What hit the Pentagon? 9/11

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: ruksak Well then.....I guess my "pictures" and "eyewitnesses" are no match for your "mathematics".

Pictures can be easily faked these days.

And are you accounting for every single eyewitness account?

How about an exercise in honesty? I'm not accusing you of being dishonest, but see if you can find eyewitness accounts that contest the 757 explanation.

Quote by: ruksak So why, may I ask, is it so inconceivable that an American Airliner passenger jet was as well, involved with the Pentagon?

If you have to ask, then you clearly didn't read my post about the density and tensile strength of reinforced concrete or the absence of wind disturbance on the explosion and smoke cloud.

Just that alone should give you pause.

60+ tons of metal flying at half the speed of sound strikes the side of a building and the smoke from the explosion goes straight up?

The explosion billows out of the outer wall, but you don't see anything coming up from the inner wall? With that much air disturbance, the explosion didn't push out both walls?

Pictures and eyewitnesses are after the fact. I'm going off what I can observe with my own eyes and with a few calculations... and math doesn't lie. Math can't be Photoshop'd. You can even check my work, if you want.

You have no need to reference people laughing at these posts. I am trying to present you with a valid case against a 757. Others have repeatedly waved photos and eyewitnesses, but no one has challenged the validity of the math.

Tivodan tried when he said that the plane would be hitting with more force than I listed. That's possible, but it doesn't account for the plane's rotational velocity and hitting multiple walls afterwards.

Care to comment on the physics and math without resorting to an expensive video animation that tries to explain how hollow, thin aluminum can destroy steel support beams?

[ruksak]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Care to comment on the physics and math without resorting to an expensive video animation that tries to explain how hollow, thin aluminum can destroy steel support beams?

I'm not much of a "math" kinda guy. Math is hard. Ya know? Numbers and junk and stuff. However I don't need to do, """math""", to figure out what hit the Pentagon.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Pictures and eyewitnesses are after the fact. I'm going off what I can observe with my own eyes and with a few calculations... and math doesn't lie. Math can't be Photoshop'd. You can even check my work, if you want.

Pictures and eyewitness testimony are not "after the fact" . They are the facts as they happened. What you're doing is "after the fact". Which is trying to do junk science with a dash of algebra to support your biased political agenda.

I'll tell ya what I do know about math, however. I know that when you present a formula you must be able to show you are using exact numbers. Approximates don't count for jack squatery. I could go through a thousand variables off the top of my head to offset whatever formula you could contrive. Theres no way you can provide me with a formula with exact known quantities, that would in any way prove your case. Unless you can work with real known numbers, I suggest you use something else in your arsenal besides math as an argument to outweigh evidence.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: ruksak Theres no way you can provide me with a formula with exact known quantities, that would in any way prove your case. Unless you can work with real known numbers, I suggest you use something else in your arsenal besides math as an argument to outweigh evidence.

You posting something like that means I'm done debating this with you.

I used the maximum take-off weight of a 757 at the most realistic speed for the maneuvers made and a concrete density based retail quick-crete. The numbers I used represented the best possible combination in order to make it possible for a 757 to breach the outer wall.

You also evaded, again, the very realistic issue of how the plane made it through four walls.

You admit you don't know much about math, and then criticize my use of it. That kind of contradictory irrationality means you don't have anything with which to refute my argument.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Not the government...rogue elements...led from the top. Listen. If you think airliners could be hijacked with boxcutters why don't you think governments can be hijacked with subterfuge? And as I said...WMD create trails. If you find the stash with no trail, you're busted for planting it.

Rogue elements, that's what you call the president? he controls an entire branch, when a third of your government and the part that holds the executive power is rogue, you can consider the entire thing sufficiently rogue for me to get the hell out.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Rogue elements, that's what you call the president? he controls an entire branch, when a third of your government and the part that holds the executive power is rogue, you can consider the entire thing sufficiently rogue for me to get the hell out.

I hear ya. I thought about emigrating at one point, several years ago. Then I decided dammit, I was put here at a time like this for a reason. I ain't gonna run.

So I chose to stay and resist the tyranny.

[ruksak]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I used the maximum take-off weight of a 757 at the most realistic speed for the maneuvers made and a concrete density based retail quick-crete. The numbers I used represented the best possible combination in order to make it possible for a 757 to breach the outer wall.

