FB removed this meme citing misinformation. I've been warned, again lol
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
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
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.