what makes you so eminently qualified to judge events? blind faith or something more substantial?
Anyway, he didn't call you stupid and naive. He called the theory that. Not only stupid and naive people hold stupid and naive theories.
I prefer the cupcake method of moderating, myself... Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
I happen to know that there is a subliminal flashing message on the title "open thread" which reads Please Be Overly Irritable! ... Please Be Overly Irritable! ... but let's all make an effort to ignore it. We are better than some crappy brainwashing technology. We can overcome it. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
Just tell her that theory is stupid and naive, that should do it.
But I'll let you in on my own thought about this: fighting is good, it shows that we're passionate.
"The ultimate quest for a baby, is that for wisdom. In certain philosophies, the quest for Wisdom expresses itself as the slow ascension towards Buddhahood. At the end of his quest, a Western baby can brutally decide to slow down all his daily gestures and reduce the size of his universe. He is then capable of playing cards for hours straight, while talking about his daily life to a barman. It is the ultimate renouncement of the desire to achieve Buddhahood that only a wise Westerner is capable of".
http://www.tourdafrique.com/orient/index.htm We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. Oscar Wilde
One plane crash is not the other if velocity and fuel level is the same, the impacted medium and impact angle also count. But I asked you specifically about speed, too.
what makes you so eminently qualified to judge events?
Of the two of us it wasn't me who tried to use the argument from authority. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
as for the impacted medium, I have already told you that that was a variable, but if you know it's physical properties, you can extrapolate from one medium to another
I just finished a gig at an observatory filled with wannabee mechanical engineers with astrophysics degrees
not the same thing in the least
material science? really? how about destructive testing? do any of that?
Look, all I'm saying is feel free to write a technical diary about this. DoDo is sceptical, I'm actually interested. We're both physicists. That doesn't mean we know better but you know what to expect us to know or be able to understand.
Everyone getting defensive doesn't help. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
you approach this with a bias that is more appropriate to the birth process of stars than to metallurgical failures due to impact
come on, you're talking about 9 m/sec/sec acceleration versus a 520 mph thrust forward
you're also arguing against the established facts - no aircraft has sustained this type of damage from an impact of any kind in history. EVER. and people are questioning it. doesn't that ring any bells for you?
That no plane sustained this kind of damage is paralleled by the fact that no plane suffered this kind of impact. You were navigating around that point for several rounds. You were not responding to any queries about to what kind of experience you have with impacts, not even kinds of impact that could be extrapolated for the case of the Pentagon. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
how do people in engineering design things? from previous experience
how do they know how things behave in certain conditions? from previous experience
I once had to test a certain type of bearing seal called an air seal that exists in the hot part of the engine and supports the power shaft in some turboshaft engines. The seal worked most of the time, but nobody who had worked with it over years and years could tell me where the high pressure and low pressure areas were, ie, how the seal actually worked. It worked, that's all.
A lot of engineering is like that - you design something and hope it works. You don't necessarily put instruments all over the place and figure out how it works.
Same thing when something ruptures. Most engineers don't care about anything at the molecular level. They just want to know under what conditions it will happen.
So the fact that it has never happened before, and it happened TWICE, both times on 9-11, and not anytime since then, when planes have hit buildings before, makes it extremely suspicious and that is what should be investigated, not the 10,000 times or more that it didn't happen.
In general we do not have mathematical proof for stuff we know that we know. Neither do we always have an reference handy (not even with the help of google). Be it engineering or the access to firewood in Sweden. And getting challenged on stuff we know that we know, that are basic, does not prompt eagerness to prove it, for what proofs would be acceptable for those that does not share our knowledge? And then a "you prove it - no you prove it" is quickly started.
Therefore I am not sure this debate over Pentagon will lead anywhere. On the other hand I would be interested in a diary on what plane crashes into objects usually look like. I know formulating it would probably mean some work for you (it is that way with knowledge we normally use rather then describe) but I think it would be interesting. If you like to compare it with 911 is up to you. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
that would be extremely nice. I know nothing about structural mechanics.
An important point would be the "B.4.3 Floor Truss Seated End Connections at Spandrel Beam and Core" chapter... As it would seem that some of those connectors were supple (as design) and couldn't be fireproofed very well... ?
An audio-slide show shows for the layman the whole story ! "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
"Acknowledged" "Funny" and then "0-9" for an actual grading of instructiveness/pertinence/whatever of the comment
The first two would not count in the grading average.
We have been warned on at least one occasion not to deviate from the binary unrated/4 rating system, as people get really sensitive really quick. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
There are some things that appear to be anomalies - unexpected phenomena to scientists. Some things that need explaining.
Now if we have knowledgeable people here at ET, on the possible explanations for these phenomena, then I think we are entitled to discuss them.
Of course, we may find that the answer is in ourselves - according to the theory of a very respected and senior medical researcher friend of mine. He told me three months ago about it, and I heard more at a meeting today. Clinical tests are confirming his theory.
The answer is a panic disorder caused by changes in CO2 levels. This is a cousin of the panic of suffocation or drowning. Apparently we have two 'sensors' - one is in the medulla at the back of the brain, the other in a main aorta leaving the heart. The brain monitors the levels of CO2 in the blood in a kind of steroscopic way. A differential in the two signals causes a reaction of seeking to avoid the situation (like lifting the head or going outside) on up in severity to a full blown panic attack. Jogging for instance does not cause the panic, because oxygen going down is not a trigger. There also seems to be an element of pattern recognition in which, if the cause of of the CO2 rise is 'logical' - such as swimming underwater holding your breath, the reaction can easily be suppressed.
The real feeling of panic is when your brain detects a differential but 'sees' no cause for it.
