The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
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.
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.
Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
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
by Oui - Apr 9
by Oui - Apr 12 4 comments
by Oui - Apr 8 22 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 30 10 comments
by Oui - Apr 2
by Oui - Mar 14 33 comments
by Oui - Apr 171 comment
by Oui - Apr 17
by Cat - Apr 144 comments
by Cat - Apr 14
by Oui - Apr 124 comments
by Oui - Apr 10
by Oui - Apr 9
by Oui - Apr 822 comments
by Cat - Apr 64 comments
by Oui - Apr 62 comments
by Oui - Apr 46 comments
by Oui - Apr 4
by Oui - Apr 3
by Oui - Apr 2
by Oui - Apr 11 comment
by Oui - Mar 31
by Oui - Mar 304 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 3010 comments
by Oui - Mar 293 comments
by Cat - Mar 2920 comments