Dave Greer Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Do you or do you not endorse what is seen in this video? Yes or no?Jack Given the huge amount of kinetic energy in the plane, I don't have an issue with those images. A B25 bomber punched a 20'x20' hole through the Empire State building in 1945, an engine penetrated the far side, crashed through a roof of another beyond on the far side an started a fire in that building. The 767 that crashed into the South Tower had 60-100x as much kinetic energy, and that doesn't take into account the difference in explosive energy of the fuel loads (the B25 was almost empty). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Do you or do you not endorse what is seen in this video? Yes or no?Jack Given the huge amount of kinetic energy in the plane, I don't have an issue with those images. A B25 bomber punched a 20'x20' hole through the Empire State building in 1945, an engine penetrated the far side, crashed through a roof of another beyond on the far side an started a fire in that building. The 767 that crashed into the South Tower had 60-100x as much kinetic energy, and that doesn't take into account the difference in explosive energy of the fuel loads (the B25 was almost empty). Maybe Greer was absent the day they discussed MASS. It has been more than 60 years since I studied high school physics, but here is what I remember about it. All equations regarding energy must consider the MASS of objects. All objects, even at rest, have POTENTIAL energy which relates to their mass. If I remember correctly, consider this example... Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 QUOTE...1) a Boeing 767 can not go over 500 mph at low (700 feet) altitude, whereas the official speed was 545 mph http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY The guy who made that video is seemingly incapable of basic math. The South Tower was 1362 feet/110 stories tall or 12.33 feet per floor. The crash centered on the 81st floor or just over 1000 feet. We’ve been over this before the 1st woman was a PR person and was obviously unsure the 2nd was an engineer said she “had no idea” “didn’t think” the plane could fly those speeds at that altitude and was also obviously unsure. Boeing is a huge company what kind of engineer was she what involvement if any did she have with 767’s”? The sentence above question was originally a regular question but is now a rhetorical one. It turns out that Lori E. Bechtold is a “reliability engineer” with a math degree whose area of specialty is electronics and joined Boeing years after the 757/767 went into service. Lori Bechtold, a Boeing reliability engineer, designs by seeing how well products actually work. "I have a morbid fascination with failure," she said, "and I use my design knowledge to prevent it." Bechtold is in the Boeing Phantom Works group, which creates new technologies for use on any Boeing design: spacecraft, military hardware, electronics and aircraft. Which is rather impresive till we get to the next bit She evaluates commonly available electronics, like cellular phones, as components of the complex mix of electronic systems used on airplanes. "Can they pull high-Gs?" she asks. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/feature/engineer.html There is additional confirmation that her area of specialty is electronics as opposed to airframes or power plants Biography: Lori Bechtold is a reliability engineer with 22 years experience with Boeing, spanning programs in military, commercial aviation and space applications. She currently supports the P-8A Poseidon program, addressing environmental issues of commercial off the shelf (COTS) electronics on a Navy platform. She has conducted research and development in Boeing’s Phantom Works group, in the application of COTS electronics to military and aerospace applications. Lori is the technical editor for the VMEbus International Trade Association *(VITA) working group 51, developing a new industry specification for reliability prediction for COTS modules. She holds a B.S degree in mathematics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology http://www.slideshare.net/guestc7f321/shap...ssembly-market/ That was from 2007 the article linked below which she wrote is from this year and is about a new standard for “electronics reliability predictions “ Lori Bechtold is a reliability engineer with 23 years' experience with Boeing, spanning programs in military, commercial aviation, and space applications http://www.vmecritical.com/articles/id/?3164 It seems that she started working for the company in 1985 several years after the 757/767 series had been design, flown for the 1st time in 1981 and delivered in 1982. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767 So a mathematician whose area of expertise is the reliability of aviation electronics obviously unsure of herself who joined the company well after the 767 was developed, tested, first flown and delivered said she “didn’t think” the plane could fly over 500 mph at 700 feet and you think this is proof it could do so at 1000 feet.?Tell me, does it get any weaker than this? * "VMEbus is a computer bus standard, originally developed for the Motorola 68000 line of CPUs, but later widely used for many applications and standardized by the IEC as ANSI/IEEE 1014-1987. It is physically based on Eurocard sizes, mechanicals and connectors, but uses its own signalling system, which Eurocard does not define. It was first developed in 1981 and continues to see widespread use today." