3.17.2003
hello... sorry for not checking the blog more... I am home on spring break, and dial-up is just too depressingly slow to use.
Firstly, Chad, I am sorry to hear about your mom's health problems. I can only imagine what it must be like. I hope she is able to get better quickly.
As for the airplane questions on the website, I am glad that I finally have a topic I can speak with a little knowledge on... airplanes and physics. I worked as an aircraft mechanic a couple of summers ago on DC-6's and C-46's, and most of the things were structural issues (squawks, as they were called) that I was supposed to fix.
Has anyone seen the webcam video of the plane hitting the pentagon biulding? I guess there was a webcam located nearby and the crash was in the field of view. it is only a quick shot (obviously), but showed the plane striking the building at the base of the building right at the first floor, and then the explosion afterward. Amazing footage, to say the least.
I looked at the pictures very carefully on #5, and I CAN see where the plane hit, but there is very little damage at the wings for a good reason. Airplanes are simply not structurally solid enough to cause that much damage to a building as solid as the pentagon. With airplanes, engineers are walking a very fine line between building the vehicle strong enough to withstand the stresses of flight and light enough to actually fly. The are little more than flying pop cans. Seriously. I have crawled all over inside and in between the structures of airplanes and I am still surprised that they can be built as thinly and "weakly" as they are and still fly, but they do.
For instance, from the boeing website, I calculated the empty weight of a 757-200 as 77,092 pounds. This is the equivalent of only 12 cubic meters of aluminum. And the actual value is probably less, because a significant fraction of the airplanes mass is engine.
So anyway, the reason you don't see damage at the wing locations is because the wings aren't massive enough to cause any. You would expect the damage to be concentrated at the center of mass, which would be the center. And this is what you see.
As for parts, the plane hitting the ground/pentagon just disintegrated. you can see this from the crash site in Pennsylvania, it hit at a similar angle (and similar speed-most likely 400-450mph), but there was nothing left bigger than a half a meter or so. again the crater is at the center of mass, which is the center of the airplane.
What wasn't shredded off the airframe (and a large amount that was) was melted in the explosion. Aluminum melts at 1220 F, and temperatures at the center of the explosion were estimated at over 3000 degrees.
Another thing I noticed is the illustration of the airplane in #5 was at the wrong angle. The plane didn't hit the building face on, but hit it about 45 degrees off the wall. The shape of the airplane at this angle would have produced a hole like you see in the picture. Look to the left side of the airplane at the ground floor. you can see the path ot the damage of the left wing. the right wing's mark was on the part ot the building that burned and was obliterated.
I guess that many people try too hard to come up with alternative explanations for disasters. Josh morgan and family was great for this.But sometimes things actually do happen the way they appear. i have said this before, but 9-11 incident is simply too big to contain. it required a large deal of coordination, and it would not be possible to hide.
I was reading a CS Lewis book and I found a quote that said what I was trying to say before, but much more eloquently. This is a fairly common effect with CS Lewis...:)
"Before leaving the subject of Reason, I must point out that authority not only combines with experience to produce the raw material, the "facts," but also has to be frequently used instead of reasoning itself as a method of getting conclusions. For example, few of us have followed the reasoning on which even ten percent of the truths we believe are based. We accept them on authority from the experts and are wise to do so, for though we are therebty sometimes deveived, yet we should have to live like savages if we did not."
This is a little bit out of the context in which he wrote (I would suggest reading a CS Lewis book... any will do), but the idea is right.
Sometimes things really do happen the way they appear.
Firstly, Chad, I am sorry to hear about your mom's health problems. I can only imagine what it must be like. I hope she is able to get better quickly.
As for the airplane questions on the website, I am glad that I finally have a topic I can speak with a little knowledge on... airplanes and physics. I worked as an aircraft mechanic a couple of summers ago on DC-6's and C-46's, and most of the things were structural issues (squawks, as they were called) that I was supposed to fix.
Has anyone seen the webcam video of the plane hitting the pentagon biulding? I guess there was a webcam located nearby and the crash was in the field of view. it is only a quick shot (obviously), but showed the plane striking the building at the base of the building right at the first floor, and then the explosion afterward. Amazing footage, to say the least.
I looked at the pictures very carefully on #5, and I CAN see where the plane hit, but there is very little damage at the wings for a good reason. Airplanes are simply not structurally solid enough to cause that much damage to a building as solid as the pentagon. With airplanes, engineers are walking a very fine line between building the vehicle strong enough to withstand the stresses of flight and light enough to actually fly. The are little more than flying pop cans. Seriously. I have crawled all over inside and in between the structures of airplanes and I am still surprised that they can be built as thinly and "weakly" as they are and still fly, but they do.
For instance, from the boeing website, I calculated the empty weight of a 757-200 as 77,092 pounds. This is the equivalent of only 12 cubic meters of aluminum. And the actual value is probably less, because a significant fraction of the airplanes mass is engine.
So anyway, the reason you don't see damage at the wing locations is because the wings aren't massive enough to cause any. You would expect the damage to be concentrated at the center of mass, which would be the center. And this is what you see.
As for parts, the plane hitting the ground/pentagon just disintegrated. you can see this from the crash site in Pennsylvania, it hit at a similar angle (and similar speed-most likely 400-450mph), but there was nothing left bigger than a half a meter or so. again the crater is at the center of mass, which is the center of the airplane.
What wasn't shredded off the airframe (and a large amount that was) was melted in the explosion. Aluminum melts at 1220 F, and temperatures at the center of the explosion were estimated at over 3000 degrees.
Another thing I noticed is the illustration of the airplane in #5 was at the wrong angle. The plane didn't hit the building face on, but hit it about 45 degrees off the wall. The shape of the airplane at this angle would have produced a hole like you see in the picture. Look to the left side of the airplane at the ground floor. you can see the path ot the damage of the left wing. the right wing's mark was on the part ot the building that burned and was obliterated.
I guess that many people try too hard to come up with alternative explanations for disasters. Josh morgan and family was great for this.But sometimes things actually do happen the way they appear. i have said this before, but 9-11 incident is simply too big to contain. it required a large deal of coordination, and it would not be possible to hide.
I was reading a CS Lewis book and I found a quote that said what I was trying to say before, but much more eloquently. This is a fairly common effect with CS Lewis...:)
"Before leaving the subject of Reason, I must point out that authority not only combines with experience to produce the raw material, the "facts," but also has to be frequently used instead of reasoning itself as a method of getting conclusions. For example, few of us have followed the reasoning on which even ten percent of the truths we believe are based. We accept them on authority from the experts and are wise to do so, for though we are therebty sometimes deveived, yet we should have to live like savages if we did not."
This is a little bit out of the context in which he wrote (I would suggest reading a CS Lewis book... any will do), but the idea is right.
Sometimes things really do happen the way they appear.
< 18:16 >< /j >
