WTC Building Sway

[Blaupunkt69]

As someone who is not fond of heights, I have long been interested in the reports from survivors of substantial building sway following the impacts in both WTC Towers. Some even felt the towers would continue to the point of toppling over and I can't imagine how frightening that sensation would have been. I was wondering if there is any video or photo evidence of the building sway from that day.

[Arus808]

the towers were on camera the entire time. nothing noticeable since they were tall to begin with. what could be felt in the buiding, woudln't be reflected outside the building

Example: we had a 5.0 earth quake in California over a year ago. Everything in my office building shook, and I felt the floor "sway" under me. from the outside on the street, negligible.

[bill smith]

As someone who is not fond of heights, I have long been interested in the reports from survivors of substantial building sway following the impacts in both WTC Towers. Some even felt the towers would continue to the point of toppling over and I can't imagine how frightening that sensation would have been. I was wondering if there is any video or photo evidence of the building sway from that day.

How likely is it that a plane weighing one three hundreth of one percent the weight of the building could have set it into the violent motion reported by some witnesses ? 600 mph or not.it's still a case of the fly and the elephant.

[Architect]

The first thing which you have to appreciate is that these buildings all sway to a perceptible extent. Partly it's because of the level of wind forces which can occur, and partly it's because we design them that way.

The question is the level of sway which is perceived. Wind forces tend to produce a relatively gentle movement which can be missed in all but the worst (or gustiest) weather. That said, people tend to overestimate the level of movement because they have no reference frame.

As for Bill's comment, the analogy I would use would be ripples on a pond. The stone will be small, but the small ripples carry some way as energy is dissipated.

[Dash80]

As someone who is not fond of heights, I have long been interested in the reports from survivors of substantial building sway following the impacts in both WTC Towers. Some even felt the towers would continue to the point of toppling over and I can't imagine how frightening that sensation would have been. I was wondering if there is any video or photo evidence of the building sway from that day.
There is a slowed down video that did show the south tower swaying, I have the video saved in my media files but can't remember where it came from.

[Dash80]

How likely is it that a plane weighing one three hundreth of one percent the weight of the building could have set it into the violent motion reported by some witnesses ? 600 mph or not.it's still a case of the fly and the elephant.


Edited for incivility.

[SezMe]

That said, people tend to overestimate the level of movement because they have no reference frame.
True. I was on the 36th (top) floor of a building in Los Angeles during an earthquake. It was possible to feel the sway but it was difficult to have any sense of magnitude. The only thing I could think of at the moment was to try to line up the frame of a window with the much taller buildings across the street. Even that was of little help.

[Oystein]

How likely is it that a plane weighing one three hundreth of one percent the weight of the building could have set it into the violent motion reported by some witnesses ? 600 mph or not.it's still a case of the fly and the elephant.

Let's model the tower as a completely rigid stick that pivots around its base. Let's assume its mass is distributed evenly from top to bottom. Let's assume, for simplicity, that UA175 hit the south tower at 75% of its height, or halfway between top and center of mass. Let's assume the collision was totally inelastic (plane coming fully to rest in the tower).

Some data we need:
- Mass of tower: 288,000.000 kg
- Mass of plane: 116,000 kg
- Velocity of plane: 243m/s

Momentum of plane before impact is 116,000kg * 243m/s = 28,188,000kg m/s
This is also the momentum of plane+builduing after collision:
28,188,000kg m/s = 288,116,000 kg * vt+p
Or
vt+p = 28,188,000kg m/s / 288,116,000 kg = 0.0978 m/s

That's at the center of the building. The foot would not move at all, the top twice as fast, and the impact floor 50% faster (ca. 0.15 m/s)

At any rate, on average, people inside would experience a sway velocity of at most 4 inches per second immediatley after impact. This gets dampened of course (momentum gets transfered to ground via structure).

As the plane was absorbed by the tower in no more than half a second, acceleration experienced near the impact floors would roughly be 0.15m/s / 0.5s = 0.3 m/s2. That's gentle, but surely felt.