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMEbus 2) the plane was going impossibly fast for a Boeing 767 in the last 4.7 minutesThe official flight 175 flight path report can be downloaded here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_175 Look at the last time "flight 175" was noted-- at "G"-- the official story says the plane went 49 miles in 4.7 minutes before it hit the WTC. This means the plane would have to be going 10.4 miles per minute or 625 mph-- a ridiculous speed, since the maximum speed for a Boeing 767 is 568 mph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767 Note that officially the plane was descending 24,000 feet in this last 4.7 minutes-- thus officially going well over the maximum speed in progressively thicker air. So officially-- we have a plane descending a mile a minute, significantly over the maximum possible speed for the aircraft-- ALL officially done by a pilot who has never flown this type of aircraft before-- and somehow he manages to steer the plane perfectly to hit precisely a very narrow target (the WTC south tower)? This is simply preposterous! I could find no reference to your claim about how far the plane is supposed to have flown or descended in its last 4.7 minutes on the cited page 3) the tail of the plane disappeared as it hit the WTC, without breaking off or making a holehttp://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/09/trick-o-ta... Your link doesn't work. I don't understand the claim the rest of the plane already made a hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Do you or do you not endorse what is seen in this video? Yes or no?Jack Given the huge amount of kinetic energy in the plane, I don't have an issue with those images. A B25 bomber punched a 20'x20' hole through the Empire State building in 1945, an engine penetrated the far side, crashed through a roof of another beyond on the far side an started a fire in that building. The 767 that crashed into the South Tower had 60-100x as much kinetic energy, and that doesn't take into account the difference in explosive energy of the fuel loads (the B25 was almost empty). Maybe Greer was absent the day they discussed MASS. It has been more than 60 years since I studied high school physics, but here is what I remember about it. All equations regarding energy must consider the MASS of objects. All objects, even at rest, have POTENTIAL energy which relates to their mass. If I remember correctly, consider this example... Jack I should have mentioned that objects anchored into the earth (buildings, trees, light poles) SHARE THE MASS OF THE EARTH with their own. Thus a METAL auto traveling at 60 mph can hit a WOODEN tree and be demolished, because the tree is borrowing some mass from the earth, to which it is connected, and thus its "mass" is greater than the car. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 QUOTE...1) a Boeing 767 can not go over 500 mph at low (700 feet) altitude, whereas the official speed was 545 mph http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY The guy who made that video is seemingly incapable of basic math. The South Tower was 1362 feet/110 stories tall or 12.33 feet per floor. The crash centered on the 81st floor or just over 1000 feet. We’ve been over this before the 1st woman was a PR person and was obviously unsure the 2nd was an engineer said she “had no idea” “didn’t think” the plane could fly those speeds at that altitude and was also obviously unsure. Boeing is a huge company what kind of engineer was she what involvement if any did she have with 767’s”? The sentence above question was originally a regular question but is now a rhetorical one. It turns out that Lori E. Bechtold is a “reliability engineer” with a math degree whose area of specialty is electronics and joined Boeing years after the 757/767 went into service. Lori Bechtold, a Boeing reliability engineer, designs by seeing how well products actually work. "I have a morbid fascination with failure," she said, "and I use my design knowledge to prevent it." Bechtold is in the Boeing Phantom Works group, which creates new technologies for use on any Boeing design: spacecraft, military hardware, electronics and aircraft. Which is rather impresive till we get to the next bit She evaluates commonly available electronics, like cellular phones, as components of the complex mix of electronic systems used on airplanes. "Can they pull high-Gs?" she asks. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/feature/engineer.html There is additional confirmation that her area of specialty is electronics as opposed to airframes or power plants Biography: Lori Bechtold is a reliability engineer with 22 years experience with Boeing, spanning programs in military, commercial aviation and space applications. She currently supports the P-8A Poseidon program, addressing environmental issues of commercial off the shelf (COTS) electronics on a Navy platform. She has conducted research and development in Boeing’s Phantom Works group, in the application of COTS electronics to military and aerospace applications. Lori is the technical editor for the VMEbus International Trade Association *(VITA) working group 51, developing a new industry specification for reliability prediction for COTS modules. She holds a B.S degree in mathematics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology http://www.slideshare.net/guestc7f321/shap...ssembly-market/ That was from 2007 the article linked below which she wrote is from this year and is about a new standard for “electronics reliability predictions “ Lori Bechtold is a reliability engineer with 23 years' experience with Boeing, spanning programs in military, commercial aviation, and space applications http://www.vmecritical.com/articles/id/?3164 It seems that she started working for the company in 1985 several years after the 757/767 series had been design, flown for the 1st time in 1981 and delivered in 1982. