Newton's 3rd Law and Perceptions
Newton's 3rd Law: "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"
Now, consider a Boeing 767-200 going 540 mph and weighing almost 200 tons, smacking into a concrete and steel tower. One can easily imagine that overall kinetic energy of this event was awesome, and would allow the plane to penetrate cleanly into the building.
However, now consider a stationary Boeing 767-200 (anchored to the ground in some way) being impacted by the side of a massive steel and concrete tower going 540 mph and weighing at least 200,000 (and possibly 500,000) tons. One can easily imagine that overall kinetic energy of this event was awesome, and would allow the tower to completely smash the plane flat with little if any penetration of the plane into the building.
Here's the kicker-- these are both views of the same event, just perceived from different sides.
Which view is more accurate?
Probably the one that is least intuitive-- the building going 540 mph impacting the plane.
Here's another more detailed way to view it-- the front of the fuselage of a Boeing 767-200 going 540 mph, with the overall plane weighing almost 200 tons, smacks into 6 x 14 inch wide outer steel columns of the WTC tower. One might imagine that the overall kinetic energy of this event would allow the fuselage to shear though the steel outer columns and allow the plane to penetrate cleanly into the building.
However, NOW think about 6 x 14 inch wide outer steel columns of the concrete and steel WTC tower, each column weighing 6 tons, traveling 540 mph, smashing into the stationary plastic and aluminum front of a Boeing 767-200 fuselage. In this case, one can imagine the steel columns ripping right through the front of the fuselage, tearing it into shreds, leaving the columns and building facade essentially intact.
Again, these are both the same event, just perceived from different sides.
Which view is more accurate?
Again, probably the one that is least intuitive-- the columns going 540 mph impacting the front of the fuselage and ripping it into shreds.
Now, consider a Boeing 767-200 going 540 mph and weighing almost 200 tons, smacking into a concrete and steel tower. One can easily imagine that overall kinetic energy of this event was awesome, and would allow the plane to penetrate cleanly into the building.
However, now consider a stationary Boeing 767-200 (anchored to the ground in some way) being impacted by the side of a massive steel and concrete tower going 540 mph and weighing at least 200,000 (and possibly 500,000) tons. One can easily imagine that overall kinetic energy of this event was awesome, and would allow the tower to completely smash the plane flat with little if any penetration of the plane into the building.
Here's the kicker-- these are both views of the same event, just perceived from different sides.
Which view is more accurate?
Probably the one that is least intuitive-- the building going 540 mph impacting the plane.
Here's another more detailed way to view it-- the front of the fuselage of a Boeing 767-200 going 540 mph, with the overall plane weighing almost 200 tons, smacks into 6 x 14 inch wide outer steel columns of the WTC tower. One might imagine that the overall kinetic energy of this event would allow the fuselage to shear though the steel outer columns and allow the plane to penetrate cleanly into the building.
However, NOW think about 6 x 14 inch wide outer steel columns of the concrete and steel WTC tower, each column weighing 6 tons, traveling 540 mph, smashing into the stationary plastic and aluminum front of a Boeing 767-200 fuselage. In this case, one can imagine the steel columns ripping right through the front of the fuselage, tearing it into shreds, leaving the columns and building facade essentially intact.
Again, these are both the same event, just perceived from different sides.
Which view is more accurate?
Again, probably the one that is least intuitive-- the columns going 540 mph impacting the front of the fuselage and ripping it into shreds.
posted by spooked at 7:05 PM
2 Comments:
sup S dude!
wherever the devil that you have been hiding i am glad to see you arise in one piece!
if you were to leave any post up for 3 weeks or so i would hope that it would be this one as it is near and dear to my heart for several reasons.
FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION
certain commentors on this blog (sword of truth) have in the past suggested that i know nothing about physics because, and i quote (idiot!) "any object going 500mph would penetrate a wtc", as if 500mph were some magic velocity that would enable, say, a beercan or even a water balloon to penetrate massive steel box columns (placed such that there were only 3' space between them) tied into 4" thick (at least!) concrete floor slabs (with the full assortment of steel rebar reinforcement that building codes of 1967 would insist on) and tied into even more massive steel core box columns.
for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction:
this means that if a REAL aluminum 767 with a plastic nosecone were to REALLY strike a massive steel and concrete wtc with a force equivalent to X, then the massive steel/concrete wtc would also be striking the aluminum/plastic of a REAL 767 with the SAME force equivalent to X.
this is a separate issue from that of 9/11 TV fakery, the existence of which has been well etablished and proven.
but back to reality.
said certain commentor (idiot!) has insisted, perhaps because i am a simple rodeo clown (and thus actually do wear a clown shoe), that i know nothing about physics.
so. i have asked said commentor (idiot? or shill?) to please elaborate and provide me with the much needed lesson in physics that i am so sorely lacking in and that evidently only he can provide.
to no avail!
how long has it been now sword, a year? at least.
i will remind you that when i strike a full sized rodeo bull with my fist with a force equivalent to X, then the bull is also striking my fist with the SAME force equivalent to X.
kiss my ass fools!
that includes you, pretend smart guy greg jenkins!
james ha.
is that the lonely sound of crickets that i hear almost 2 weeks later?
ya that's what i thought.
bunch of clueless dweebs.
stand up you dweebs.
h.
Post a Comment
<< Home