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
