The chief result of burning aluminum in the presence of iron is to melt the iron. That is the whole chemistry of thermite, and burning aluminum is what was going on with those airplanes.
What happened at the floor that the airplane crashed into, and which was the firebox for the combustion, was a progressive reduction in the yield strength of the steel columns. When they reached the critical condition of having no structural margin remaining, all it would take is the failure of one column to throw all its load on the remaining columns. Which would overload the remaining columns and cause additional failures, thus entailing a chain reaction that would fail all columns. The load failures propagated at the speed of sound in steel, which is about 5 kilometers/second, essentially instantaneous. You can see this ripple effect in the buildings that have fallen in the Turkey earthquake. When all the upper stories have no resistance to falling, a free fall of 2 seconds is about 64 feet, which would be the thickness of the affected floors.
The World Land Speed Record by custom automobile is 760 mph (660 knots). The drag coefficient at subsonic conditions is significantly lower than the drag coefficient at supersonic conditions, so your speed comparison is faulty. Passenger airlines have been recorded in flight at supersonic conditions in flight accidents that caused permanent deflection of the wing structure but the airplane survived and landed. The fact remains that the aircraft collided with the Towers at the speeds estimated, as established by photographic evidence.
As for training, it turns out a 200-foot wide building is hard to miss. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Are you going to say that "because it couldn't have happened, it didn't happen"?
More nonsense from you. In order for your pancake theory to work thered have to be a measurable jolt or deceleration when the top slams into the bottom etc but there are none.
Its one smooth implosion. No planes even hit WTC7 and it fell with free fall acceleration for over 100 ft. See the University of Alaska Fairbanks study that showed The only way observed collapse of WTC7 could be replicated with modeling was the near simultaneous failure of all core columns then a second later the near simultaneous failure of all perimeter columns over an 8 story span. That doesn’t happen naturally.
Re the land speed nonsense you posted NONE of that applies to a commercial airliner. It’s impossible for a commercial airliner to go 510 knots at sea level bc its airframe would break apart at 420 knots due to how dense the air is.
See below testimony from a former captain of the very plane that allegedly hit a tower at 510 knots. In addition to the plane, physically, not being able to handle the speed, the skill required to do it would also be nearly impossible. They equated hitting the tower at 510 knots with trying to park your car in the garage going 150 mph.
WTC7 proves nothing about the Twin Towers, and vice versa.
I got partway (12 pages) through the 27-page tract that you reference. What was interesting to me was that the top 12 floors did NOT free fall, but descended at an acceleration of about 0.71g---which means that the collapse process was providing a resistant force equivalent to 0.29 g. So, instead of a "hard landing" and a spike in the acceleration profile, the collapse was a process in which the "impact" was softened by compression and yielding. This is reminiscent of the design of modern automobile bumpers and structure: to provide a resistant acceleration rather than a hard impact. Obviously, the Twin Towers were not designed with this in mind, but it is a necessary implication of the lack of a hard impact. Another necessary implication is that the collapse was imposing a compressive load on the underlying structure about 29% higher than the static load of the upper and collapsing floors. This, of course, would be increasing in accordance with the mass accretion of the collapsing floors. An interesting point of the paper was that they measured the collapse dynamics from photo-interpretation, and determined that the constant-acceleration collapse process proceeded for 114 feet before they lost view of the reference points on the building. With a floor height of about 12 feet (as assumed), this would be 9.5 floors---which means that the upper floors collapsed at a constant acceleration entirely through the damaged floors and into the lower portion of the building. Clearly, the collapse process was the same throughout this event, as there was no anomalous acceleration spikes or changes. It turns out that their analysis ended at page 13, so I didn't miss any of the plot. Their whole effort was to disprove the existence of an impulsive impact in the collapse process. Bravo for them. They did not mention the obvious conclusions I mentioned above, so I think they were focused on a rhetorical target of their own, rather than trying to solve the problem. The constant acceleration with resistance would seem to accord more with the mechanism I propose.
As for high-speed aircraft, I don't quite understand your point. Are you trying to say that the 767s did not collide at 510 knots? At some lower speed? What would be that speed and how would you come to that determination? They obviously crashed at whatever speed they crashed. And equally obviously, they were piloted at that speed. So, allegations of "it was impossible" are usually trumped by the fact that something happened. As for airspeed, it is rather amusing for a civil engineer to assert expertise about airplane design when talking to an aeronautical engineer. If the 767s crashed at 510 knots, then it is a fact that they were able to fly at that speed. I pointed out that land speed record automobiles have a record speed of 760 mph (660 knots), supersonic "on the deck," quite able to steer to a track within a 200-foot width. Reno Air Race competitors have flown in "sea level" conditions at 530 mph (460 knots) with modified P-51 Mustangs (propeller-powered). I don't think the structural integrity of a modern airliner is inferior to that of an airplane designed in the 1940s. There are episodes where jet airliners have exceeded the speed of sound in mid-flight accidents and recovered (usually with damage). But the 9/11 airplanes collided with the Twin Towers, perhaps in a damaged state before the collision. You get to tell me at what speed and how you know it.