The above calculation is best regarded as a sanity check for those who care to look up what NIST may have determined.

[Dash80]

Video showing the sway of the south tower:



http://youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en&client=mv-vf-uk&v=oprbCOup4O4

(the most recent comment is hilariously stupid)

[MRC_Hans]

How likely is it that a plane weighing one three hundreth of one percent the weight of the building could have set it into the violent motion reported by some witnesses ? 600 mph or not.it's still a case of the fly and the elephant.

As already said, it is normal for tall buildings to sway. If they were made inelastic, forces from wind, etc. would build to huge stresses on parts of the structure; the elastic construction allows such forces to distribute much more evenly over the whole structure.

As has been calculated elsewhere, the energy imparted by a speeding airliner is quite formidable, and to distribute it, the building would certainly have moved. Also, structural parts were ruptured in the crash, and the buildings will have shifted to redistribute weight.

No doubt, the movements were over reported, probably because of the abruptness of the event. The softer, regular movement from wind is far less noticeable, even if the amplitude may be higher. I have been in tall buildings swaying in the wind; you don't really sense that it is moving, you just feel a slight vertigo.

Hans

PS: Look at the picture in my avatar. That is the 600 ton wind-damper in Taipei 1. It moves up to a yard in hurricane force winds and damps a building of roughly the same size as the WTC towers. A 100 ton airliner at 600mph has more energy than this fellow.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Let's model the tower as a completely rigid stick that pivots around its base.
*snip*
The above calculation is best regarded as a sanity check for those who care to look up what NIST may have determined.

There is one more effect to take into account: The blast wave from the huge fireball. While 'soft' (as explosions go), this fireball quite rapidly displaced a volume of air that was a considerable fraction of the volume of the building. The pressure wave from this must also have made the building (and surrounding buildings, as reported by some witnesses) sway.

Hans

[Oystein]

There is one more effect to take into account: The blast wave from the huge fireball. While 'soft' (as explosions go), this fireball quite rapidly displaced a volume of air that was a considerable fraction of the volume of the building. The pressure wave from this must also have made the building (and surrounding buildings, as reported by some witnesses) sway.

Hans

That's hard to model, as that force would go towards all directions equally. Where would you place the center of the blast?

[Sunstealer]

Video showing the sway of the south tower:



http://youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en&client=mv-vf-uk&v=oprbCOup4O4

(the most recent comment is hilariously stupid)Wow you can see it wobble. Some fly eh Bill?

[MRC_Hans]

That's hard to model, as that force would go towards all directions equally. Where would you place the center of the blast?Yes, it is hard to model, but real none the less. I would place the center of the blast about one third up the path of the fireball (as it would be slowing down). That point would also indicate the time to assume the explosion. The pressure wave will have been subsonic.

There might be a resonance effect, where the impact pushed the building one way and the fireball pushed it back.

Hans

[cyclonic]

In the true reanactment of "9/11 inside the twin towers" frank demartini building manager R.I.P, stated that he felt the north tower sway 12-20 feet.


. . .. ▌
. . . .▌
. . . .▌
. . . .▌
▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄ . . . . . . . .▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ .
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\
█▄█▄█▄█▄█\ . . . . . . . █▄█▄█▄█▄█\

[Oystein]

Yes, it is hard to model, but real none the less. I would place the center of the blast about one third up the path of the fireball (as it would be slowing down). That point would also indicate the time to assume the explosion. The pressure wave will have been subsonic.

There might be a resonance effect, where the impact pushed the building one way and the fireball pushed it back.

Hans

Oh and well, I was replying to Bill who asserted that the plane's mass would be too insignificant compared to the building to cause a "violent" movement. My point was to show that indeed the plane's mass would only cause a gentle acceleration and slow sway velocity, but one that would be clearly felt. It's not "fly and the elephant" as he asserted. (Plane is 3 orders of magnitude lighter than building; fly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housefly) is 8-9 orders of magnitude lighter than elephant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_elephant). Plane was also 2 orders of magnitudes faster than fly, so Bill's comparison was for these simple reasons 7 to 8 orders magnitudes away from a good fit. Being wrong by a factor of 10,000,000+ is of course on par with our common run of truthers :D).

