FB removed this meme citing misinformation. I've been warned, again lol
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (74)
sorted by:
From a paper Sciencesplaining how it happened:
They modelled it by creating a box beam. A wing is not a box beam. It's not even close to a box beam. It is a long thin honeycomb which has failure modes completely different than a box beam. It's not designed to handle point like impact forces on the leading edge. There are no substantial forces in that direction in the sky, not counting the occasional errant bird which is substantially squishier than steal beams. In the case of birds, it is estimated that 15% of bird strikes on the leading edge of airplane wings cause structural failure in the wing because they aren't built to handle those forces. They are just too rare to compromise the design.
If a wing can barely survive a bird, how is it going to cut through a box beam made of tempered steel?
Their initial assumptions were not inline with reality, and any engineer or physicist understands this. They call it a "first approximation," but it's full of bad assumptions.
After playing with their model for long enough, they got a result that "helped explain what we saw" in a "rational way."
That's all it takes for The Science to become reality, a plausible explanation. You keep adding the assumptions you require, and fiddle with the parameters until you build a model that gives the desired answer. No testing required.
That that is a bit like saying:
If we hold time constant at the instant that the 2,000Lb anvil encounters the top of Wiley coyote's head, his animated bones can support the weight indefinitely without stress.
Can you dumb this down for me and use a Dudley Doright analogy?
If we pause the film just before the train gets to the damsel lashed to the rails then she is in no danger and Dudly doright is just assaulting a helpless woman.
I understand perfectly
Oh drat!
I thought that I had muddied the waters enough to make my getaway!
Thank for for these comments they were a fun read lol
LOL!!!🤣🤣
Koolaidhater thanks for taking me on a journey of my childhood- with old eyes I saw a penis as the jaw line of Dudley and a new Wu of saying pre- DiCK-a- ment😂😂😂 sauce below:
https://youtu.be/Q83Jqd2h0Yg?si=DgUmXxVvlBQN66fD
I also noticed that the Inspector Fenwick emphasized the word "Hard".
Now I know why my sisters liked this cartoon more than I did. jk.
There's no need to fear! Braindead Joe is here!
Stand by for Trumpley Whiplash . . .
Yah Bah Dab A Doo! 🦖
u/#dancingpepe
. . . until the exact moment when the cartoonist yields to reality, and the yield strength of his skull introduces his brain to it's ultimate moment of elasticity.
WHUMP.
If only Acme were a real provider of traitor-thinning mechanisms . . .
Meep meep!
And don't use cheap Chinese coloring implements as the poor adhesion to paper means that the 2,000lb anvil might fly off of the paper and squash you instead of Wiley!
: )
I have seen a wing on a certain aircraft in the military and it was red all around it with what looked like a beachball sized dent in it. I looked at my maintenance buddy and asked, "bird?" He concurred.
There is no way those wings would have done anything but buckled.
I spent several months working out of a helicopter in the arctic in 1987. There was a period of a few weeks where we were taking off and landing in clouds of "moose flies" as the locals called them. They WERE huge, but they were not made of steel, and yet there was a lot of concern that the rotor blades were being damaged badly. Every day after finishing our work, the engineer would inspect the leading edges and cringe, telling us that he may have to replace them at some outrageous $ figure.
Ignorance never stops the imagination.
Wings are indeed box beams, formed by the front and rear spars and by the upper and lower main wing skins (stiffened by stringers). The leading and trailing edges are primarily aerodynamic, not structural surfaces. The wing sustains a bending and shear force equal to the weight of the entire airplane, as well as reacting against engine thrust levels and supporting point engine loads (bending and torsion).
The wing is not made of tempered steel. It is made from aluminum alloy (all Boeing airliners except the 787 and 777X).
The twin towers collisions were messy. The aircraft was significantly diced up, despite severing some structural columns. Ice is weaker than steel, but it didn't stop an iceberg from fatally gashing the RMS Titanic. Water is weaker than any structural material, but it has no problem destroying bridges and dams if there is enough momentum involved.
Oh, yeah. The signpost. That happened in a low-speed surface motion, not at 400-500 mph flight velocity. Notice that the post stopped penetrating when it reached the forward spar.
No, they are multiple box beams. They modeled it as a single box beam, combining the multiple trans members into a single member. Read what I actually wrote (and the paper itself) before you respond.
I agree completely. None of the structure designed to cope with those loads will help with a focused impact on the leading edge, which is exactly what I said.
Again, exactly what I said. I also said, and quoted the article to make it clear, the skyscraper box beam is made of hardened steel, the airplane box beam is made of aluminum alloy.