FFS…what I’m saying is whatever hit the tower wasn’t a commercial airliner flown by a guy who only trained on a single engine Cessna going 80 knots. A commercial airliner has completely different aerodynamics than a fighter plane, even one from the 1940s.
The manufacturers own specs show its airframe would fail at 420 knots at sea level. No chance in hell theyd get it to 510 AND be able to control it even if they did somehow. Commercial pilots with decades of experience said its not possible to get up to 510 knots at sea level especially without a dive maneuver. Wtf else do you need to see?
WTC7 is relevant bc if someone rigged it for demo they’d also be able to rig the towers.
Re the towers since they received asymmetrical damage the top parts are f anything should have fallen over to the side like a tree being chopped, not pile drive straight down through the path of greatest resistance. Anyone who passed basic high school physics would know this. I’m done wasting my time on someone who clearly has their head up their ass.
If your general judgement is as good as your judgment about me, I have no fear.
Don't drivel about the implausibility of events. Tell me what its collision speed was, if it wasn't 510 knots. It happened. Somebody was pilot. Get with reality. And how do they get at their flight altitude to collide with the Twin Towers if they are not diving?
WTC7 is not relevant unless you can prove the Twin Towers and WTC7 were part of such a plot. You can't assume such a plot in order to claim that both WTC7 and the Twin Towers were part of a plot.
As I pointed out, regardless of the symmetry of the initial damage, when the limit load is exceeded on the floor as a whole, the column collapse process chain reaction will execute in a matter of milliseconds and the whole floor will collapse within that time frame. The damage will be asymmetrical only through the lead-up. Once the collapse begins, the whole floor will go nearly simultaneously. There will be no time to tilt. Anyone who passed basic university level physics would know this. You are done because you cannot address the mechanism, and you have zero tolerance for polite discourse.
The chief result of burning aluminum in the presence of iron is to melt the iron. That is the whole chemistry of thermite, and burning aluminum is what was going on with those airplanes.
What happened at the floor that the airplane crashed into, and which was the firebox for the combustion, was a progressive reduction in the yield strength of the steel columns. When they reached the critical condition of having no structural margin remaining, all it would take is the failure of one column to throw all its load on the remaining columns. Which would overload the remaining columns and cause additional failures, thus entailing a chain reaction that would fail all columns. The load failures propagated at the speed of sound in steel, which is about 5 kilometers/second, essentially instantaneous. You can see this ripple effect in the buildings that have fallen in the Turkey earthquake. When all the upper stories have no resistance to falling, a free fall of 2 seconds is about 64 feet, which would be the thickness of the affected floors.
The World Land Speed Record by custom automobile is 760 mph (660 knots). The drag coefficient at subsonic conditions is significantly lower than the drag coefficient at supersonic conditions, so your speed comparison is faulty. Passenger airlines have been recorded in flight at supersonic conditions in flight accidents that caused permanent deflection of the wing structure but the airplane survived and landed. The fact remains that the aircraft collided with the Towers at the speeds estimated, as established by photographic evidence.
It was a possible speed because IT HAPPENED. Reality trumps back-of-envelope finger exercises. Land Speed Record drivers can control up to 660 knots. The speed of sound at sea level is 643 knots, so 510 knots is Mach 0.79, which should be within the aircraft's control envelope. Don't take my word for it; see what the experts have to say: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/15407/can-a-boeing-767-200-fly-at-510-knots-at-a-height-of-400-metres
As for training, it turns out a 200-foot wide building is hard to miss. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Are you going to say that "because it couldn't have happened, it didn't happen"?
More nonsense from you. In order for your pancake theory to work thered have to be a measurable jolt or deceleration when the top slams into the bottom etc but there are none.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf (The missing jolt)
Its one smooth implosion. No planes even hit WTC7 and it fell with free fall acceleration for over 100 ft. See the University of Alaska Fairbanks study that showed The only way observed collapse of WTC7 could be replicated with modeling was the near simultaneous failure of all core columns then a second later the near simultaneous failure of all perimeter columns over an 8 story span. That doesn’t happen naturally.
Re the land speed nonsense you posted NONE of that applies to a commercial airliner. It’s impossible for a commercial airliner to go 510 knots at sea level bc its airframe would break apart at 420 knots due to how dense the air is.