[Animal]

How likely is it that a plane weighing one three hundreth of one percent the weight of the building could have set it into the violent motion reported by some witnesses ? 600 mph or not.it's still a case of the fly and the elephant.

Funny......air moves tall buildings all the time.......to the point that it can cause motion sickness in people if it is not dampened.

Like death and taxes, trooofers talking out subjects far past their know is inevitable :rolleyes:

[ktesibios]

NIST measured the motion of WTC2 in response to the plane impact as shown in the videos of the impact. Their purpose in doing this was to test their structural model of the towers by comparing the natural frequencies and modes of vibration predicted by the model to those actually observed. IIRC they also used data from accelerometers which had previously been installed to monitor the towers' response to wind- which can be a real tenant satisfaction issue- in determining what the buildings' actual resonances were.

I'll post the reference as soon as I've found it in my collection of NCSTAR reports.

[Sam.I.Am]

All of that aside I highly doubt that someone could say "(x) moved (y) distance from observations made from inside the structure (without any instrumentation) with any accuracy.

From my own experience from being inside a fairly large moving boat (~7,300 tons surfaced displacement) that abruptly changed its lateral momentum on a regular basis (every 15-20 seconds or so) caused by wave action and forward momentum with no external visual reference to gauge it by that I couldn't tell you by how much it moved, only that it did move and that that movement could knock you off of your feet if you were unprepared for it. I suppose that if I were on top of a very tall building and that type of movement suddenly occurred with no warning I might think for a second that the building was going to tip over too.

[sheeplesnshills]

Video showing the sway of the south tower:



http://youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en&client=mv-vf-uk&v=oprbCOup4O4

(the most recent comment is hilariously stupid)

Holy $%^$


and you are right, that comment is moronic.

[MRC_Hans]

Oh and well, I was replying to Bill who asserted that the plane's mass would be too insignificant compared to the building to cause a "violent" movement. My point was to show that indeed the plane's mass would only cause a gentle acceleration and slow sway velocity, but one that would be clearly felt. It's not "fly and the elephant" as he asserted. (Plane is 3 orders of magnitude lighter than building; fly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housefly) is 8-9 orders of magnitude lighter than elephant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_elephant). Plane was also 2 orders of magnitudes faster than fly, so Bill's comparison was for these simple reasons 7 to 8 orders magnitudes away from a good fit. Being wrong by a factor of 10,000,000+ is of course on par with our common run of truthers :D).

I don't really think orders of magnitude make any sense to people like that. Maybe if someone were to explain it on YouTube......., using pizza boxes .....:rolleyes:

Hans

[femr2]

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/5/2857921.png

[Oystein]

femr2, I have a hard time reading that chart, especially the legend for the y-axis. Is the maximum amplitude of the red line about 12 inches, and 1 pixel, or the other way round (1 inch, 12 pixels)? Who measured what? Why has the gray line higher amplitudes than the red line, i.e. what is the connection between the two? Sources?

[femr2]

femr2, I have a hard time reading that chart, especially the legend for the y-axis.
It's just one I had to hand. Can generate clearer views if required.

Is the maximum amplitude of the red line about 12 inches, and 1 pixel, or the other way round (1 inch, 12 pixels)?
Red line is my data (in pixels)
Blue line is NIST data (in inches)

NIST Data separated...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/2/2/131016691.jpg (http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/2/131016691.png)

Maximum amplitude of the NIST data is about 17 inches.

My Data separated...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/2/2/468976343.jpg (http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/2/468976343.png)

Who measured what?
See above.

Why has the gray[blue] line higher amplitudes than the red line
It was taken slightly higher-up on the building, and contains visibly higher noise levels.

what is the connection between the two?
NIST/femr2 data comparison from ages ago.

