Boeing 767 On Rigid Wall - Early NIST ANSYS Simulation

[percheron1654]

Mental note; Always ask for the seat closest to the rear.

[GeorgefromPiter]

Meat!

[troncx]

I have seen a car breaking a "rigid wall" running much slower (actually that "rigid wall" had more volume and mass than this one, just to mention some important variables), so why a much faster bigger and heavier flying jet should not harm a "rigid wall"?

is not there some important variables not being specified about this "rigid wall"

[femr2]

Rigid in physics terms means utterly unbreakable, cannot deform. Rigid. Perfectly rigid. Cannot be harmed....

[troncx]

according to that definition it shows a plane being destroyed agains something that is not possible to construct since it is impossible to break or get harmed, and has a incredible capacity to absorb energy without deformation...

but people are referencing this video as something to do with 9/11

[femr2]

An "infinite" capacity to absorb energy without deformation. Rigid body "cannot" deform, at all.

The animation was performed by NIST as part of their impact studies, so it is of course related to 9/11, though should not be interpreted as the expected behaviour of an aircraft impacting a non-rigid body. I have other NIST impact simulations which do not use a rigid plane. You may want to compare them.

[troncx]

with that explanation it is quite different, it should be included, because people are referencing this video more or less as a "proof" that a plane can not damage a building like the WTC or the pentagon, so the video is being used to confuse people.

In other words it is being used in a context were "rigid wall" is not used as an abstract theorical element

[femr2]

I am certainly not using the video to confuse people, and am quite happy to explain in more detail for those who misunderstand.

It is a physics based simulation, obviously, and the included rigid descriptor is very specific and means *rigid*, as I have explained.

I will include a description of rigid in the video description, but I doubt anyone will actually read it, nor decide to change how they choose to interpret the information.

[troncx]

that would be nice

[femr2]

A similar issue occurs with most of the *scientific* studies of the descent of each tower. Such models generally use a rigid descending mass (the upper falling section of each tower) to justify that the towers would not withstand such impact from above and were *doomed*.

Most people accept them without understanding the flaws, simplifications and errors and then pronounce that *science* has proven something.

A double-edged sword I'm afraid.

[LipsMalloy]

LOL!

[deanphilpot]

damn interesting, but the demo wasn't on a 5 sided building, lol , sheep say baaaaaad graphics. I didn't see any passports fall out.

[Airportchris2]

The WTC wasn't a 5 sided building, it was 4, unless you count the roof.

[RuffleTheTeacher]

The prefix "penta" is usually used to describe a building that has five sides.

Retard.... to delay or hold the progress back of.... or slow down.

[Airportchris2]

I know what it means, I passed geometry thank you, but this simulation does not refer to the Pentagon, as this simulation involves a 767, regardless, what does the demo not having a 5 sided building got to do with anything, the plane impacted only one side, to have the whole building would be irrelevant to this simulation.

Your point of this comment being, mainly, what exactly?

[RuffleTheTeacher]

The phrase "lol" seems to imply a joke or a sense of humorous intent, yet you jumped to correct as if you were more informed than that person.

And what if he was counting the roof? Reguardless the number of sides, why did they find passports of the hijackers, yet some families only get a toe bone to put to rest?

[Airportchris2]

Where the hell do you see "lol" in any of the preceding comments?

I think the whole 9/11 event is one big lie.

[RuffleTheTeacher]

deanphilpot, three hours ago, comment that started this entire comment session we are having.

[Airportchris2]

I know, but where did you get "lol" anywhere in any of the comments before?

I am also like the second person to watch femr2's videos.