Perhaps therefore, our tendency to see conspiracy in 9/11 is related very much to one of the constant interests of this forum. The existence, origin and consequences of changes in CO2 levels in our urban environments.
Now there's a conundrum...
Somewhat like a brain surgeon performing surgery on his own brain - perhaps the ultimate feedback system. You can't be me, I'm taken
Could you elaborate a bit more.
Verrry interesting. "When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins
In limited trials it has proved very effective, bigger trials coming up. Main problem has been the caustic chemical used for scrubbing - but now solved.
Original observation of reaction is quite old and well documented. What is new is the understanding of how it works. You can't be me, I'm taken
This discussion is frustating because it's like shadow boxing. You make claims without going specific about them. As Migeru pointed out, I have a level of physics education to at least follow your technical arguments if made explicit. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
and we're not talking about the molecular level either
this is the FIRST incident of a plane "vaporising" due to an impact and you can't even see any metal vapour coating on the buildings or on the cable spools in front of the building, about 15 feet from the impact point. amazing! a plasma effect from Jet-A1 fuel (which has about the same properties as diesel fuel)
Gravity was just a small part of what I wrote, picking it out of context, and as the only bit to respond to, more fits your charge.
with forward velocity equaling 520 mph?
For a falling plane, gravity adds to speed before impact and adds 1G to impact force. For a plane flying into a building more or less level, the speed you name is initial speed. This was of course an academic point making part of my argument countering your dismissal of impact angle as a factor, not a specific Pentagon impact argument.
this is the FIRST incident of a plane "vaporising"
Vaporising??? Are you now taking figurative speech literally? I again refer you to the photographs of wreckage from the wings. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
there is a burn pattern on the building but nothing that would indicate the geometry of the object that caused it.
No wreckage? I must be hallucinating:
Here I must be seeing paper clips and the piece of the Global Hawk:
Bur damages? These aren't burn damages:
*Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I don't see anything except some soot on a building that was hit by something which some people tell me was an airplane. I can't see anything on the building that convinces me of that. There is some debris, but very little for such a large object such as a 757.
Sorry but that's what I see
This may have been debunked already, in which case I'm happy to see links explaining how it was done.
But otherwise, this one has me baffled.
Normal airport landings use a system called ILS which guides the pilot to the runway, and optionally autolands if visibility is poor, or the pilot is feeling lazy.
The Pentagon obviously had no ILS. So we're talking about aiming something with the handling characteristics of a very, very large and unwieldy object, travelling at a very high speed.
I'd estimate the target corridor subtends an angle of a couple of degrees. Too high and you overshoot. Too low and you crash into the ground well ahead of the target, spraying the facade with debris, but not doing any structural damage.
You have to get this angle right while flying at between 300 and 500mph. This doesn't give you a lot of time to make pitch and altitude corrections during the final approach.
You can't use the altimeter to improvise a glideslope because there are no clear horizontal cues outside of the windows that you can check against - and everything is happening too fast to run a checklist anyway.
So you're:
Not using instruments or other aids
Approaching at a rate at which everything is happening between 2 and 4 times faster than for a typical landing.
Hitting a target corridor, which has to be accurate to (let's be generous) a few degrees
In something with the handling characteristics of an airborne express train
This may be exactly what happened. But if so, it's extremely impressive flying.
The fact that he hit so low suggests that he almost missed the target, which is not surprising, as you point out. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The Pentagon may cover the biggest surface area of any building, but it's not particularly tall. In fact it only has four storeys, at maybe fifty feet. There's a scale photo from a recent study here. For comparison the tail fin on the 757 is just over 44ft.
Let's be conservative and say the approach speed is 300mph, or five miles a minute.
Let's say you're a minute away from your target at an altitude of a couple of thousand feet. How tall does a four storey building look five miles away at a shallow angle?
Fifteen seconds from impact, that four storey building is still more than a mile away.
Because I'm in a pedantic mood, I've worked out the visible width of the target corridor from a mile away. It's a little more than half a degree. And that's just to hit the damn thing at all, never mind score a bullseye on the ground floor.
Let's call it a degree if you assume that some overshoot into the body of the building still counts as a success. (And that's generous considering the actual shallow angle of approach.)
Unlike a car, which is fairly responsive, any altitude and pitch correction is going to take at least a few seconds to work itself through your brain, the avionics, the engines and flaps. Mostly likely you'll overshoot any correction and have to compensate in the other direction, which will eat further into your time allowance. What you certainly can't do is throw a 757 around the sky like a sports car.
Still, being even more generous, the reality is that if you're more than a few degrees out a mile away, you've already missed - by a long way.
As I said - impressive flying.
Do you if the pilot was aiming for the ground floor?
And if so ... how?
(Just being my usual amiable self ;-)
Heaven forbid we pay attention to real "conspiracies" that aren't even hidden, such as the entire public relations industry.
you are the media you consume.
I just know what I can see with my own eyes. That was no airplane.
You were there and you saw it? Why didn't you say so?
there is such a thing as deductive reasoning, in case you haven't heard
After Challenger and Columbia - a huge on-the-record public enquiry and engineering effort.
After 9/11 - hey, we're holding on to all the evidence we can, and we'll only agree to set up an enquiry if we're bullied into it. (Although we reserve the right to release excerpts from emergency phone recordings of the Towers whenever there's a politically sensitive moment.)
Where are the photos and amateur video footage of the Pentagon attack?
I'd expect a ground level attack would be much less likely to be filmed than an attack on a tall building, for common sense reasons. But did no one take a photo of an airliner flying an approach run on a public building?
releasing just one and then being forced to release the others through the courts, is an absolutely stupid PR move. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