Sources?
NIST and femr2. Happy to expand. Will dig out details.

[Oystein]

...
NIST and femr2. Happy to expand. Will dig out details.

Thanks for the clarifications! I think this will do for the scope of this thread. I at least am satisfied.

[bill smith]

It's just one I had to hand. Can generate clearer views if required.


Red line is my data (in pixels)
Blue line is NIST data (in inches)

NIST Data separated...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/2/2/131016691.jpg (http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/2/131016691.png)

Maximum amplitude of the NIST data is about 17 inches.

My Data separated...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/2/2/468976343.jpg (http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/2/468976343.png)


See above.


It was taken slightly higher-up on the building, and contains visibly higher noise levels.


NIST/femr2 data comparison from ages ago.


NIST and femr2. Happy to expand. Will dig out details.

Femr2 in your opinion do these graphs prove beyond a reasonable boubt that the building was struck by a plane as we saw ? It couldn't have been a bomb ?

[The Platypus]

How likely is it that a plane weighing one three hundreth of one percent the weight of the building could have set it into the violent motion reported by some witnesses ? 600 mph or not.it's still a case of the fly and the elephant.


*facepalm*

Ya, let's just ignore there kinetic energy here...:rolleyes:

[BStrong]

How likely is it that a plane weighing one three hundreth of one percent the weight of the building could have set it into the violent motion reported by some witnesses ? 600 mph or not.it's still a case of the fly and the elephant.

Kinetic energy.

ETA - damn, you guys beat me to it.

[EventHorizon]

Femr2 in your opinion do these graphs prove beyond a reasonable boubt that the building was struck by a plane as we saw ? It couldn't have been a bomb ?

Why would you need a graph to prove something that was witnessed by thousands of people and videotaped and photographed hundreds of times from multiple angles?

[cyclonic]

Frank Demartini in WTC 1 at 4.00 min.

inside the twin towers part1/10.
QzXp9IZo59U


Brian clark in WTC 2

inside the twin towers part 4/10.
iac6J4gITa0

[femr2]

Femr2 in your opinion do these graphs prove beyond a reasonable boubt that the building was struck by a plane as we saw ? It couldn't have been a bomb ?
The motion is clearly initiated by significant KE input from South to North.

As we saw, an aircraft struck the tower, from South to North, at the time the motion began.

I think it's safe to link the two events :rolleyes:

The other side of your argument would imply a bomb inside the building, which would not supply directional South->North KE. Its energy would propogate in all directions, and the amount of "sway" resulting would likely be very minimal.

As there are those who try and read all sorts of nonsense into anything I write...no, not a bomb.

[bill smith]

The motion is clearly initiated by significant KE input from South to North.

As we saw, an aircraft struck the tower, from South to North, at the time the motion began.

I think it's safe to link the two events :rolleyes:

The other side of your argument would imply a bomb inside the building, which would not supply directional South->North KE. Its energy would propogate in all directions, and the amount of "sway" resulting would likely be very minimal.

As there are those who try and read all sorts of nonsense into anything I write...no, not a bomb.

Thanks. That's very helpful. Do you have a copy of the video you used to collect your data points from.

[femr2]

Thanks. That's very helpful. Do you have a copy of the video you used to collect your data points from.
FOIA Release...

911datasets.org\International_Center_for_911_Studi es_NIST_FOIA\Release_14_-_NIST_Cumulus_Video_Database\NIST Cumulus Video\Scott Myers\Myers_clip6.avi

[DGM]

femr2:
Thanks for reposting that. I was going to look it up when I found time. No wonder people thought the building was going to go over, it moved a foot.

It would be interesting to see how far the building moved at lower levels. This would be useful in determining how badly damaged the lower frame was (if at all).

[sylvan8798]

I wonder if one could get a rough idea of the deformation at various levels by assuming a fixed end cantilever with a point load at the 70th floor causing an instantaneous deformation of 15 inches at that elevation?

