Punchout at the Pentagon

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

You appear not to have gotten any of what I told you.

Did I predict it right?

Originally Posted by ozeco41

...3) If you are one of those people who have difficulty processing that the impact of a bag of sand is not as soft and gentle as raining down the sand in a trickle we may have a problem here but.....

[Sam.I.Am]

Originally Posted by ergo

Hence my comment about the nose.

No, ozeco is talking about "concentration of advancing mass", the mass being debris. You're describing the dynamics of a single projectile.

The airplane was a single projectile until right before it hit at which point it stopped being what one could call an airplane and became a bunch of airplane pieces with the same mass as the whole while still retaining their forward ballistic momentum. A jacketed bullet with a steel core also stops being what one could call a solid projectile at the moment of impact. The bullet will shed the softer layers as it penetrates (or attempts to penetrate) a solid object. The analogy is accurate enough as an airplane has both softer and harder metals in it comparable to the bullet that he described. It will have the same type of reaction.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Not "magic" just simple applied physics.
"easier" isn't the objective - my aim is to give an answer that is valid physics. Bothers me not that you choose to play idiocies.

Valid physics would predict that it was the nose that punctured a hole in the wall. You're trying to come up with some convoluted explanation why a collection of debris could do the same thing. (Gee, why does that ring a bell?) If there's some reason why it wasn't the nose of the plane, then I can see why you might try to make this argument. Otherwise you're just making work for yourself, and stupid work at that.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

The analogy is accurate enough as an airplane has both softer and harder metals in it comparable to the bullet that he described. It will have the same type of reaction.

No, it isn't, and no, it won't. We're talking about debris moving through open office space, not through a dense medium. The bullet is still a single projectile after it sheds its layers. Two completely different dynamic processes.

This is what I meant when I said bedunkers will spend equal amounts of time and energy proselytizing on utterly moronic notions. We are devolving into Stupidville again here. Audi.

[brazenlilraisin]

Physics says the part of the plane that hit the wall first will traverse the interior intact?? Oy.

If you knew when to stop posting (and if you did you would have after refusing to be educated on that six walls boner) you wouldn't look so foolish. Because you cannot recover from that kind of bungle, as you appear to be trying to do. You can only do damage control. Shutting up would probably work better toward that end than more arguments from ignorance.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by ergo

Valid physics would predict that it was the nose that punctured a hole in the wall. ...

You don't do physics.

The nose of jet airliner is made of fiberglass. Please try to make sense. Try to research something before you repeat a moon sized debris field of nonsense. The nose is fiberglass, it is a radome, the RADAR is behind the fiberglass nose. Next.

[little grey rabbit]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Actually, that is sort of how some armor-piercing munitions work. Take a rifle bullet, say 7.62X54R. The most common machinegun round has an outer bronze jacket, a middle layer of lead and a steel core.

When it hits armor plate, the bronze jacket is usually shed soon after penetrating. The lead, after providing the mass and energy to help stress the armor to the breaking point, becomes somewhat ablated, allowing the steel penetrating core to continue on through.

The plane acted sort of in the same manner passing through that field of columns.

Ah now we may be getting somewhere. Whatever struck the Pentagon appears to have acted like an armor-piercing munition. Here we have consensus.

Where we have divergence is the idea that a thin shelled plane is like an armour piercing munition.


Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings...

[jaydeehess]

wow, erg0 is argueing that the punchout had to be created by the nose of the a/c.

astounding!

Analogy;

Imagine a fast rear engine vehicle speeding down a highway in Vermont. The driver falls asleep and goes straight into a forest (road turned , he didn't). The car begins hitting trees and coming apart.

What goes further into the forest?
-the front grill
-the engine

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

Ah now we may be getting somewhere. Whatever struck the Pentagon appears to have acted like an armor-piercing munition. Here we have consensus.

Where we have divergence is the idea that a thin shelled plane is like an armour piercing munition.


Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings...

Care to compare the kinetic energy of any ballistic shell you wish to mention with that of a 757 at 500 MPH?

[WildCat]

Fizzickz man! It's awesome!

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

Ah now we may be getting somewhere. Whatever struck the Pentagon appears to have acted like an armor-piercing munition. Here we have consensus.

Where we have divergence is the idea that a thin shelled plane is like an armour piercing munition.


Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings...

You forgot to do the math and have no clue what physics is.

