Monday, March 17, 2008

No Crash Physics

under construction

No Crash Physics

The Hezarkhani / CNN video has become known as “Ghostplane” with good reason. The image of the airplane glides effortlessly into the side of the tower. It does not break, twist, bend, crumple or even slow down.

Passenger aircraft such as this Boeing 767 are mostly aluminum. They are hollow, and built to be as light as possible. The side of the Trade Tower was a dense grid of structural steel box columns, tied together with steel plates. It is built to be as strong as possible, and as flexible as needed.  The floors of the tower were 4" steel-reinforced concrete slabs poured into steel pans, held up by cross-braced steel floor trusses. We are to believe that this airplane met those floors edge-on, and all those steel columns, at more than 500 m.p.h., and not a single piece broke off and fell to the ground?

The Force Paradox

This is inspired by Gerard Holmgren's "The Resistance Paradox". Gerard Holmgren made history when he coined the term "Resistance Paradox" in relation to the Twin Towers. 

In my own words now, as I understand it. According to the official story, the top part of each twin tower crushed itself, and the entire intact undamaged structure below it, into fine powder, in something just a little bit longer than free fall time. Fast "collapse" times require very low resistance from below, because the greater the resistance, the more energy is absorbed by the resisting part, the less energy is available to accelerate falling mass downward, the slower the collapse time. 

On  the other hand, the building and all its contents were converted into very fine powder. Mechanical crushing requires extremely high resistance. A hammer requires an anvil. A mortar requires a pestal. You can smash a piece of ice into small chips with a hammer, but it better be sitting on a hard floor.  Imagine trying to shatter a piece of ice while in free fall. It won't work.

And then imagine that while in free fall, you not only manage to shatter the ice, but shatter the hammer as well. It makes no sense whatsoever. As a rule, collisions between objects do not cause mutual annihilation. Clearly, the twin towers were blown up. Period. 

No official airplane theory exists. To the extent that it does,  it is argued there that mass times velocity gives total kinetic energy, thus the impacting airplane is equivalent to so many tons of TNT. This treats the entire airplane as a single mass, a single solid object.

But, in explaining why the the back part of the plane does not appear to slow down, the official theorists say that the plane is more like a liquid, or a constellation of very small parts, unconnected. It atomizes, completely shatters, thus relieving the back part of any obligation to slow down.  

Just as in the case of the twin towers, the official story is trying to have it both ways. The plane is both strong enough to to act like a solid in terms of the total kinetic energy, but weak enough to act like a liquid in terms of the deceleration of the back part. It makes no sense. 

To actually think about it correctly, we must consider the power of the impact. Power is force over time. That is force divided by time. The longer a period of time over which a force is spread out, the less power it delivers, and the less destruction it causes. A burning log releases more energy than a stick of dynamite. The reason a stick of dynamite can destroy your fireplace, while a burning log cannot, is that the dynamite releases its energy in a much smaller period of time than does the fire. 

If indeed the airplane is weak enough to atomize on impact, which I think is basically correct based on the Sandia F-4 video, then it would be like a bug on the windshield to a twin tower. Much of it would turn to confetti, large parts like wing flaps or tail sections would bounce off. Engines, being steel and titanium, are strong, and might make a significant dent or maybe sever a column. A plane-shaped hole is strictly ruled out. 

Ghostplane shows no crash physics at all. I encourage you to read Morgan Reynolds’ several articles on crash physics, the early ones having come after being tutored by Gerard Holmgren, one of the greatest minds in the history of 9/11 research, and also one of the best blues guitarists since B.B. King. 

Dr. Reynolds is absolutely correct in his physics argument. Unfortunately, >99% of humans are scientific idiots. The government experts can lie bullshit numbers about "total kinetic energy" and "moment of inertia" and make hilarious computer animations until the cows . . .die . . .and become hamburgers. 

On the other hand, the problems with the Chopper 5 video can be understood by everyone. There was no plane. No plane solves 9/11. 

No comments: