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 …
-
-
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
-
this "official" analysis has detailed calculations http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf … but i just want to point out that 25% of the overall kinetic energy was expended into the aircraft itself, almost 1000 megajoulepic.twitter.com/3EbHH5C5kh
End of conversation
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.