Thats just it. You need to know exactly how fast this plane was traveling Exactly what the plane weighs. Exactly how much fuel was in the tank and fuel lines. Exact wind speed and direction.
We need to know the exact thickness of the walls in question, as well the nature of steel reinforcement. Wouldn't your model change drastically for every change in the airplanes pitch, speed, momentum, mass, etc etc?

From your earlier post;

Quote by: ZNFYRH At the most generous estimates, the 757 had to clear the buildings west of the Pentagon and descend to an altitude of 10 feet. The alleged speed was anywhere from 350 to 500 MPH, but I'll keep it at a reasonable and maneuverable speed of 240 MPH.

You "kept it reasonable" and lowered the estimated airspeed by at least 110 MPH

The plane was level enough to hit the poles on its approach. That means the plane was level at 1/4 mile from the Pentagon. That also means that the plane descended in 4.5 seconds, not 9. So can a 757, 100 feet above the ground, 3 degree angle, 240 MPH, drop 90 feet and have 0 angle in less than 5 seconds? Reports say that it was "see-sawing" and "wobbling" on its approach, so I'll take that to mean that when it leveled it still had rotational velocity leftover from its descent recovery. So then the question is to ask if a 757 can recover from a 3 degree dive in 4.5 seconds and drop no more than 90 feet. It gets worse. In order to do so, it would have to flare almost immediately after clearing the last building. So to counter gravity, the engines plus aerodynamic lift have to cancel out gravity in 4.5 seconds, without the tail hitting the final building or hitting the ground.

What I see here is you drawing your own conclusions. This post is full of inaccuracies and presumptions. You make the leap that the plane "had to be level to hit the light poles". When there is no reasoning for that assumption.

You also evaded, again, the very realistic issue of how the plane made it through four walls.

I haven't "evaded" the issue. The burden of proof is on you. I've seen the aftermath. I heard the eyewitnesses. Like I said, I questioned the hole myself at first, but then I researched how a plane could leave such a cookie-cutter hole.

You admit you don't know much about math, and then criticize my use of it. That kind of contradictory irrationality means you don't have anything with which to refute my argument.

I would be glad to enter into this civilly with you, if you would relocate this formula you're using to calculate the impact of the airplane and the resistance of the Pentagon walls against it. This is a long thread and I cannot search through it all to find the one reference you're making.
Thanks........ruksak

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: ruksak You make the leap that the plane "had to be level to hit the light poles". When there is no reasoning for that assumption.

Light poles were knocked down on both sides of the aircraft. At 10 feet above the ground, the wings would be hitting the tops of the poles. If the plane was doing too much adjusting, the wings would have cleared the poles instead of hitting them.

It's not assumption.

Quote by: ruksak I've seen the aftermath. I heard the eyewitnesses. Like I said, I questioned the hole myself at first, but then I researched how a plane could leave such a cookie-cutter hole.

But you didn't see the event.

You must not be understanding me very well... I don't have a problem with the "cookie cutter" hole. I have a problem with the physics and materials involved.

Quote by: ruksak I would be glad to enter into this civilly with you, if you would relocate this formula you're using to calculate the impact of the airplane and the resistance of the Pentagon walls against it. This is a long post and I cannot search through it all to find the one reference you're making.

Go back to post #110.

My use of the extreme numbers is to give a possible situation where a 757 could have punched through the wall.

An empty 757 is 60 tons. A fully fueled and full passenger manifest 757 is 136 tons. I used the bigger number so the plane would have more mass behind it's impact.

The acceleration numbers are also the more advantageous ones for a 757 piercing the wall. The plane wasn't at a dead stop once it hit the wall... it allegedly continued through to the next three walls.

The tensile strengths of the wall are based, initially, on retail concrete. The Pentagon was obviously not built with supplies from Home Depot, but I used numbers for a weaker wall, thus giving the 757 a better chance of piercing it.

You take the force of the plane and compare it to the strength of the wall. If the force of the plane is higher, then the wall will crack all the way through. Not even pierce... just crack.

Based on the numbers in my post, you would have seen a 757 slam into the wall, and crack it, but not go all the way through the wall.