Have to dig out the book later....

[bill smith]

FOIA Release...

911datasets.org\International_Center_for_911_Studi es_NIST_FOIA\Release_14_-_NIST_Cumulus_Video_Database\NIST Cumulus Video\Scott Myers\Myers_clip6.avi

Thanks. This one I guess ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr0_n8mmNFc

[DGM]

I wonder if one could get a rough idea of the deformation at various levels by assuming a fixed end cantilever with a point load at the 70th floor causing an instantaneous deformation of 15 inches at that elevation?

Have to dig out the book later....
I would doubt you could considering the building was equipped with dampers at each level. I would think they canceled out this movement very quickly (top to bottom wise).

[CurtC]

Kinetic energy.

Actually, momentum is the measure that matters here.

[Oystein]

According to femr2's graph, the sway took about 11.5s for a full circle, or 2.9s for a quarter circle (e.g. from center to max amplitude)

During the first quarter circle, the building swayed over 17 inches according to the NIST curve, or 0.42m.
Indicating an average velocity of 0.42,/2.9s = 0.145m/s.

In an earlier post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7486006&postcount=8), I predicted an initial sway velocity of 0.15m/s around the 82nd floor.

Pretty good fit, isn't it? :cool:
[ETA]Bill, I hope you took attention, and understood: This was a simple example of physics applied to 9/11, and predictions from theory conformed by obeservations.

Theory was: Boeing 767 with enough fuel to go to LA hit WTC2 at full speed
Prediction based on theory: Building moves at around 0.15m/s around 82nd floor on account of momentum transfer from plane
Prediction is confirmed by obeservation.
Theory thus verified.[/ETA

[Oystein]

In post 8, I calculated an average speed of building right after momentum transfer of 0.1m/s.

This translates to a kinetic energy of the building of
E = 1/2 m v2
= 0.5 * (0.1m/s) * 288,000,000kg
= 1,440,000J, or 1.44MJ

That's equivalent to not a lot of TNT.

Hm.

[bill smith]

According to femr2's graph, the sway took about 11.5s for a full circle, or 2.9s for a quarter circle (e.g. from center to max amplitude)

During the first quarter circle, the building swayed over 17 inches according to the NIST curve, or 0.42m.
Indicating an average velocity of 0.42,/2.9s = 0.145m/s.

In an earlier post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7486006&postcount=8), I predicted an initial sway velocity of 0.15m/s around the 82nd floor.

Pretty good fit, isn't it? :cool:
[ETA]Bill, I hope you took attention, and understood: This was a simple example of physics applied to 9/11, and predictions from theory conformed by obeservations.

Theory was: Boeing 767 with enough fuel to go to LA hit WTC2 at full speed
Prediction based on theory: Building moves at around 0.15m/s around 82nd floor on account of momentum transfer from plane
Prediction is confirmed by obeservation.
Theory thus verified.[/ETA

Hypothetically, if the plane had struck the south wall at full force without penetration - if it had fallen away in other words how much would the building have moved S>N in that case ?

[Oystein]

Hypothetically, if the plane had struck the south wall at full force without penetration - if it had fallen away in other words how much would the building have moved S>N in that case ?

Obvious troll is obvious :D

I could try to calculate the hypothetical case that the plane had come from a 4th space dimension, or had contained a black hole in its nose. Or the hypothetical case that the tower was made of rubber band and had flung the plane back to where it came from. Or the hypothetical case that the plane had negative mass.

Would any of that help you? These hypothetical cases are all as reasonable as yours.

[bill smith]

Obvious troll is obvious :D

I could try to calculate the hypothetical case that the plane had come from a 4th space dimension, or had contained a black hole in its nose. Or the hypothetical case that the tower was made of rubber band and had flung the plane back to where it came from. Or the hypothetical case that the plane had negative mass.

Would any of that help you? These hypothetical cases are all as reasonable as yours.

We know that the original engineering team calculated that the plane would fall away from the building without penetration so we know that the calculation can be made. If you cannot do it why not just say so ?