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767 So a mathematician whose area of expertise is the reliability of aviation electronics obviously unsure of herself who joined the company well after the 767 was developed, tested, first flown and delivered said she “didn’t think” the plane could fly over 500 mph at 700 feet and you think this is proof it could do so at 1000 feet.?Tell me, does it get any weaker than this? * "VMEbus is a computer bus standard, originally developed for the Motorola 68000 line of CPUs, but later widely used for many applications and standardized by the IEC as ANSI/IEEE 1014-1987. It is physically based on Eurocard sizes, mechanicals and connectors, but uses its own signalling system, which Eurocard does not define. It was first developed in 1981 and continues to see widespread use today." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMEbus 2) the plane was going impossibly fast for a Boeing 767 in the last 4.7 minutesThe official flight 175 flight path report can be downloaded here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_175 Look at the last time "flight 175" was noted-- at "G"-- the official story says the plane went 49 miles in 4.7 minutes before it hit the WTC. This means the plane would have to be going 10.4 miles per minute or 625 mph-- a ridiculous speed, since the maximum speed for a Boeing 767 is 568 mph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767 Note that officially the plane was descending 24,000 feet in this last 4.7 minutes-- thus officially going well over the maximum speed in progressively thicker air. So officially-- we have a plane descending a mile a minute, significantly over the maximum possible speed for the aircraft-- ALL officially done by a pilot who has never flown this type of aircraft before-- and somehow he manages to steer the plane perfectly to hit precisely a very narrow target (the WTC south tower)? This is simply preposterous! I could find no reference to your claim about how far the plane is supposed to have flown or descended in its last 4.7 minutes on the cited page 3) the tail of the plane disappeared as it hit the WTC, without breaking off or making a holehttp://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/09/trick-o-ta... Your link doesn't work. I don't understand the claim the rest of the plane already made a hole. I think Colby should tell us HIS QUALIFICATIONS IN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING if he is qualified to critique people with engineering degrees who work as aeronautical engineers. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Maybe Greer was absent the day they discussed MASS. It has beenmore than 60 years since I studied high school physics, but here is what I remember about it. All equations regarding energy must consider the MASS of objects. All objects, even at rest, have POTENTIAL energy which relates to their mass. If I remember correctly, consider this example... Jack Jack either you misunderstood what they taught you about physics or have since jumbled it. Explain to us how under your understanding of the subject a bullet which only weighs a few grams can enter let alone kill a person who is far more massive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I think Colby should tell us HIS QUALIFICATIONS IN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING if he isqualified to critique people with engineering degrees who work as aeronautical engineers. I have none Ms. Bechtold however has no degrees in engineering. I'm sure hoever she is highly qualified in her area of expertise which has nothing to do with the question the moron who made the video asked her. That is why she made it clear she was unsure what the answer was. As for Mr. Keith I have no idea what he has deggrees in but he was also commenting on something far outside his area of specialty. Whatever his qualifications his claim that a Boeing 767 would shake apart at 700 feet while flying at speeds only marganally below those the plane regularly takes off and lands at are obviously false especially since it doesn't noticablly vibrate at those speeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Do you or do you not endorse what is seen in this video? Yes or no?Jack Given the huge amount of kinetic energy in the plane, I don't have an issue with those images. A B25 bomber punched a 20'x20' hole through the Empire State building in 1945, an engine penetrated the far side, crashed through a roof of another beyond on the far side an started a fire in that building. The 767 that crashed into the South Tower had 60-100x as much kinetic energy, and that doesn't take into account the difference in explosive energy of the fuel loads (the B25 was almost empty). Maybe Greer was absent the day they discussed MASS. It has been more than 60 years since I studied high school physics, but here is what I remember about it. All equations regarding energy must consider the MASS of objects. All objects, even at rest, have