Also, you quoted my mention of 250 MPH but notice the following, also from post 110:

Quote by: ZNFYRH So tell me how a plane that delivers 8.2 MPa of force can penetrate more than 4 walls of 16.5 MPa tensile resistance? And that's for normal concrete. If the plane were truly moving at 500 MPH, then it would deliver 16.4 MPa to the wall, surely destroying it. But would it have then been able to completely pass through internal steel support columns, then another wall, then another wall, then more columns, then another wall?

FOUR WALLS!!!

How can any of you think that a plane could maintain enough force to put a hole through four reinforced concrete walls?

It's not even like the walls were one behind the other. There was empty space. Try punching through a piece of material and barely punching through it, then having to keep going through empty space, another wall, empty space, another wall, empty space, and another wall again. And that only covers the first two rings.

We're told it penetrated the third ring too!!

It is physically impossible for a 757 to do that kind of damage. I don't need to be dead on and perfectly exact. It should be common sense when you look at the strength of a 3 foot thick reinforced concrete wall and how a 757, fully fueled and full manifest, moving at 500 MPH, would just barely penetrate a single wall.

[Gods_Mercenary]

As I recall, the explosion probably did an amount of penetrating as well.

[ruksak]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Mass times acceleration gives you 32,830,651.6 Newtons. The nose of a 757 is roughly 4 meters squared, which means the pressure exerted by the 757 is 8,207,662.9 Pascals, or 8.2 Mega Pascals (MPa).

I appreciate the work it must take to compile this formula. The conclusion you've drawn is based largely upon the amount of force/pressure the plane could exert upon the surface of reinforced concrete at the point of impact. First I would criticize your use of an airspeed of 250 MPH. How much would it affect your sum total if the airspeed was in excess of 350 MPH?

Another thing that I don't see represented here is the compression and expansion caused by the explosion of how many tons of jet fuel?


:EDIT:

Maximum Fuel Capacity of Boeing 757-200 passenger class 11,489 gal (43,490 l)

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: ruksak The conclusion you've drawn is based largely upon the amount of force/pressure the plane could exert upon the surface of reinforced concrete at the point of impact.

That's right.

Quote by: ruksak First I would criticize your use of an airspeed of 250 MPH. How much would it affect your sum total if the airspeed was in excess of 350 MPH?

If you look back at post 187, or 110, you'll see that I gave the numbers for 250 MPH and 500 MPH.

At 250 MPH, it would be the plane's 8.2 MPa versus the wall's 16.5 MPa of resistance. The plane would lose.

At 500 MPH, it would be the plane's 16.4 MPa (yes, it simply doubles) versus the wall's 16.5 MPa of resistance.

Notice that the plane is still 0.1 MPa low, but I still acknowledged that it would probably pierce the wall.

But notice that a simple 3 foot steel rebar wall might get breached, but again... and this hasn't been addressed by anyone... four walls??

Quote by: Gods As I recall, the explosion probably did an amount of penetrating as well.

Quote by: ruksak Another thing that I don't see represented here is the compression and expansion caused by the explosion of how many tons of jet fuel? ... 11,489 gal (43,490 l)

Thanks to Online Conversion - Energy Conversion

11,489 gallon [U.S.] of kerosene type jet fuel = 390.472 ton (explosive)

And...

390.472 ton [explosive] = 1.633 terajoule

Damn this is a lot of research...

A Joule is 1 Pascal per cubic meter.

1.633 TJ is 1.633 TPa... or 1,633,000 MPa

If you had a 1,633,000 Mega Pascal explosion of fuel, it would have obliterated the Pentagon. You would not have gotten a collapsed ceiling and a cookie cutter hole.

So the answer is that all the fuel in the plane did not detonate at once.

Even a marginal amount of fuel in the plane would generate thousands of MPa... more than enough to blast out more than a circular hole.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: PH Listen. If you think airliners could be hijacked with boxcutters why don't you think governments can be hijacked with subterfuge?

Guess you're not familiar with the effects of mace in a closed area.

[ruksak]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Damn this is a lot of research...

Indeed.

If you had a 1,633,000 Mega Pascal explosion of fuel, it would have obliterated the Pentagon. You would not have gotten a collapsed ceiling and a cookie cutter hole. So the answer is that all the fuel in the plane did not detonate at once. Even a marginal amount of fuel in the plane would generate thousands of MPa... more than enough to blast out more than a circular hole.

