Hard to say since most of the action happens off-camera. There's a reason TV channels internally banned their producers from showing videos of the direct point of impact (because it looks fake af). https://twitter.com/ColBertorelli/status/1024165800465362944 …
-
-
we are not following each other the striking surface consisted of empty space (between floors), the perimeter beams (steel) and the floor itself (steel and concrete) the majority of the area being empty space (1/2)
-
if planes in general, not being designed for axial loads, will disintegrate with little deceleration upon impact, then in the case of WTC, there is all the more reason for the plane to "disappear", as some will crush against the steel, and most will enter into the floor space
-
referring to your other tweet— "inertia, torsion, drag, crumpling, jack-knifing, spindling" are not seen in the F-4 video nor would they be expected at the WTC, because planes simply disintegrate from tip-to-tail, being weak structures u should focus ur evangelism on bldg7
-
Don't tell me what to do thanks. So this fragile plane totally disintegrates on "impact" but also manages to slice through steel without losing momentum or starting to blow up? Also was not officially a head-on strike (hence the stuff about torsion...)
-
you are not comparing two mutually exclusive schemes; they both happened. it broke thru the perimeter columns as it smashed against them.. the momentum was transferred forward. it wouldnt blow up b/c the fuel was inside the building within millisecs, faster than it could ignitepic.twitter.com/dfMO1qLfgb
-
Energy..."transfered forward." Could you phrase that a bit differently because that sounds like not how physics works.
-
momentum is a vector quantity, it has direction. you express surprise that the plane did not decelerate (or twist, etc). this would entail transfer of momentum backward or sideways. instead all momentum was transferred to the building, forward.
-
it was a highly inelastic collision, as kinetic energy was transferred into heat, destroying the plane and the outer wall of the building. if the plane was more rigid, this energy might have been preserved and sent backward, decelerating the plane
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.