The energy of impact for Flight 77 was E=1/2mv²

Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon as a mass going 488 knots, it had the energy of a 1200 pound bomb, go ahead explain with physics why it can't do the damage at the Pentagon. Use math and physics to explain! You can't do it, you will not do it.

1200 pounds of TNT, a value you can't calculate or comprehend. Why did you not take a physics course?

[little grey rabbit]

Originally Posted by beachnut

You forgot to do the math and have no clue what physics is.

The energy of impact for Flight 77 was E=1/2mv²

Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon as a mass going 488 knots, it had the energy of a 1200 pound bomb, go ahead explain with physics why it can't do the damage at the Pentagon. Use math and physics to explain! You can't do it, you will not do it.

1200 pounds of TNT, a value you can't calculate or comprehend. Why did you not take a physics course?

So why do we design armour piercing munitions and not just use little hollow aluminium tin cans?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

So why do we design armour piercing munitions and not just use little hollow aluminium tin cans?

$$$

[beachnut]

someone tell lgr that using 70,000,000 dollar aircraft is not a great idea, since a 1200 pound bomb costs less!

This is simple physics, and lgr did not take a physics class.

Cost analysis coming up

[little grey rabbit]

Originally Posted by beachnut

$$$

I see, so depleted uranium has no greater armour plating capacity that a can of coke and its all a conspiracy by the nuclear industry to rip off money from the taxpayer via the Pentagon budget?

I think there is a member called Anders Lindemann you should meet - although he would go one step further and say the depleted uranium didnt exist in the first place.


PS. I prefer Euros.

[little grey rabbit]

Originally Posted by beachnut

someone tell lgr that using 70,000,000 dollar aircraft is not a great idea, since a 1200 pound bomb costs less!

This is simple physics, and lgr did not take a physics class.

Cost analysis coming up

Strawman coming up, what part of "little hollow aluminium cans" did you not understand?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

Strawman coming up, what part of "little hollow aluminium cans" did you not understand?

The 757 at 488 knots is a kinetic energy weapon, and add the jet fuel you have a weapon with the added heat energy of 300 TONS of TNT. You can't do physics so yo make fun of things you can't comprehend due to ignorance.

For the price of a 757 you can buy 114.2 Tomahawk missiles with a 1,000 pound bomb. The Tomahawk missile would have an explosive blast, the 757 is a shape charge in effect, damaging a specific direction.

you failed due to your lack of physics and math.

For the price of a 757, we could essentially destroy the Pentagon with 114.2 Tomahawk missiles! Game, Set, Match!

[little grey rabbit]

Originally Posted by beachnut

For the price of a 757, we could essentially destroy the Pentagon with 114.2 Tomahawk missiles! Game, Set, Match!

I wish you would, it would save me the trouble of having do it myself.

So was it a tomahawk missile, I assumed it was some kind of air-deployed missile fired by Steve O'Brien. But you guys are the experts.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

Some kind person has constructed this graphic


http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1...nchoutpath.jpg

Makes you wonder doesn't it.


Does it?

Do you mean how it passed through three rings? Proper depthperception of the same photo will support the answer to that - floors one and two were not segmented into phyisically separate rings.

I see the upside down anarchy sign has been explained, correctly.As for what made the hole, there's no certain answer. More than likely the giant landing gear wheel assembly from the rear of the plane, found somewhere near there in the A-E drive. (It's been a while, but back when I wrote the entry on this hole for Co-operative research/History Commons - the process was too tedious for me to do more than a few entries)

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

I wish you would, it would save me the trouble of having do it myself.

So was it a tomahawk missile, I assumed it was some kind of air-deployed missile fired by Steve O'Brien. But you guys are the experts.

No, a Tomahawk missile can't carry 60,000 pounds of jet fuel, you are debunked by facts. A tomahawk missile can't cause the damage done, and many more people would be dead due to blast effects. You have not been in combat, and you do zero research on weapons and effects.

A large aircraft flow at high speed is a very effective weapon for a point target, add the jet fuel and you have a terrible fire, burning people up.

A Tomahawk missile can't carry the engines of a 757.

Looks like you do as much research on 911 as you do the Holocaust.

[little grey rabbit]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

Do you mean how it passed through three rings? Proper depthperception of the same photo will support the answer to that - floors one and two were not segmented into phyisically separate rings.