[DGM]

We know that the original engineering team calculated that the plane would fall away from the building without penetration so we know that the calculation can be made. If you cannot do it why not just say so ?
Why do you lie? Show were they said this (or did the calculations).

[Oystein]

We know that the original engineering team calculated that the plane would fall away from the building without penetration so we know that the calculation can be made. If you cannot do it why not just say so ?

Source, or retract.

[bill smith]

Source, or retract.

Will you make the calculation for how much the building would have moved if the the plane had not penetrated the building if I do ?

[Oystein]

Will you make the calculation for how much the building would have moved if the the plane had not penetrated the building if I do ?

Deal.

[bill smith]

Deal.



''A white paper on the structure of the Twin Towers carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson contained eleven numbered points, including:

3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.''

[Animal]

''A white paper on the structure of the Twin Towers carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson contained eleven numbered points, including:

3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.''

WHITE PAPER - "In commercial use, the term has also come to refer to documents used by businesses as a marketing or sales tool"

[Oystein]

We know that the original engineering team calculated that the plane would fall away from the building without penetration so we know that the calculation can be made. If you cannot do it why not just say so ?
''A white paper on the structure of the Twin Towers carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson contained eleven numbered points, including:

3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.''

Where does it say in number 3 that "the plane would fall away from the building without penetration"??? :confused:

ETA: Besides, without some sort of citation, that isn't a source. You quoted second hand, and even that without reference. Pretty poor performance. But what can I expect from someone who earlier in this thread was wrong by a factor of 10,000,000+ ;)

[bill smith]

Where does it say in number 3 that "the plane would fall away from the building without penetration"??? :confused:

ETA: Besides, without some sort of citation, that isn't a source. You quoted second hand, and even that without reference. Pretty poor performance. But what can I expect from someone who earlier in this thread was wrong by a factor of 10,000,000+ ;)

Frank de Martini, WTC Construction and Project Manager confirms it. We all know that a mosquito does not bodily penetrate the mosquito netting. It does nothing to the netting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU

[Oystein]

Frank de Martini, WTC Construction and Project Manager at confirms it. We all know that a mosquito does not penetrate the mosquito netting. It does nothing to the netting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU

...the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.

Frank de Martini obviously thought that the plane punctured the outer wall.
Is "puncturing" = "nothing"?
Does "puncture" imply "fall away from the building without penetration"?

Explain the meaning of the word "puncture" to us, please!

Oh, and is Frank de Martini part of "the original engineering team" that "calculated that the plane would fall away from the building without penetration"? Was he in any way connected to that White Paper by Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson? (Hint: Figure out when this White Paper was written, and the answer becomes obvious)

[bill smith]

Frank de Martini obviously thought that the plane punctured the outer wall.
Is "puncturing" = "nothing"?
Does "puncture" imply "fall away from the building without penetration"?

Explain the meaning of the word "puncture" to us, please!

Absolutely. perhaps the head of the mosquito will enter one of the tiny holes as the pencil tip would but the mosquito will not bodily penetrate the mesh. Unless German mosquitos are different of course.

[Oystein]

Absolutely. perhaps the head of the mosquito will enter one of the tiny holes but the mosquito will not bodily penetrate the mesh. Unless German mosquitos are different of course.

Tell Frank deMartini of your private delusions, not me. It was his choice to say "pencil" instead of "mosquito". Don't know why you speculate about mosquitos.

And now, how about some answers:

Frank de Martini obviously thought that the plane punctured the outer wall.
Is "puncturing" = "nothing"?
Does "puncture" imply "fall away from the building without penetration"?

Explain the meaning of the word "puncture" to us, please!

Oh, and is Frank de Martini part of "the original engineering team" that "calculated that the plane would fall away from the building without penetration"? Was he in any way connected to that White Paper by Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson? (Hint: Figure out when this White Paper was written, and the answer becomes obvious)

[bill smith]

Tell Frank deMartini of your private delusions, not me. It was his choice to say "pencil" instead of "mosquito". Don't know why you speculate about mosquitos.

