlayed. Got the
number right, and rotated the plot in the wrong direction.
The parking lot video doesn't show much, but the blob is clearly above the
point where it hits. With the necessarily large radius of your assumed
flight path, if your "tangent to the ground" assumption were true, the
aircraft would be virtually on the ground, instead of just very low.
There's certainly not much angle there, but there's an angle.
Another thing you might want to consider is that the entire maneuver was not
flown at the impact velocity. According to the flight recorder, the pilot
rolled out and increased power. He was accelerating right up to the impact.
If you're arguing it wasn't a plane, I suppose you wouldn't accept the
flight recorder data anyway.
Three gee air loads are not going to break a Boeing. Granted, transport
aircraft are certified to 2.5 gee for normal service loads, but there is a
mandated 1.5x safety factor between the limit load (expected in service) and
the ultimate load (where it actually breaks).
Boeing actually built and tested a wing to destruction during certification,
so it's not a "paper safety factor".
So in short:
It wasn't going the impact speed for the entire maneuver, so the gee loading
is likely lower.
I think it's possible your topo estimates are off.
I think it's likely your tangent assumption is wrong, which would also lower
the gee required.
If it pulled 3 gee, it's still unlikely to have broken from air loads.
So I have a hard time seeing it as "impossible".
Tim Ward |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:35 am
|
|