The hole is just the initial impact site. As you pointed out, not only is it unlikely that all of the fuel exploded at once, but it likely ignited inside the building, as opposed to on the surface of the wall. Thats the extra force needed in your figures.
The plane strikes the wall and penetrates. The simultaneous blast from the fuel igniting and the impact of the airplanes dispersing pieces, could easily have ripped through these walls at the Pentagon.
You said it yourself right here...............

Even a marginal amount of fuel in the plane would generate thousands of MPa...

We saw in the WTC towers impacts, perfect examples of the brutal force of the explosions carrying forward.

[ZNFYRH]

ruksak

You misunderstand.

390 tons of explosive would not blow holes in the building.

It would blow up the building.

Just one tone of dynamite generates supersonic explosive forces. With the size of just one ring of the Pentagon, 390 tons would have rendered it to pieces.

The damage doesn't add up.

[ruksak]

Wait.

Before, your issue was that there was no way a 757 could penetrate that far into the Pentagon and cause that much damage. Now your saying if it was a 757, it would have caused more damage?

We've already agreed that the full 390 ton blast potential would not be released all at once.......When you said this;

Quote by: ZNFYRH So the answer is that all the fuel in the plane did not detonate at once.

Therefor the 390 ton potential is far from met. Can't you find a happy medium and say the damage represents a 757 impact?

You proved that a 757 (using airspeed + mass) cannot impact with enough energy to penetrate that far and do that much damage.

When the question of fuel combustion was asked to be accounted for, you proved that a 757 carries with it the potential of releasing a 390 ton blast.

An airplane with not enough mass to exert the needed energy for the deep penetration. (Without fuel)
And a source for the extra needed energy for this catastrophic failure of the Pentagons multi-layer abutments.

Quote by: ZNFYRH But notice that a simple 3 foot steel rebar wall might get breached, but again... and this hasn't been addressed by anyone... four walls??

Now it has been addressed. The added force to make this possible is jet fuel combustion.

[ZNFYRH]

This is getting harder to clarify because I'm taking for granted things which I think are obvious.

Let me try to break it down this way:

In post #110, my 16.5 MPa resistance, three foot thick wall is a wall of nothing but normal concrete. According to the numbers, a 757 would have to hit the wall dead-on at 500 MPH to push through retail concrete.

Were the walls of the Pentagon made of retail concrete? No, they were reinforced concrete. So if a 757 can barely get through one normal concrete wall, how does it pierce five reinforced walls?

The answer suggested is the explosive force of the fuel igniting.

The full fuel capacity explodes with the force of 390 tons of dynamite.

Even if one-hundredth of the capacity of fuel exploded, it would have the force of 3.9 tons of dynamite.

Do you realize how powerful that is??

With an explosion centered in the first ring, and the explosive force going outward, you would not have had linear penetration...



Does that look like 3.9 tons of dynamite exploded there?

Realize, as I said, that my numbers were based on normal concrete.

Steel reinforced, 6 inch thick concrete walls have a strength of about 400 MPa.

A three-foot thick wall of reinforced concrete has a strength of 2,400 MPa!!!

If all 11,489 gallons exploded you'd have a 1,633,000 MPa blast.

Do the ratio of how much jet fuel would have to explode to create a blast to destroy a 2,400 MPa wall... you'll get 0.00147.

What is 0.00147 times 11,489? 16.8.

If 16.8 gallons of kerosene jet fuel exploded, equivalent to 1146 pounds of dynamite, it would blow out a 2,400 MPa wall.

Flight 77 had 8,600 gallons of fuel when it took off. Even if it was doing nothing but climbing for 2 hours, it would still have had over 1,000 gallons of fuel when it hit the Pentagon.

How does only 16 gallons out of 1,000 explode?

So here's the summary of the problems with a 757 hitting the Pentagon:

One
Reinforced concrete wall tensile strength ~ 2,400 MPa.

500 MPH, maximum weight 757 delivers ~ 16.4 MPa.

It is physically impossible for a 757 to penetrate five 2,400 MPa walls in order to create the circular holes seen in the second and third rings.

Two
At excessive fuel consumption Flight 77 would have had 1,000 gallons of kerosene jet fuel.

Kerosene jet fuel explodes with a force of 142 MPa per gallon.

