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.
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 Frank Schnittger - Jun 26 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 20 32 comments
by Oui - Jun 21 4 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jun 20 4 comments
by gmoke - Jun 18 7 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 13 59 comments
by Oui - Jun 16 17 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 10 29 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 261 comment
by Oui - Jun 214 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 2032 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jun 204 comments
by gmoke - Jun 187 comments
by Oui - Jun 1617 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1359 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1029 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 728 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 524 comments
by Oui - Jun 313 comments
by gmoke - Jun 32 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 295 comments
by IdiotSavant - May 29