So what really happened that day?

[BainbridgeShred]

Really though, that is a moot point, because you can't say it would just be coincidence or whatever that the Pentagon attacks and WTC attacks occured on the same day otu of coincidence, so not enough is really known to talk about that point (Which is a good point however).

[Jeremy]

Wow so much to comment on!

I'm no scientist, (I'm on the verge of a D in 10th grade biology! ) so I'll avoid all of the e-mc2 stuff.

That's about the funniest line I've read in a long time! I thought I'd explain e=mc^2 just to bore you even more
energy = mass times the speed of light squared. This is such an important theory in science. It shows that mass is proportional to energy and that light does indeed have a weight. It also shows that 1kg (of any substance - say rock) has approximatley 30,000,000,000,000,000 joules of potential energy (or the same amount of energy as a human gets from 62.5 billion red bull cans) - Nuclear bombs and energy are an attempt to turn the majority of that potential energy into heat energy (although in a nuclear bomb a lot is also given off as sound and light) - I find that pretty interesting... (I have 1.17 x 10^21 joules of potential energy!! ) Actually it's a long time since I've done this and I'm not sure if the result is in joules or kilo joules - since in physics kilo grams tends to be the base unit. Um that was random but fun


I agree with Dan that it is too much of a coincidence that the New York attacks, the other plane that crashed, and the Pentagon attack all happening on the same day. I think they must have all been planned by the same people. I can't believe that Bush or anybody else high up in the US administration would attack the pentagon in order to further scare people if they knew that other terrorists were planning an attack on New York. It just doesn't make any sense unless all attacks came from the same people.

Damon is absolutely right - I think I mentioned this earlier - most of the time when planes are crashing the pilot is trying to avoid a crash - this results in much different circumstances than a pilot trying to cause as much damage as they can.

I didn't quite understand what Jericho was talking about - are you asking why the impact is often curved when planes crash? I would expect that it's because the plane comes down on a slight angle - ie one wing is higher than the other - so the wing that hits the ground first moves slower than the wing that's still in the air and it drags the plane around. I find it hard to believe that any plane could crash land and be perfectly balanced.

[BainbridgeShred]

That's about the funniest line I've read in a long time! I thought I'd explain e=mc^2 just to bore you even more
energy = mass times the speed of light squared. This is such an important theory in science. It shows that mass is proportional to energy and that light does indeed have a weight. It also shows that 1kg (of any substance - say rock) has approximatley 30,000,000,000,000,000 joules of potential energy (or the same amount of energy as a human gets from 62.5 billion red bull cans) - Nuclear bombs and energy are an attempt to turn the majority of that potential energy into heat energy (although in a nuclear bomb a lot is also given off as sound and light) - I find that pretty interesting... (I have 1.17 x 10^21 joules of potential energy!! ) Actually it's a long time since I've done this and I'm not sure if the result is in joules or kilo joules - since in physics kilo grams tends to be the base unit. Um that was random but fun

So in laymens terms, how is it signifigant that mass is proportional to energy and light does in fact have mass? Remember I'm a History/Social Studies/English Literature guy so has this effected something like say politics? For me I need to visualize science in terms of its effects on the social-political world.

I agree with Dan that it is too much of a coincidence that the New York attacks, the other plane that crashed, and the Pentagon attack all happening on the same day. I think they must have all been planned by the same people. I can't believe that Bush or anybody else high up in the US administration would attack the pentagon in order to further scare people if they knew that other terrorists were planning an attack on New York. It just doesn't make any sense unless all attacks came from the same people.

Now! Back to what I know. In my last post I am not saying it wasn't possible for Bush (That is broad remember) to plan it and carry it out, we just need more information before we can say anything else because we have to remember it wasn't only the Pentagon that was hit. Could you imagine if it had only be the Pentagon that had been hit? I'm willing to bet we wouldn't be in Iraq right now. But then again let us not underestimate the shrudness of Bush & Co.

[sPinko-Mania]

This site gives a fairly good rundown of the conspiracy theory, but I don't think it's as rigorous as snopes normally is:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

[lightningbolt]

Okay, I may not know alot about physic and such but I am knowledgeable about airplanes. I passed my private pilots test and may question on that concern wake turbulence or more correctly called wingtip vortices which is the is the inevitable product of lift. To truly understand my argument, you need to know a little about it.