First, I'm not 100% convinced that's what happened. however, I believe that it can have happened. I have no problem with the physics of that. The reason is that the total strength of an object is dependent on it's total thickness in the direction of impact. In the case of an Iceberg, it is more than thick enough to crush steel. In the case of a single aluminum cross member of a wing (probably in the 10-15mm range max), it is not. They combined all the cross members into a SINGLE 100mm thick aluminum beam to do their calculations.
The signpost is irrelevant. I never mentioned the signpost. I'm talking about the building. The speed (in the range of a building impact) is not sufficient to substantially change the fundamental consideration, which is what is the single thickest impacting member (thickest box wall) in the direction of travel.
Don't bother responding until you read my posts on this topic. Your ignorance of what I actually said makes you look foolish in your hubris, once again.
Are you referring to the frames normal to the spars? That makes it far stronger than a box beam, so I don't know what your point would be.
It was ambiguous from your sentence structure whether you were referencing the building structure or the airplane structure. As you didn't clearly switch topics, I presumed you were continuing. I have reservations about calling the building structure a box beam. There were columns and floors throughout.
In a high speed collision, structural members can (and do) collapse like an accordion, and the result could be a consolidated thickness of 100 mm. That's only 4 inches.
I notice you completely duck the point about water being able to rip structures apart, even though it has absolutely no mechanical strength at all. This is because what is key to a structural failure is application of force, and this is represented by the oncoming momentum of the airplane (mass x velocity), just as it it with the oncoming momentum of a stream of water. This would be true, even when the airplane is shredded as through a french fries cutter.
You made reference to the image, to make a point that the wing had no resistance, so I was obliged to point out that the leading edge of wings are nowhere as strong as the structural members of a wing. Not irrelevant, if you are using the image to bolster your argument.
Sorry, but your ignorance about the effects of momentum is evident.
As a structural aircraft mechanic, I disagree.
Look at the amount of fuel they carry and it weight, and get back to me. The leading edge of a wing is know as secondary structure its only their for aerodynamics.
How far behind the leading edge does the primary structure begin? Asking for a friend
It's several feet inboard, and out board about a foot. Looks like it has gone just past it in the photo. Everything is tapered on a wing outboard is much lighter and thiner than the inboard stuff. Inboard has to carry the weight of two engines and all the fuel. Google up the strength of 7075 t- 6 aluminum it's damn near as hard as mild steal. I've drilled hundreds of thousands of holes in both, I don't need to look at a chart.
I know.
A wing is just a bunch of little boxes with ribbing in a hatch pattern. Those boxes are made out of strong aluminum, however, the steel that the building is made out of is "high strength steel," not "mild steel." From the paper I linked above:
They don't say specifically how strong the steel is, though they might in their actual analytical paper, which I didn't find (I didn't look that hard). It is "high strength steel," which is anywhere from about 6 to 15 times stronger than the strongest aluminum per volume. On the airplane, it doesn't matter how many boxes there are to give it structure. Once one crumples, the rest behind will follow, just like a martial artist breaking blocks. The separation between the blocks makes it easy after the first. The test then will be for any one individual box.
It's not "mild steel," it's not "rebar," its high strength tempered steel in a box column designed to hold up the, at the time, tallest skyscraper in the world.
So the relevant question is, how thick are each of the individual cross beams in the wing v. the thickness of the box column holding up a skyscraper?
The weight of the fuel, the number of boxes in the wing, all that other stuff is far less important because of the dynamics of impact and the narrow focus of the actual impact site. Fuel for example, will just move out of the way. It's not going to do shit.
Have you ever tried to punch through 10mm of hardened steel in a box design? Those bolts are even thicker. The failure mode will not be the bolts. You have to actually break the whole box. The lips that make it into an "H" on each side that are part of the attachment points actually make it even stronger in the direction of impact. You have to basically crumple both sides as well as both faces. Try to do it with aluminum. Just try. See how thick you have to make the aluminum. It will have to be 6 to 15 times thicker to even hold it's own, which is why the model created by the government proofers did exactly that, modeling the wing as if it were just one box with the collective thickness of all the wing boxes, which is ludicrous.
So have you ever actually touched the wing of a large aircraft, or changed out any structural components?
I've worked with aircraft grade aluminum and high strength steel (cut, drilled, welded, etc.). Do I need to work on actual airplanes to understand physics or engineering? (I have degrees in both.)
You didn't actually address a single point I made.