If a 757 exploded in the center of the first ring, only 17 of 1,000 would have to explode to create the damage seen.

The heat of 17 gallons of kerosene jet fuel exploding would not leave colorful aluminum parts behind. In fact, if you see the photos of the interior of the Pentagon, you see normal looking objects with normal coloration. The heat alone should have seared all objects within 30 feet of an explosion of that magnitude.

Explosions do not create linear damage.

It is impossible for an explosion to deliver 2,400 MPa's of force to walls and still leave objects intact within 30 feet.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Now I'm confused about what you do think hit it, if one of the largest planes can't do it, and anything bigger supposedly can't maneuver, what the hell did it?

[shawmutt]

How can any of you think that a plane could maintain enough force to put a hole through four reinforced concrete walls?

You're ignoring the force of 11,000 gallons of fuel slamming into a building (and judging by your posts have never taken a martial art ). Think making a gun that could shoot soda cans. Which would do the most damage? An empty soda can or one half full of soda? Think of a board breaking competition--look up some videos of it.

In the end what you have to do to be a conspiracy theorist is ignore the simple questions like "how many people would have to be involved in a plot of this magnitude?" and spew numbers and "facts" left and right in the hopes that some will be a match and "prove your case". The laymen get overwhelmed by all the nonsense, and are basically defeated by bloviation. It's essentially special pleading, or ad hoc reasoning.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: shawmutt You're ignoring the force of 11,000 gallons of fuel slamming into a building

You must be partially blind. Scroll up to post 195 or 190.

If 11,000 gallons of kerosene jet fuel were to explode, it would have the force of 390 tons of dynamite.

Your derogatory comments about math demonstrate more about you not understanding the numbers than you actually making a point.

I'll repeat it for you and keep it isolated to just the fuel aspects, so you can be clear on it.

A 757-200 holds a maximum of 11,489 gallons of kerosene jet fuel.

If said 757-200 were to explode, it would have 1,633,000 Mega Pascals of pressure. That much explosive pressure would leave a crater... not circular holes in walls.

Flight 77 had 8,600 gallons on takeoff. Even with the maximum stress and fuel consumption on the engines, it still could have had 1,000 gallons of fuel.

1,000 gallons would still give a 150,000 MPa explosion. Again... the damage to the Pentagon immediately following the event does not compare to the damage caused by 39 tons of dynamite.

In order for there to be damage even remotely resembling what was done, no more than 16-20 gallons of fuel could explode. How does only 16-20 gallons out of, at a bare minimum, 1,000 gallons explode and the rest is untouched?

The explosion came from inside the building... so in that small space how does no more than 2% of the fuel explode?

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am someone with half a brain who, with a calculator and Google, can see that the numbers don't match.

Why respond to a red herring question like "how many people" when the more interesting question is this:

How does a 757 punch through five reinforced concrete walls and the ensuing explosion was no more than 20 gallons of fuel?

Both aspects of that question represent serious considerations before believing what the government has told us.

[shawmutt]

If 11,000 gallons of kerosene jet fuel were to explode...

I'm not blind, when did I say anything about exploding? I'm talking about the potential energy of 11,000 gallons of liquid traveling 300+ mph--you know, physics 101 stuff. What do you think, the airplane popped like a water balloon on impact? It could be water and have the same effect minus the burning.

Why respond to a red herring question like "how many people" when the more interesting question is this

It is not a red herring. It gets to the whole point of "what hit the pentagon". Was it a few wackos with a rudimentary plan and the will to carry it out, or a vast conspiracy involving thousands? Your "interesting" question is merely the random ramblings of a typical conspiracy theorist.

Both aspects of that question represent serious considerations before believing what the government has told us.

The government is not the only body that has studied this attack. Of course, if scientists agree with the government then they are part of the conspiracy, and the conspiracy grows.

[ZNFYRH]

shawmutt

I think you're done in this discussion.

You've evaded again and I can see you have no intention of actually addressing the numbers I provided.

See, you keep trying to label me as a conspiracy theorist because that's your little scapegoat response.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all. I don't care about your "how many people" question. My greater concern is the contradiction between the explanation and the physics and chemistry involved.

By continuing to avoid the numbers and label me, I don't think I really need to show any respect for what you have to say.