And now, how about some answers:

Frank de Martini obviously thought that the plane punctured the outer wall.
Is "puncturing" = "nothing"?
Does "puncture" imply "fall away from the building without penetration"?

Explain the meaning of the word "puncture" to us, please!

Oh, and is Frank de Martini part of "the original engineering team" that "calculated that the plane would fall away from the building without penetration"? Was he in any way connected to that White Paper by Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson? (Hint: Figure out when this White Paper was written, and the answer becomes obvious)

[Sigh] you puncture a tyre, a football or a balloon by making a small hole in it with say a pin or a nail. Do you understand the analogies ?

If the plane only punctured the building as Frank said, then of course the body of the plane would fall away just as the original engineers calculated.

[Oystein]

[Sigh] you puncture a tyre, a football or a balloon by making a small hole in it with say a pin or a nail. Do you understand the analogies ?

The analogy was with a mosquito netting. Anyway: Does the pencil penetrate the netting when it punctures it? Does the pin or nail that punctures a tyre or ball penetrate the rubber? Suppose you are talking about a pencil, nail or pin that punctures that moves at 243m/s.

[bill smith]

So Oystein, How about getting on with the calculation for how much the building would have moved S>N if the plane had not penetrated it.
I want to compare the new figure to the figure you already gave for the situation where the plane did penetrate the building.

[bill smith]

The analogy was with a mosquito netting. Anyway: Does the pencil penetrate the netting when it punctures it? Does the pin or nail that punctures a tyre or ball penetrate the rubber? Suppose you are talking about a pencil, nail or pin that punctures that moves at 243m/s.

Just get on with the calculation Oystein. I'm sure the Readers are waiting.

[Oystein]

So Oystein, How about getting on with the calculation for how much the building would have moved S>N if the plane had not penetrated it.
I want to compare the new figure to the figure you already gave for the situation where the plane did penetrate the building.

You didn't deliver on your part of the deal and can't.

[Oystein]

Just get on with the calculation Oystein. I'm sure the Readers are waiting.

Hey Readers: Any of you waiting for my calculation?

[DGM]

Hey Readers: Any of you waiting for my calculation?
No. I am having fun watching Bill try to twist anything he can find to cover his lie.


;)

[ApolloGnomon]

We know that the original engineering team calculated that the plane would fall away from the building without penetration so we know that the calculation can be made. If you cannot do it why not just say so ?

That's nonsense. For the plane to "fall away" from the building would require the entire kinetic energy of the projectile to be absorbed by the target in elastic deformation in less than a tenth of a second and return some amount of energy to the projectile in resilient rebound.

Steel doesn't do that unless it's spring steel, tempered correctly, which makes lousy structural material.

It would work in Daffy Duck land. But not in our reality.

[ApolloGnomon]

Frank de Martini, WTC Construction and Project Manager confirms it. We all know that a mosquito does not bodily penetrate the mosquito netting. It does nothing to the netting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU

A better analogy would be firing a shotgun at a screen door.

[Oystein]

A better analogy would be firing a shotgun at a screen door.

And Frank de Martini argues, basically correctly, that the bullet hole in the netting would not make the entire screen collapse or rip apart or otherwise totally destroy it - it would simply make a hole. I am sure Bill already knows that. If not, I am sure the FULL deMartini interview would reveal that meaning.

[bill smith]

And Frank de Martini argues, basically correctly, that the bullet hole in the netting would not make the entire screen collapse or rip apart or otherwise totally destroy it - it would simply make a hole. I am sure Bill already knows that. If not, I am sure the FULL deMartini interview would reveal that meaning.

You mmiss what he said Oystein...deviously if you don't mind my saying so. He said it would do NOTHING to the net.Not that it would make a hole that would not affect the structural integrity of the net.He said NOTHING.
Even the original team of engineers only considered the FUEL that would enter the building through broken windows being a danger for the occupants.