I see the upside down anarchy sign has been explained, correctly.As for what made the hole, there's no certain answer. More than likely the giant landing gear wheel assembly from the rear of the plane, found somewhere near there in the A-E drive. (It's been a while, but back when I wrote the entry on this hole for Co-operative research/History Commons - the process was too tedious for me to do more than a few entries)

Pfffft. I want to hear from beachnut.

Beachnut, I always assumed it was some kind of air to surface missile fired by Steve O'Brien. Is this correct or not?

Thanking you in advance.

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

Strawman coming up, what part of "little hollow aluminium cans" did you not understand?

One normally wouldn't think of a 757 as either little or hollow. I suppose the car you drive has no engine, frame, seats, electronics, etc, etc, etc... Just a sheet metal body?

[Sam.I.Am]

Originally Posted by ergo

No, it isn't, and no, it won't. We're talking about debris moving through open office space, not through a dense medium. The bullet is still a single projectile after it sheds its layers. Two completely different dynamic processes.

This is what I meant when I said bedunkers will spend equal amounts of time and energy proselytizing on utterly moronic notions. We are devolving into Stupidville again here. Audi.

The debris (at least you understand that part) became debris because the aircraft passed through a dense medium (the outer reinforced masonry facade) it was further chewed up by the numerous reinforced masonry support columns. The heavier parts such as the landing gear maintained their basic shape and mass and so had the best chance of making the "Punch out". It's the same as the example given earlier. That you can't understand it isn't our problem, it's yours.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by ergo

Valid physics would predict that it was the nose that punctured a hole in the wall. You're trying to come up with some convoluted explanation why a collection of debris could do the same thing. (Gee, why does that ring a bell?)

Monumentally wrong, as has been explained by others. The nose is insubstantial and would be easily stopped. In fact I doubt if much of it survived impact and got inside the building at all.

What's truly amazing is that you're recklessly combining ignorance with arrogance when the "6 walls" fiasco would make any grown person stop to think that they might be wrong again. A little less arrogance and a little more research would have saved you this embarrassment.

[deeper]

Originally Posted by ergo

Valid physics would predict that it was the nose that punctured a hole in the wall.

By valid physics, do you mean, "what I imagine would happen"? Have you researched this? Does the nose have some special properties which would lead you to this conclusion? It begs the question, why are you so certain concerning subjects you are in no way qualified to judge?

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

Do you mean how it passed through three rings? Proper depthperception of the same photo will support the answer to that - floors one and two were not segmented into phyisically separate rings.

I see the upside down anarchy sign has been explained, correctly.As for what made the hole, there's no certain answer. More than likely the giant landing gear wheel assembly from the rear of the plane, found somewhere near there in the A-E drive. (It's been a while, but back when I wrote the entry on this hole for Co-operative research/History Commons - the process was too tedious for me to do more than a few entries)

You mean that the plane stopped for an instant when the nose hit the wall, allowing the landing gear to tear loose and fly through the plane to punch the initial hole in the wall ?

[little grey rabbit]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

Pfffft. I want to hear from beachnut.

Beachnut, I always assumed it was some kind of air to surface missile fired by Steve O'Brien. Is this correct or not?

Thanking you in advance.

So it seems that for beachnut Steve O'Brien is the person who won't be blamed for nothing.

[Arisia]

Originally Posted by twinstead

I can't believe you post this stuff with a straight face....

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

I don't, I post with a poker face.

A telling reply from lgr, folks.

[TsuDhoNimh]

Originally Posted by ergo

Weird. Looks to me like dispersion, not concentration.

The path of the plane is from lower right to upper left.

Quote:

I can't imagine how you would explain this through 5 other walls.

As the diagram I linked to shows ... there were not 5 other walls. The bottom 2 floors of the Pentagon have columns to hold up the top 3 floors ... the walls of the "rings" don't go all the way to ground level.

Inside the bottom 2 floors it's interior grade walls, lots of cube farms, and no concrete or rebar except in the columns.

[newton3376]

Originally Posted by bill smith

You mean that the plane stopped for an instant when the nose hit the wall, allowing the landing gear to tear loose and fly through the plane to punch the initial hole in the wall ?

ROFL yeah Bill...the whole freaking plane stopped in time for a moment... except for the landing gear which kept moving...

Honestly......do you think about what you write before you click "Submit Reply"?

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by ergo

Valid physics would predict that it was the nose that punctured a hole in the wall. You're trying to come up with some convoluted explanation why a collection of debris could do the same thing. (Gee, why does that ring a bell?) If there's some reason why it wasn't the nose of the plane, then I can see why you might try to make this argument. Otherwise you're just making work for yourself, and stupid work at that.