All airfoils produce a wake when they are producing lift. The higher-pressure air under the wing flows around the wingtip and tries to displace the lower-pressure -- and consequently lower-energy -- air on the top of the wing. The greater the pressure differential between the top and bottom of the wing, the stronger the flow around the wingtip. This airflow from the bottom of the wing tends to disturb the airflow on the top of the wing -- that's part of the increase in induced drag you notice with increased lift!

The air curling up around the wing tip forms a horizontal tornado that trails behind the airplane and tends to sink somewhat below the producing aircraft's flight path -- if that aircraft is in level flight. The vortices produced during a descent are somewhat less predictable. The vortex produced by the left wing rotates in a clockwise direction when seen from behind. The one from the right rotates counterclockwise. Larger airplanes produce stronger vortices because the wings produce more lift to support the weight of the airplane. The vortices settle behind the aircraft to an altitude about 1,000 below the aircraft's flight path, where they tend to remain.

What wake turbulence can do:

An accident that may have been precipitated by a wake vortex encounter was the crash of American 587 on departure from JFK Airport in New York. It is believed that rapid rudder pedal movements made in an attempt to recover from an encounter with the wake of a 747 approximately one and one half miles ahead caused terminal stress on the vertical stabilizer, leading to its separation from the aircraft. Although it may be true that this crash was not solely the result of a wake turbulence encounter, it was a precipitating factor.
A US Airways crash near Pittsburgh, Penn., in 1994 was attributed to rudder problems on certain models of Boeing 737 aircraft, but may have been the result of rudder movements made in an attempt to recover from a wake vortex encounter.

To correct WT you use the rudders. This puts a great deal of stress on vertical stabilizer. To rip a plane apart like what happened in these two examples there needs to be a shit load of WT for the pilots to correct it that much.

A wake turbulence encounter that perhaps has more relevance to smaller aircraft was one that occurred in December 1993 at John Wayne Airport in Orange County, Calif. A Westwind was following a Boeing 757 on approach to Runway 19R at Santa Ana in VFR weather. The Westwind crew was never given a wake turbulence warning, and they were never told the type of aircraft they were following. The CVR contains a statement from the captain to the first officer "I think we'll run this a dot high ..." The captain was aware of the danger of wake vortices (although he was not told that the preceding aircraft was a B757) and was acting appropriately, according to what we've all been taught. The Westwind crashed in uncontrolled flight three miles short of the runway.
What happened? The weather was VFR. The Westwind captain was a highly experienced pilot and he was aware of the danger. Voice tapes and radar traces show that he had the preceding aircraft in sight. What went wrong?

VFR= Visual flight rules, at lest 3 miles of visibility.
Wake turbulence brought down a plane. A good-sized one too after about 5-10 minutes after the WT causing plane flew by. But according to the government, it caused no harm to a highway it passed within 300 feet of. Bullshit. Just the other day here a Cessna was thrown into the ocean after it followed a twin engine jet 10 minutes after it took off. It’s far fetched it seems that no cars, which are a third of the weight of a Cessna, come out unscratched. I COULD have happened but I doubt it. The highway signs would have ripped off. Windows would have broke. When a 747 comes flying in at around 500 miles per hour 300 feet away from you. It’s going to cause damage. Think along the lines of trees knocked down or at least damaged, Signs torn down, cars flipped, windows broken, grass uprooted, damage to the highway and buildings around the area. It’s just not logic that could happen like we been told it went down as.

[Jeremy]

So in laymens terms, how is it signifigant that mass is proportional to energy and light does in fact have mass? Remember I'm a History/Social Studies/English Literature guy so has this effected something like say politics? For me I need to visualize science in terms of its effects on the social-political world.

Well we wouldn't have nuclear power or bombs if it wasn't for this theory. I think that's had a fairly big impact on society and politics. Nuclear bombs - cold war etc...

Basically: e=mc^2: c^2 is the speed of light which is believed to be a constant (there is some conflicting evidence these days - but only in special circumstances) so what we really have is e=m x 3 x 10^16 - so basically as every change you make to the mass of an object directly and proportionally changes the value for e. What this means is that matter basically is energy - lots and lots of energy. A nuclear bomb is an attempt to turn a very small piece of matter into the energy it is "made" from.

um - I wouldn't quote my explenation to a physics student but it's close enough.