Yes you do actual have to not only touch it, but to go inside them as well. I didn't address your points cause it reads like someone who has read everything than can about the moon arguing about the surface with an astronaut who has actually walked on it.
I'm getting ready to goto work, I'll try and look at your points later.
When analyzing failure modes for an object, the best test is an actual test of the actual objects. It doesn't matter if you are the designer, the builder, the mechanic, etc. What matters is if you are the tester. In this case of trying to understand a failure mode without an actual test, being a designer, builder, or mechanic is irrelevant unless those people have actual experience that is similar to the test in question. Like, if you, as a mechanic, have fixed airplane wings after they have run into 10mm thick high strength steel beam boxes, then your mechanic experience is relevant. If not, it doesn't mean dick all.
In such a case, without any relevant experience, what you want is someone who has experience in analyzing failure modes of similar structures. I have that. I'm not saying "you should listen to me instead," what I am saying is dismissing that experience because I'm not an aircraft mechanic is idiotic. And that is exactly what you are doing.
You both are just disagreeing from different engineering perspectives, and I think that discussion is both valid and incredibly interesting to read.
You have a good point that someone who works on them routinely would have more narrow experience with them, but Sly is also right that experience in the same materials is still relevant.
Either way, I just hope you both remain honest and genuine about your disagreement because that's more honesty than we ever get about the subject matter itself.
Also you can't just look at the strength of the aircraft, look at the building, that steel is all bolted together. The aircraft doesn't need to cut the beams it just needs to punch it out of the way.
Basicly you have a half million lbs of aircraft at 300 miles an hour vs. A few hundred bolts.
That's pretty easy math.
Way more complex. A straw in a hurrican punches holes in houses or disintegrates, depending. More than simple math.
I don't see those building stopping an aircraft, and it falling to the street below.
Thank you for both replies. I'm a mild nerd about aviation and air disasters. I was curious what you'd have to add.
Show us on the plane... where you were touched 😂
But how would you explain the perfect demolition where every floor was equally pulverized, even the top floors and having the building collapse directly on itself as opposed to failing at the parts where the fire was hottest?
Fuq FB.
This is true, but it also true that a ping pong ball can go through wood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV4xVAYCK8Q
Not sure what speed a wing would be stronger than steel... I would still find it hard to believe though...
If we could only move faster Samurai swords could be aluminum ?
Why the obfuscating non sequitur?
Samurai swords are used over and over. We’re talking about a one time event.
Argue apples to apples.
So you are saying it would work once ?
You want me to defend your non sequitur? Barking up the wrong tree there, bud.
Analogies do require a certain level of intelligence , sorry to bother with you.
I may indeed lack intelligence, but that remains to be proven.
However, you have proven that your intellectual toolbox consists solely of rhetoric and logical fallacies.
Care to try again?
Your proof is accepted at face value. Thank you for trying
I suppose in theory it could. We have the ability to use water to cut materials much stronger than that, for example.
True
23+ years later, they're still shitting themselves over this.
7 times building 7 is still all BULL SHITE.
imagine that...........
Remember the reenactment tests to show that aircraft wings can and did cut through beams equivelant to those in the twin towers? Neither do I...
Just need to break the bolts holding the beams together.
Still, the building would fall over wonky if that was the case. Like an old geezer clutching his chest. Not like the earth opening below and have every single part of the building equally pulverized.
Like Flight 800 reenactment by CIA ?
Give me the results you need & I will develop the tests to prove them (show me the man and I will find you the crime)
It's all about inertia.
With enough of that, even water can cut steel beams.
'nuff said.
Building 7?
Ok. We can go back and forth on the plausibility of aluminum demolishing steel but we don't discuss the collapse of building 7 because it didn't get hit by a plane. Its solo collapse, untouched, should render the plane causing collapse theory moot and void. It wasn't the planes causing collapse because this other building next door pulverized into nothing without being touched.
Edit: Basically if one of the three buildings that collapsed that day wasn't hit by a plane, we then cannot consider planes as the culprits.
Maybe it's an aluminum pole.
Let's just assume that if Facebook bans said argument therefore it must be true. When, ever has Facebook ever banned anything that's blatantly false.
Would love the sauce and details on this photo.
They do, but only with the blessing of Allah!
Some normative told me it was because the plane was moving slowly....
Well. What do you reinforce a steel beam with?
Butt butt...that was different!! That was slow and the other plane was going fast...
Exactly! Otherwise the pole in that pick would not have even bent!
Knife through warm butter
Wow! Don’t think. Move along. Enjoy this free movie and popcorn.