Not even close.

Once that aircraft came apart, the parts that seperated from the aircraft structure became projectiles on their own, subject to individual variables of the mass of the item, the internal structure of the building that the part struck, etc.

Your "physics" as referenced, aren't.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by twinstead

I can't believe you post this stuff with a straight face.

Oh, come on, twinstead. Of course he doesn't post it with a straight face; he's a troll. People forget that fact way too easily.

Originally Posted by ergo

Weird. Looks to me like dispersion, not concentration.

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

You are looking at the punch-out as though it were the entry.

Another of ergo's great misunderstandings. Will he admit to two major failures of observation in one thread, or is that just too much?

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by bill smith

You mean that the plane stopped for an instant when the nose hit the wall, allowing the landing gear to tear loose and fly through the plane to punch the initial hole in the wall ?

Now then Bill, thats too obvious a troll............try harder it makes it more fun.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by newton3376

ROFL yeah Bill...the whole freaking plane stopped in time for a moment... except for the landing gear which kept moving...

Honestly......do you think about what you write before you click "Submit Reply"?

Well if the eggshell nose didn't go through on it's own then the air in the plane would have burst the whole thing like a balloon. Air has weight and would have continued travelling forward at 500mph even if the front of the plane had only slowed down marginally on impact.

If the plane had simply crushed itself against the wall it would still be there in thousands of pieces. But there WERE no such thousands of pieces and the government told us that the passenger bodies and the plane were inside the Pentagon anyway.

it's no problem at all to say with certainty that something doesn't add up.

[TsuDhoNimh]

Originally Posted by ergo

Valid physics would predict that it was the nose that punctured a hole in the wall. You're trying to come up with some convoluted explanation why a collection of debris could do the same thing.

Think shotgun pellets ... collection of "debris" that can certainly punch a hole in a wall, door or moose.
Think about landslides and avalanches ... a collection of "debris" that has been known to punch a hole in buildings and vehicles.

Here's some valid physics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_laws_of_motion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentu...inear_momentum

It's a collection of airplane debris particles that was the same mass as the intact plane, tending to move in the same direction as the intact plane, with all the energy of the original plane. Colliding with the outer wall turned the intact plane into particles. Then collisions with the interior columns, and the office furnishings further broke apart, deflected, stopped or slowed some of the particles. Energy was being taken from the airplane particles with every collision and used to break or bend materials.

Some of the heavier particles, such as the landing gear, have more mass which means more energy so they will go farther and can survive longer. And when a heavy chunk of metal hits an inelastic (rigid) wall, the wall is going to shatter and send bricks flying off the outside of the wall.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by bill smith

You mean that the plane stopped for an instant when the nose hit the wall, allowing the landing gear to tear loose and fly through the plane to punch the initial hole in the wall ?

No. The fuselage may have bunched up kind of tight in the fractions of a second that it took for the wall to fail. It would have immediately lost a bit of kinetic energy, but, with the rest of the aircraft still coming up to meet it, the residual energy would still be sufficient to wreak some havoc on anything in the way. At least part of the deck to which the nose gear and the seats were attached would still travel on for some distance. I cannot judge, nor have we any good model to tell us whether the fuselage and the deck were still compressing when the wing roots and engines hit the wall. We can, however, be sure that the wall had lost some structural integrity by that time, allowing the wing roots and engines to penetrate without too much trouble. Immediately behind this would be the main landing gear, still tucked nicely into their respective bays and firmly attached to the deck. Shortly after this, the vertical stabilizer hits the walland is probably shattered. If it at all follows the normal pattern, the empanage breaks free from the deck and what is left of the fuselage and comes to rest somewhere not too deep into the building. (The empanage almost invariably breaks free in a catastrophic crash. That's why they put the black boxes in that part of the aircraft.) From this point onward, it contributes nothing to the career of the rest of the aircraft, but it has already contributed some kinetic energy to the front portions. Beyond here, it would actually become a liability.

The engines would, of course, have sheared off, as they are designed to do, shortly after impact. I would not care to specculate on wherre they wound up. They act rather unpredictably after impact that chages the direction in which they were travelling. We now have a smaller object with only a slightly decreased dimension of forward momentum travelling through the lower level of the building.

About now, the spray of fuel released on impact is deflagrating in the open air, possible delivering a bit more energy to the fuselage from behind.

