A piece of straw straight on is relatively sharp and pointed. Straw also has long chain sugars (fiber) along it's length which give it substantial strength in that direction. That is why it is so difficult to break straw by just pulling on each end (longitudinal load), but it's easy to tear it (sheering force). In other words, all of it's strength is along the direction of it's length (think of it like a one dimensional object).
The reason you don't find many pieces of straw sticking out of trees is because the straw needs to be headed in exactly the right direction with enough force to penetrate the wood. At all other angles, or slightly less force and the force per unit area is too small to do anything at all to the tree.
In all cases of collision the "winner" is a function of material strength and force per unit area (shape of the object). It has nothing to do with the speed of one object over the other, except in that the overall speed difference changes the "force" part of the equation. From the planes perspective, the building was flying at it at 500 mph.
Steel is unquestionably stronger than aluminum per unit thickness. The shell of an airplane is also substantially thinner than the steel on a building, thus in material strength the building has a substantial advantage. There was either a force per unit area advantage to the plane's wing or there wasn't (think the "sharpness" of the wing). I don't know. I think probably not because wings are actually kinda thick, relatively speaking. Running it through a physics program (FEM) would likely give a reasonable answer. However, your argument of "speed" was not a factor, because the speed of the plane was identical to the speed of the building from each other's perspective.
Don't forget the weight of the jet fuel most of the wing is a fuel tank and they just took off so add a rough guess of 30,000 lbs for each side to the equation. And don't forget the main part of the wing is a fuel tank, its very heavy built. Don't forget the forward and aft terminal fitting and main landing gear trunions those are very heavy parts....
All of the things you are stating are adding onto the force part of the equation. I stated explicitly that that is a factor (Force/area means "force is a part of the equation"). Why are you suggesting that is important? I mean, it is important because it's a part of the equation, but it's not a surprising part of it.
As I said, running it through a simulator would give a reasonable approximation, I wasn't protesting that the airplane would have a force behind it. Indeed, I stated explicitly that it would. I even suggested that it might be enough if the force per unit area was sufficient when compared to the material strength differences, though the building would have a force per unit area as well. The winner is the one with the most force per unit area IF AND ONLY IF it can overcome the relative material strength.
What I was protesting in your response was that "straw going into a tree" was some sort of meaningful evidence. It's not. Well, it is, in that it shows what needs to be considered (force per area and material strength), but it's not in that an analysis of that event shows how unlikely it is (exactly the right angle, along the strength of the object, with the smallest point forward, etc.).
And the leading edge of aircraft are very thin 40 or 50 thousandths. As a structural aircraft mechanic I have no problem believing the plans did the damage shown.
And I also belive the govt was responsible for 9/11.
Absolutely, although our government is like twins. There is the good one (half) and the bad one (half...aka Deep State). Bushes were in cahoots with the Bin Ladens. The terrorist task force just moved into the floor where the plane crashed just the week prior and all info was destroyed. The missing money that was questioned was forgotten about. And it goes on and on and on.
The wings on the 911 planes were stronger because they crashed into a weather balloon right before they crashed into the buildings. This caused a chemical reaction which hardened the aluminum temporarily to be stronger than steel.
Obviously.
There's always a perfectly reasonable explanation for every "strange" sky event as long as you remember we have weather balloons. For some reason the crazy conspiracy theorists always conveniently forget about them.
I don't care if you say the wings are 'strong' or 'weak', just pick one side.
How did the strong/weak wings slice through steel girders in NY...
...and the same strong/weak wings didn't even dent the building at the Pentagon?
That plane was not moving at flying speed.....
Have you ever seen pictures from a hurricane or tornado with straw sticking in a tree.
How about this plane?
https://youtu.be/zI-FkWJaVEs?si=5TUlsltzsGCCoXQN
Or this one?
https://youtu.be/F4CX-9lkRMQ?si=G4HE7VDQNQVJequH
Nice now try it 5 times fadter.