POTENTIAL energy which relates to their mass. If I remember correctly, consider this example... Jack I should have mentioned that objects anchored into the earth (buildings, trees, light poles) SHARE THE MASS OF THE EARTH with their own. Thus a METAL auto traveling at 60 mph can hit a WOODEN tree and be demolished, because the tree is borrowing some mass from the earth, to which it is connected, and thus its "mass" is greater than the car. Jack This would only be relevant to the car's ability to topple the tree not its ability to damage it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I think Colby should tell us HIS QUALIFICATIONS IN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING if he isqualified to critique people with engineering degrees who work as aeronautical engineers. I have none Ms. Bechtold however has no degrees in engineering. I'm sure hoever she is highly qualified in her area of expertise which has nothing to do with the question the moron who made the video asked her. That is why she made it clear she was unsure what the answer was. As for Mr. Keith I have no idea what he has deggrees in but he was also commenting on something far outside his area of specialty. Whatever his qualifications his claim that a Boeing 767 would shake apart at 700 feet while flying at speeds only marganally below those the plane regularly takes off and lands at are obviously false especially since it doesn't noticablly vibrate at those speeds. Joseph M. Keith, Aerospace engineer BSE: California State University at LA Where is Colby's aerospace engineering degree from? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Maybe Greer was absent the day they discussed MASS. It has beenmore than 60 years since I studied high school physics, but here is what I remember about it. All equations regarding energy must consider the MASS of objects. All objects, even at rest, have POTENTIAL energy which relates to their mass. If I remember correctly, consider this example... Jack Jack either you misunderstood what they taught you about physics or have since jumbled it. Explain to us how under your understanding of the subject a bullet which only weighs a few grams can enter let alone kill a person who is far more massive. You are confusing MASS with DENSITY. You can have two pieces of steel each with a mass of 100 pounds. But one has a density of only 1/32" thickness while the other has a 4" thickness. Your bullet will pierce the thin one (say a car door), and bounce off of the other because of the density, not the mass. The human body, being mostly liquid, has a very low density, regardless of its mass. Steel has high density and high mass (weight); aluminum has low density and low weight. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 When two objects collide, it makes no difference which one is moving or if both are moving. It is the TOTAL energy involved...both kinetic and potential energy of BOTH OBJECTS. A Boeing 767 weighs 450,000 POUNDS. A WTC tower weighed 500,000 TONS. Therefore the MASS of a WCT tower was more than 2000 times the MASS of the airplane. And the DENSITY of the steel and concrete far exceeded the density of the aluminum airplane. Plus, the building was anchored into bedrock, so had the added mass of the earth on its side. If on 9-11 the situation were reversed and the tower was moving 500 mph and hit a parked 767, what should the outcome have been? Answer...no difference. The building should obliterate the plane either way. My physics may be 60 years old, but I don't think they have rewritten the laws. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Another melted vehicle. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Maybe Greer was absent the day they discussed MASS. It has been more than 60 years since I studied high school physics, but here is what I remember about it. All equations regarding energy must consider the MASS of objects. All objects, even at rest, have POTENTIAL energy which relates to their mass. If I remember correctly, consider this example... Jack I should have mentioned that objects anchored into the earth (buildings, trees, light poles) SHARE THE MASS OF THE EARTH with their own. Thus a METAL auto traveling at 60 mph can hit a WOODEN tree and be demolished, because the tree is borrowing some mass from the earth, to which it is connected, and thus its "mass" is greater than the car. Jack Perhaps you could explain how a B25, of far less mass (and kinetic energy) than the 767s, could knock a gaping 20'x20' hole through the wall of the Empire State Building, fling wreckage through and out of the far side of the building, and through the roof of another building on the far side? It had kinetic energy around 1-2% that of the 767s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I think Colby should tell us HIS QUALIFICATIONS IN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING if he isqualified to critique people with engineering degrees who work as aeronautical engineers. I have none Ms. Bechtold however has no degrees in engineering. I'm sure hoever she is highly qualified in her area of expertise which has nothing to do with the question the moron who made the video asked her. That is why she made it clear she was unsure what the answer was. As for Mr. Keith I have no idea what he has deggrees in but he was also commenting on something far outside his area of specialty. Whatever his qualifications his claim that a Boeing 767 would shake apart at 700 feet while flying at