Now, with each collision with a column, the weight of the aircraft decreases rapidly as more fragile pieces peel away. Mostly, it will consist of a longitudinally-compressed mass of all that was inside the fuselage, including all three landing gear and the passenger seats and passengers. The pieces torn off, having little mass of their own and not attached to a larger mass will peter out quickly.

The central element of the aircraft arrive at the exit point smaller and lighter than when it entered, but still delivering considerable kinetic energy to the wall. It was just enough the knock a hole in the wall and drop to the ground, rather totally spent, just outside.

Because the passengers were secured to the seats and thus to the deck, most of their remains will be somewhere in the vicinity of the nose of the aircraft when it stops breaking up and moving.

Those pieces that do break off but do not encounter resistance will travel along over some distance across the floor so that they either arrive at the punch-out with some residual energy or drop fecklessly by the wayside.

The main mass of the fuselage will still be tearing out a few walls of plastrer board and light metal framing and carrying some of this material, plus some office contents and a few unfortunate office workers with it. By this point, even the deck may be badly fractured and the landing gear may be broken loose from their mountings but, being rather dense, will still be able to overcome most resistance and travel along with the greater mass to the punch-out.

At the wall, all of this mass of aircraft parts and the items it picked up along the way will still have the energy to knock out the bricks in the wall, but just barely. At this time, a great deal of the debris will be so energy-depleted that it comes to a stop. Only what was in immediate contact with the wall exits with the bricks and the sheetrock.

In this respect, it all greatly resembles an armor-piercing round or a DU penetrator. But shed some mass easily to allow a small core of mass to go on to do damage.

Now, to compare this to an explosive munition of any sort, we need to look at the pattern of damage done and the pattern of damage which an explosive munition would do.

All explosive munitions, whether shaped charges or conventional do damage over an expanding area. A conventional bomb will do damage over a more or less circular area, with the most severe damage closest to the point at which it detonates. A shaped charge will also disperse energy in all directions, but diorect the greatest amount of energy in one direction. But this energy will also disperse over a distance. Thus it is that spaced armor will be less damaged by a shaped charge than will homogenous plate. The stream of explosive force begins to lose coherency on the first penetration and will do damage over an increasing area, with less energy being delivered with increased distance.

But, since we see the pattern of damage narrow throughout its course through the building, but the severity of the damage remaining relatively consistant, we must conclude that it was a purely kinetic weapon that did the intitial structural damage.

It had to be one bloody huge kinetic object. A 757 works nicely.

As for the damage to the outer facade, there are clear marks on collisions with solid aircraft wings, outboard of the engines. There is no know missle that could have done that sort of damage. No explosive deivce I can think of will cut horizontal marks into any surfaces.

It was a 757.

[Sabrina]

Steve O'Brien did not fire a missile.

C-130H's are cargo transport aircraft. They do not carry armaments. I know of no way a C-130 could be modified to fire a missile. It's not a fighter jet, which are designed to fire such things. You fail miserably yet again, lgr.

[bill smith]

'' The fuselage may have bunched up kind of tight in the fractions of a second that it took for the wall to fail.''

It wouldn't have 'bunched up kind of tight' Sarge. It would have burst. The fuselage is aluminium often as thin as 1mm. With the volume of air travelling from the back to the front of the plane at 500 mph it would have burst like a paper bag.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by bill smith

It wouldn't have 'bunched up kind of tight' Sarge. It would have burst. The fuselage is aluminium often as thin as 1mm.

Unlike the homogenous shell of a balloon or a paper bag, the skin of an aircraft is made of large single piences. A few pieces did pop off on impact. This, of course, relieved the over-pressurization so that a good deal of material was still attached to the far heavier and more sturdy deck.

[newton3376]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Well if the eggshell nose didn't go through on it's own then the air in the plane would have burst the whole thing like a balloon. Air has weight and would have continued travelling forward at 500mph even if the front of the plane had only slowed down marginally on impact.

If the plane had simply crushed itself against the wall it would still be there in thousands of pieces. But there WERE no such thousands of pieces and the government told us that the passenger bodies and the plane were inside the Pentagon anyway.

it's no problem at all to say with certainty that something doesn't add up.

Bill....please just stop talking.

Please....there is only so much nonsense I can tolerate....

Since you don't know what you are talking about....as you aptly have demonstrated in this and many, many other posts.....please stop.

We get it....you don't understand physics at all. Check. You have proven your point that you are clueless....now please just stop.