Don't you fancy the calculation Oystein ? That's not like you ? You normally spring into action at the thought of an equation. Just not this time eh ?

[ApolloGnomon]

You mmiss what he said Oystein...deviously if you don't mind my saying so. He said it would do NOTHING to the net.Not that it would make a hole that would not affect the structural integrity of the net.He said NOTHING.
Even the original team of engineers only considered the FUEL that would enter the building through broken windows being a danger for the occupants.

Don't you fancy the calculation Oystein ? That's not like you ? You normally spring into action at the thought of an equation. Just not this time eh ?

Link please? I don't think he said what you think he said.

[Sam.I.Am]

You tap dance in them there shoes real purdy Bill...

[Oystein]

You mmiss what he said Oystein...deviously if you don't mind my saying so. He said it would do NOTHING to the net.Not that it would make a hole that would not affect the structural integrity of the net.He said NOTHING.

You miss what he said: He said the plane is like a pencil that PUNCTURES the netting.
Is "puncturing" = "nothing"?
Does "puncture" imply "fall away from the building without penetration"?

Explain the meaning of the word "puncture" to us, please!
(I have a deja-vue - as if I have asked this before...)

Even the original team of engineers only considered the FUEL that would enter the building through broken windows being a danger for the occupants.
Source, or retract!

Don't you fancy the calculation Oystein ? That's not like you ? You normally spring into action at the thought of an equation. Just not this time eh ?
No, only when there is something interesting to be calculated. And this time of course as a bait for you to back up your earlier assertion that the original designers thought a plane would bounce off and not penetrate.
Each reply by you that fails to satisfy your part of the deal is another emarrassment on your scorecard ;)

[Animal]

Frank de Martini, WTC Construction and Project Manager confirms it. We all know that a mosquito does not bodily penetrate the mosquito netting. It does nothing to the netting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU


A construction manager would have no real idea of what the structural response of the building would be. He would however, be able to tell you when particular loads of steel were to be delivered, how many men were working on site, what the lift section for building components was for the following week, etc. etc.

[ApolloGnomon]

I bet if you fired a mosquito at .7 mach it would go right through the netting. Probably shred the mosquito as it went through. Don't think it would burst into flames, unless it had fed on someone drinking heavily just before ....

[Sam.I.Am]

I bet if you fired a mosquito at .7 mach...

Laden or unladen?

[bill smith]

You tap dance in them there shoes real purdy Bill...

Why thank you kind sir.

[ApolloGnomon]

Laden or unladen?

Been Laden?

[DGM]

Laden or unladen?
What kind of mosquito are we talking about? There are about 3,500 species of mosquitoes found throughout the world. Surely you are not claiming they're all the same?


:p

[sylvan8798]

He said it would do NOTHING to the net.Not that it would make a hole that would not affect the structural integrity of the net.He said NOTHING.
Even the original team of engineers only considered the FUEL that would enter the building through broken windows being a danger for the occupants.


All analogies have their limits. The whole "exterior wall is a screen netting" thing is a bit of a stretch.

I'm finding it highly doubtful that the engineers thought the building would come through being hit by a plane without even a scratch.

I didn't realize you were a no-planer, Bill.

[bill smith]

All analogies have their limits. The whole "exterior wall is a screen netting" thing is a bit of a stretch.

I'm finding it highly doubtful that the engineers thought the building would come through being hit by a plane without even a scratch.

I didn't realize you were a no-planer, Bill.

I have been a no-planer in my time and it's still on the table. But I think these days that it's more likely that the no planes story is a deliberate plant.

[ApolloGnomon]

The whole 9/11 "conspiracy" is a "deliberate plant."

Research " Stephen Cambone " and see if you can figure out where it all started.

[waypastvne]

Laden or unladen?

African or European ?

[rwguinn]

It's obvious that Truthers have never witnessed a Modal Survey...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Where does it say in number 3 that "the plane would fall away from the building without penetration"??? :confused:


That was retarded, even for bill smith...