The fact that light has a mass so far hasn't had any effect on humanity at all (apart from all the geeky scientists who would have been very excited when they discovered this!) - because the mass is so small that it can't be measured at all - infact we have not physical means of proving this - just some theories that have been used to predict other results and that haven't been disproved. - So the mass is very miniscular. However it is intirely possible that it could have an effect in the future - it's very hard to say - but it could definitly lead to new ways of harnessing solar energy and new ways of transport (although it may not ever mean anything). It's also very good evidence of the wave particle duality theory (that basically says that everything is both a wave and a particle but the bigger something is - the more particle like it is - while smaller things are more wave like) - which is a very important theory - connected with the uncertainty principle and has big implications in quantum physics. At the moment there has been very little social impact from this - but if nano technology ever becomes sofisticated it's easy to believe it will have some kind of relevence.

Now! Back to what I know. In my last post I am not saying it wasn't possible for Bush (That is broad remember) to plan it and carry it out, we just need more information before we can say anything else because we have to remember it wasn't only the Pentagon that was hit. Could you imagine if it had only be the Pentagon that had been hit? I'm willing to bet we wouldn't be in Iraq right now. But then again let us not underestimate the shrudness of Bush & Co.

True - but we know that New York was hit - and we know it was hit buy real planes and evidence suggests to them being piloted and controlled by Islamic fundamentalists fighting for a free Palistine and an end to US oppression in the Middle East. I have no doubt that the US would have gone to Iraq without the pentagon attack - if the New York attacks still occured - so why set up the pentagon attack? It doesn't make sense...

[blackcrown]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112

Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

I thought this was kinda interesting. Was it a slip o'the tongue?

Eric

[MrRoboto]

Just the other day here a Cessna was thrown into the ocean after it followed a twin engine jet 10 minutes after it took off. It’s far fetched it seems that no cars, which are a third of the weight of a Cessna, come out unscratched.

Sorry Melissa, but you have that backwards.

A factory IFR four seater Cessna 172 (average single engine type plane) has an empty weight of 1325 pounds, so with fuel and four passengers thats around 2000 pounds.
My little cavalier weighs something like 2500 pounds empty.

The reason wake turbulance is so dangerous to aircraft is because they are light, and they have big wings that can catch these vortices, which are literally like little sideways tornados.
Although the jet blast from a Boeing could disturb a car quite a bit, I doubt that the vorticies would do much more then inconvienience the driver of anything but the lightest autos.
The jet blast would only be present for a few seconds in any given area, but would only affect the area directly horizontally behind the jet, so it wouldn't do anything to the road even if it was up only 30 feet.

(I have my private pilots license and am working towards my commercial and glider instructor rating.)

[MrRoboto]

Oh and something else that just occured to me. Wake turbulance is actually reduced with speed, its at it's worst at takeoff and landing which is why it's such a big hazard at airports for smaller aircraft. The argument was that the Boeing was going upwards of 500 miles per hour. Contrary to logical thought, the plane moving at this speed would actually cause less turbulance then one preparing to land.

[comastalker]

I totally agree about what jeremy said about the non-determinant damage resulting from that, but one thing, especially if you care about physics, is, why the air-drain created by such a big body like a big airplane (and here, weight doesn't matter but size does) did not change anything around the pentagon. Windows still are undamaged in the pentagon. You maybe know that minimal structural (mostly shear) forces on glass force it to burst.


I also have to add, that the gasoline statement ain't good. The majority of crashing airplanes do not explode

[Jeremy]

yeah. Wait why I am I replying to this. I am toooooooo drunk - i am replying because it is there. I just wanted to say - if I am to be proparly scientific about this all - it is entirely possible that the conspiracy theory is correct - and my "science" is wrong. Argh shit. I just rubbed chilli into my eye.... ow ow ow

Seriously that hurts.

To me - the scientific explenations from myself and other people make the most sense - but according to my own science - my brain is just chemical reactions - that are predetermined so I can't really know if I am right or not - what makes sense to me now could be an idealist load of crap in my opinion 30 years from now - who can say - I'd rather try to be as objective as I can be than make assumptions.

[BainbridgeShred]

2004 BITCHES WE'RE UP IN HERE PARTYING LIEK IT'S 1982!

[comastalker]

To me - the scientific explenations from myself and other people make the most sense - but according to my own science - my brain is just chemical reactions - that are predetermined so I can't really know if I am right or not - what makes sense to me now could be an idealist load of crap in my opinion 30 years from now - who can say - I'd rather try to be as objective as I can be than make assumptions.