See below testimony from a former captain of the very plane that allegedly hit a tower at 510 knots. In addition to the plane, physically, not being able to handle the speed, the skill required to do it would also be nearly impossible. They equated hitting the tower at 510 knots with trying to park your car in the garage going 150 mph.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/HdbEjxFGAGJt (WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK - PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH)
WTC7 proves nothing about the Twin Towers, and vice versa.
I got partway (12 pages) through the 27-page tract that you reference. What was interesting to me was that the top 12 floors did NOT free fall, but descended at an acceleration of about 0.71g---which means that the collapse process was providing a resistant force equivalent to 0.29 g. So, instead of a "hard landing" and a spike in the acceleration profile, the collapse was a process in which the "impact" was softened by compression and yielding. This is reminiscent of the design of modern automobile bumpers and structure: to provide a resistant acceleration rather than a hard impact. Obviously, the Twin Towers were not designed with this in mind, but it is a necessary implication of the lack of a hard impact. Another necessary implication is that the collapse was imposing a compressive load on the underlying structure about 29% higher than the static load of the upper and collapsing floors. This, of course, would be increasing in accordance with the mass accretion of the collapsing floors. An interesting point of the paper was that they measured the collapse dynamics from photo-interpretation, and determined that the constant-acceleration collapse process proceeded for 114 feet before they lost view of the reference points on the building. With a floor height of about 12 feet (as assumed), this would be 9.5 floors---which means that the upper floors collapsed at a constant acceleration entirely through the damaged floors and into the lower portion of the building. Clearly, the collapse process was the same throughout this event, as there was no anomalous acceleration spikes or changes. It turns out that their analysis ended at page 13, so I didn't miss any of the plot. Their whole effort was to disprove the existence of an impulsive impact in the collapse process. Bravo for them. They did not mention the obvious conclusions I mentioned above, so I think they were focused on a rhetorical target of their own, rather than trying to solve the problem. The constant acceleration with resistance would seem to accord more with the mechanism I propose.
As for high-speed aircraft, I don't quite understand your point. Are you trying to say that the 767s did not collide at 510 knots? At some lower speed? What would be that speed and how would you come to that determination? They obviously crashed at whatever speed they crashed. And equally obviously, they were piloted at that speed. So, allegations of "it was impossible" are usually trumped by the fact that something happened. As for airspeed, it is rather amusing for a civil engineer to assert expertise about airplane design when talking to an aeronautical engineer. If the 767s crashed at 510 knots, then it is a fact that they were able to fly at that speed. I pointed out that land speed record automobiles have a record speed of 760 mph (660 knots), supersonic "on the deck," quite able to steer to a track within a 200-foot width. Reno Air Race competitors have flown in "sea level" conditions at 530 mph (460 knots) with modified P-51 Mustangs (propeller-powered). I don't think the structural integrity of a modern airliner is inferior to that of an airplane designed in the 1940s. There are episodes where jet airliners have exceeded the speed of sound in mid-flight accidents and recovered (usually with damage). But the 9/11 airplanes collided with the Twin Towers, perhaps in a damaged state before the collision. You get to tell me at what speed and how you know it.
FFS…what I’m saying is whatever hit the tower wasn’t a commercial airliner flown by a guy who only trained on a single engine Cessna going 80 knots. A commercial airliner has completely different aerodynamics than a fighter plane, even one from the 1940s.
The manufacturers own specs show its airframe would fail at 420 knots at sea level. No chance in hell theyd get it to 510 AND be able to control it even if they did somehow. Commercial pilots with decades of experience said its not possible to get up to 510 knots at sea level especially without a dive maneuver. Wtf else do you need to see?
https://i.imgur.com/wMoFVbr.png
WTC7 is relevant bc if someone rigged it for demo they’d also be able to rig the towers.
Re the towers since they received asymmetrical damage the top parts are f anything should have fallen over to the side like a tree being chopped, not pile drive straight down through the path of greatest resistance. Anyone who passed basic high school physics would know this. I’m done wasting my time on someone who clearly has their head up their ass.
If your general judgement is as good as your judgment about me, I have no fear.
Don't drivel about the implausibility of events. Tell me what its collision speed was, if it wasn't 510 knots. It happened. Somebody was pilot. Get with reality. And how do they get at their flight altitude to collide with the Twin Towers if they are not diving?
WTC7 is not relevant unless you can prove the Twin Towers and WTC7 were part of such a plot. You can't assume such a plot in order to claim that both WTC7 and the Twin Towers were part of a plot.
As I pointed out, regardless of the symmetry of the initial damage, when the limit load is exceeded on the floor as a whole, the column collapse process chain reaction will execute in a matter of milliseconds and the whole floor will collapse within that time frame. The damage will be asymmetrical only through the lead-up. Once the collapse begins, the whole floor will go nearly simultaneously. There will be no time to tilt. Anyone who passed basic university level physics would know this. You are done because you cannot address the mechanism, and you have zero tolerance for polite discourse.