A piece of straw straight on is relatively sharp and pointed. Straw also has long chain sugars (fiber) along it's length which give it substantial strength in that direction. That is why it is so difficult to break straw by just pulling on each end (longitudinal load), but it's easy to tear it (sheering force). In other words, all of it's strength is along the direction of it's length (think of it like a one dimensional object).
The reason you don't find many pieces of straw sticking out of trees is because the straw needs to be headed in exactly the right direction with enough force to penetrate the wood. At all other angles, or slightly less force and the force per unit area is too small to do anything at all to the tree.
In all cases of collision the "winner" is a function of material strength and force per unit area (shape of the object). It has nothing to do with the speed of one object over the other, except in that the overall speed difference changes the "force" part of the equation. From the planes perspective, the building was flying at it at 500 mph.
Steel is unquestionably stronger than aluminum per unit thickness. The shell of an airplane is also substantially thinner than the steel on a building, thus in material strength the building has a substantial advantage. There was either a force per unit area advantage to the plane's wing or there wasn't (think the "sharpness" of the wing). I don't know. I think probably not because wings are actually kinda thick, relatively speaking. Running it through a physics program (FEM) would likely give a reasonable answer. However, your argument of "speed" was not a factor, because the speed of the plane was identical to the speed of the building from each other's perspective.
Don't forget the weight of the jet fuel most of the wing is a fuel tank and they just took off so add a rough guess of 30,000 lbs for each side to the equation. And don't forget the main part of the wing is a fuel tank, its very heavy built. Don't forget the forward and aft terminal fitting and main landing gear trunions those are very heavy parts....
All of the things you are stating are adding onto the force part of the equation. I stated explicitly that that is a factor (Force/area means "force is a part of the equation"). Why are you suggesting that is important? I mean, it is important because it's a part of the equation, but it's not a surprising part of it.
As I said, running it through a simulator would give a reasonable approximation, I wasn't protesting that the airplane would have a force behind it. Indeed, I stated explicitly that it would. I even suggested that it might be enough if the force per unit area was sufficient when compared to the material strength differences, though the building would have a force per unit area as well. The winner is the one with the most force per unit area IF AND ONLY IF it can overcome the relative material strength.
What I was protesting in your response was that "straw going into a tree" was some sort of meaningful evidence. It's not. Well, it is, in that it shows what needs to be considered (force per area and material strength), but it's not in that an analysis of that event shows how unlikely it is (exactly the right angle, along the strength of the object, with the smallest point forward, etc.).
Also don't forget steel is stronger but that aluminum was 7075 t-6 it's much close to steel than pure aluminum.
Remember then too - like the originally aired video showed the nose popping out of the other side of the building.
Link?
A B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in the 1940's, the building is still there.
Yes, I’ve seen pictures of it.
Great example of how fragile those wings are!!
Wings get much thinner the farther out you go.
And the leading edge of aircraft are very thin 40 or 50 thousandths. As a structural aircraft mechanic I have no problem believing the plans did the damage shown.
And I also belive the govt was responsible for 9/11.
Absolutely, although our government is like twins. There is the good one (half) and the bad one (half...aka Deep State). Bushes were in cahoots with the Bin Ladens. The terrorist task force just moved into the floor where the plane crashed just the week prior and all info was destroyed. The missing money that was questioned was forgotten about. And it goes on and on and on.
40 thou thick? The only a/c I have seen like that is the F-104, certainly not a widebody, they are high chord wings.
Leading edge only. The curved part that's connected to the top and lower spar cord.
No slats then. Are you really an aircraft mech? What's a spar cord?
9-11 was not a terrorist attack, it was a deep state domestic attack.
Clever. Plane in OP image is not traveling at 500 mph.
The wings on the 911 planes were stronger because they crashed into a weather balloon right before they crashed into the buildings. This caused a chemical reaction which hardened the aluminum temporarily to be stronger than steel.
Obviously.
There's always a perfectly reasonable explanation for every "strange" sky event as long as you remember we have weather balloons. For some reason the crazy conspiracy theorists always conveniently forget about them.
This is the lowest of low energy posts. Crack open a physics book.