Even if you are drunk your still that idealist you ever used to be...

happy new year jeremy and happy new year to all you crazy motherfuckers out there ighting day by day the really dicouraging war against gravity -
"no queremos paz sino la victoria"

[comastalker]

and only for you J :

"[..] Well, down with the gravity !" - Subcomandante Marcos

[crazygeminirider]

u have a piece of wood..and a nail..u hammer the nail into the wood..the top of the nail is hanging flush or just above flush on the wood...if u take a nail setter and hammer it in even further..the nail will either push through more wood..or if its a small week nail the spot where u hammer the nail will bend back, or even break.....the pentagon is the wood..force of hammer is the force of jet fuel...and the nail is ther plane..the wings are the top of the nail..where u hit it...WHERE ARE THE WING...if someone can give me a scientific explantion that the wings would absolutly disintagrate to unregonizable objects, then i believe there is a problem...and the picture in the animation look so neat that it is bothering me

[comastalker]

@Tim:

You have to remember, that airplane wings are not like a nail as a nail is solid.
An airplane wing is a really light hollow grid construct covered with some synthetic skin in small plates.

Such a construct totally bursts, it can not bend anyway.
to visualize that imagine those sweet little chocolate santa clauses.
There are solid and hollow ones. Throw both against a wall with big bunch of power and you'll see the solid one maybe broke in a few parts (2-3) and got some pressure points while the hollow one now is a mass of hundreds small clusters. If you see such a bunch of chocolate clusters laying on the floor, it doesn't look like santa claus anymore.
same with the airplane wings; for sure it seems strange, but I think J's chaos theory attempt on defining possible "evidences" is the most logical one and tells us, that we can not know, (we can't even define by testing) how such a bursted airplane wing looks like, so you shall not nail yourself on that "problem" (yep, I wanted to use 'nail'...)

italic text passages are meant to be emphasized, not symbolically shouted out loud; don't feel offended by that

[Jeremy]

Yeah thanks Richard!! - Happy New Year to you too!!

I really love that quote - it's one of my favourite Marcos quotes but the whole thing is better:

"Somebody told me that fighting against globalization is like fighting against gravity. well, if it is like this, then i say: DOWN WITH GRAVITY!"

It's such a strong statement - it shows how commited the Zapitistas are - that they are prepared to fight against something that seems impossible for a better world.

I think Richard said it well - but basically we can't know what happened completely. I would suggest that the energy from such a collision would completely destroy the wings - think of the remains of insects that hit the windscreen of a car when you're driving at 60 miles - and it would be a pretty similar thing - the Pentagon is a really big solid object - the wings are built to be as light weight as they can be - It would be incredible if they could remain just a tiny bit intact in that kind of collision - I think it's hard to comprehend the amount of energy involved in the collision but basically:

force = mass times acceleration. In this case the acceleration was 500 miles to 0 - so is 804,672 meters per second per second (you could call it negative 500 if you like but that would be pointless and stupid ) The mass of the plane was 250,000 kgs.

Therefore the force the plane hit was 201,168,000,000 kg m per second squared. We don't know how far the plane moved - so we can't make an accurate calcualtion of the energy - but bascially joules=newtons*meters - so we just need to multiply our 201 billion by the meters - lets say it was 1 meter.

That means 201,168,000,000 joules of energy were expended - that's enough to boil over 2 million litres of water. But we are talking about a collision - So we are talking abou that happening instantly and we are talking about the water being as close to 0 degrees as possible without being ice.

I hope you can understand that this means the wings were most likely completely destroyed - it would be so incredible if they weren't with that much energy involved.

[comastalker]

Yeah thanks Richard!! - Happy New Year to you too!!

I really love that quote - it's one of my favourite Marcos quotes but the whole thing is better:

"Somebody told me that fighting against globalization is like fighting against gravity. well, if it is like this, then i say: DOWN WITH GRAVITY!"

my favourite quote is marcos story "Butterflies and Rebellions"
I got a book about the zapatista movement but all quotes are translated into german (by a woman at the agulascaliente in madrid).
in the german version the whole sentence part "well, if it is like this, then I say" is shortened to "nun," (~ well,)

It's such a strong statement - it shows how commited the Zapitistas are - that they are prepared to fight against something that seems impossible for a better world.

I just can again point to the butterfly-story
(most texts can be found here
http://www.counterpunch.org/zaps01112003.html)


I'm for the wings being atomized

[comastalker]

do a [ctrl+F] then "butterflies"

[Chris Hanratty]

Yeah so I like how I was basically called an idiot when I posted this a while ago.