speeds only marganally below those the plane regularly takes off and lands at are obviously false especially since it doesn't noticablly vibrate at those speeds. Joseph M. Keith, Aerospace engineer BSE: California State University at LA Where is Colby's aerospace engineering degree from? Jack 1) According to a webpage you previously linked “Joseph Keith is a retired 76-year-old software engineer who worked in the aerospace industry” 2) The shaker system he claims to have worked on has very little if anything to do with airframes (fuselages) or power plants (engines) the relevant areas for his claims. It was developed by TRW thus this was the company he presumably worked for unless he is making things up. 3) No one by the name of Joseph Keith is a licensed as an engineer (or land surveyor) in the state of California. http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/wllqryna...e_pgm_code=7500 4) Truther sites have been know to exaggerate the qualifications of their members and supporters, what is the source for your claim? 5) CSU-LA does not currently offer a degree in aerospace engineering though they might have back in the early 50’s. He was described as a “software engineer” which they offer a degree in but probably didn’t back then. My best guess is if he really got a BSE from there it was in electrical engineering and he moved into software development later. Once again things might have changed but currently CSU-LA is an academic dump US News and World Report ranks it as a Tier 3 Master’s University, 3rd from the bottom out of 10 categories, and says it is “less selective”. This info is not available about CSU-LA but schools at this level normally accept over 70% of applicants and only around 10% of students were in the top 25% of their high school class. To make a long story short currently the average student at CSU-LA is probably less intelligent than the average US high school student and well below the average college student. http://www.calstatela.edu/academic/ecst/departments.php http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews...._1140_brief.php 6) What ever his qualifications or lack there of his claim that a Boeing model of which 965 planes were built that has never shaken apart despite being in service for 25 years would shake apart at speeds only slightly (7% in some cases) above those it regularly takes off and lands at without noticeably shaking is absurd. Pressure at 700 is about 2.4 % lower than at sea level.* AFAIK the only time a 767 broke up in flight is when one stalled “at an approximate altitude of 24,700 feet, a speed of Mach 0.78, and developing climb power” and then plummeted to the ground. I was unable to identify any instances of the closely related 757 breaking up in flight. So sorry Jack your source is a crackpot making nonsense claims about a subject outside his area of expertise. I find your unyielding faith in the pronouncement of an engineer speculating about a subject he not qualified in odd in light of you dismissal of the NIST report to which dozens of engineers working in their area of specialty contributed. As for your knowledge of physics, the relevant laws indeed haven’t changed in the 6 - 7 decades since you last studied the subject but you seem to have misremembered what you learnt or never learnt it correctly in the 1st place. http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publicatio...aRPT.html#App_A * According to this site: “A reading of 30.05 inches of mercury from the local weather information center is an example of a corrected barometric pressure. Norwalk Raceway altitude is about 700 feet above sea level. The correction for that altitude is about - 0.7 inches of mercury. Therefore the uncorrected barometric pressure for Norwalk on a day with a local weather report of 30.05 inches of mercury is 30.05 – 0.7 = 29.35 inches of mercury.” 0.7 = 2.4 % of 29.35 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Maybe Greer was absent the day they discussed MASS. It has beenmore than 60 years since I studied high school physics, but here is what I remember about it. All equations regarding energy must consider the MASS of objects. All objects, even at rest, have POTENTIAL energy which relates to their mass. If I remember correctly, consider this example... Jack Jack either you misunderstood what they taught you about physics or have since jumbled it. Explain to us how under your understanding of the subject a bullet which only weighs a few grams can enter let alone kill a person who is far more massive. You are confusing MASS with DENSITY. You can have two pieces of steel each with a mass of 100 pounds. But one has a density of only 1/32" thickness while the other has a 4" thickness. Your bullet will pierce the thin one (say a car door), and bounce off of the other because of the density, not the mass. The human body, being mostly liquid, has a very low density, regardless of its mass. Steel has high density and high mass (weight); aluminum has low density and low weight. Jack - You are the person who suggested than an object's ability to withstand being penetrated by a projectile was related to its mass compared to the projectile -Density is not messured in "thickness" as I've said before your understanding of physics is inadequate - Explain to us then how fluid cutting/drilling works and how demolition charges cut through high density steel and how "cop killer" bullets penetrate bullet proof vests Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now