I realize selfless isn’t as radical in his beliefs as I am. I’m entering the discussion here because Spawwwn’s comment caught my eye.

Once again, at high enough velocities just about anything will penetrate steel. Water will blast through it at about Mach 2. But, and this is the very big but no one seems to comprehend, at 500 mph an aluminum airliner will not puncture quarter inch thick steel (thickness of the outer WTC tower perimeter columns). Just as a 9 mm bullet from a handgun flying also at 500 mph won’t. What’s up with all you gun-owners. You should know this!

Sorry ya’all. The laws of physics are uncompromising. Actually, that’s a good thing though. Else the whole world would be coming apart. Therefore, no planes on 9-11.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Wonderfully Wooded Woods

[edit on 6/8/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Well please, maybe YOU can demonstrate what would happen. Because there are a WHOLE lot of people out there, including people that understand physics a lot better than I do that disagree with you completely. Are you saying they're all paid off by the gov't, or just flat out lying about it?

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
...
at 500 mph an aluminum airliner will not puncture quarter inch thick steel (thickness of the outer WTC tower perimeter columns). Just as a 9 mm bullet from a handgun flying also at 500 mph won’t.

Uhm ... a 9mm bullet weighs what? Weight does play heavily into the aftermath, especially when you add velocity to the equation. No? Wizard?

Otherwise, I guess it's back to the drawing woods   boards.

 

No. Few people are paid off and only few are lying. So, something else is afoot here. The psychological term would be ‘cognitive dissonance’. People cannot handle this type of truth — that 9-11 was self-inflicted. It’s too much. It fries their circuits even vaguely discussing the topic. They gotta block it out in order to function.

I have an uncle who’s a renown metallurgist, inventor of steel alloys, and professor at the same school Albert Weinstein was taught in Zurich, Switzerland. And he STILL clings to the original MIT pancake collapse theory claiming ‘fire’ weakening the truss support clips. (It pains me just to type that.)
Look around here on ATS. Nothing’s going to change anyone’s opinion. Practically everyone thinks there were passengered planes crashing into buildings on 9-11. And poor bsregistration’s about to get ‘kicked’. Oh well, such is life.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Post scriptum: By the senatus populusque romanum, you got your signature backwards!

[edit on 6/9/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Wizard

If person "A" lives in another country and knows no-one involved in 9/11.
If person "A" only watched what happened on the tv.
If person "A" can't travel.

Do you believe person "A" can make a logical assumption that 9/11 happened?

IF you hold out that person "A" can make this logical assumption.

Can you give me the basis and foundation for that assumption please?

tnks.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2cUhm ... a 9mm bullet weighs what? Weight does play heavily into the aftermath, especially when you add velocity to the equation. No? Wizard? 

Nope. Weight’s got absolutely nothing to do with it. A one pound regulation-style soccer ball won’t kill you if it hits your head at 40 mph. A one pound rock from a sling shot lumbering — half as fast — at 20 mph will put you six feet under.

An annukhaki death star spaceship — of annukhaki aluminum — ten miles long cruising at 500 mph wouldn’t have penetrated the twin towers either. It would have ‘plowed’ them over. Even graduates from annukhaki high (school) know that.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Nope. Weight’s got absolutely nothing to do with it. A one pound regulation-style soccer ball won’t kill you if it hits your head at 40 mph.

Wanna try 3, 4 or 500mph? I think the results would be quite different, if not gruesome.

Weight and Velocity. An odd marriage. Yet the offspring vary greatly with an increase in either ... or better yet, both.

Hit me doing 5 mph. Hit me doing 50mph. I DO believe the end results would be much more extensive .... if not horrific.

Wizard?


[edit: speeling - offspRing]



[edit on 9-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by talisman

If person "A" lives in another country and knows no-one involved in 9/11.
If person "A" only watched what happened on the tv.
If person "A" can't travel.

Do you believe person "A" can make a logical assumption that 9/11 happened?

Talisman:

How come you got three stars? That ain’t fair. I want three stars too!!

Anyone and everybody can judge 9-11 events. And assumptions are the basis of any theory. If you can’t break your window in your room with a rock then you may ass-u-me — without putting it to the test — that a piece of wood won’t either. So, Joe Schmoe (is that Yiddish?) living in Timbuktu and who was born after 9-11 in 2002 and is now five years old, gets to assume that if a bullet from his daddy’s Glock won’t fly through his daddy’s gun safe walls, then an aluminum aircraft — large or small — won’t either.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 6/9/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c Weight and Velocity. An odd marriage. Yet the offspring vary greatly with an increase in either ... or better yet, both.

Dear 12m8keall2c:

It’s all about PSI — pounds per square inch of pressure. If a bullet, designed to puncture and of a denser metal than aluminum, won’t go through quarter inch thick steel at 500 mph than a commercial jet liner, no matter how large, won’t either. Both objects develop the same PSI. Err, no, most of the mass of a jet plane probably generates less PSI than a handgun projectile.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Wizard

What I was sking for is the Logical Assumption on something that is not directly in front of a person. I find that the logical assumption of things we see first hand to be stronger, as you have pointed out.

I know you hold a certain viewpoint on this, but consider the logical implications of such a stand. It could lead to the denial of 9/11 altogether. We believe that 9/11 happened because of what? Because of the media? Because we read about people's testimony?

But Wizard, we believe 9/11 because we saw with OUR OWN EYES what happened that day. For most--On the tv. That is the real reason most of us believe it to be true.

So how can we then and turn around and tell the corroborating eyewitnesses that they shouldn't believe their eyes when they saw the plane on that day?





[edit on 9-6-2007 by talisman]

The Wizard In The Woods

Hello again, hope you are well. Might I be so kind as to quantify some of the information about 2024 T3-Aluminum that I mentioned in my humble post back on page 14 of this thread. We could take a 2x4 foot sheet of this wonderful material that had a nice curve in it, lay it on the ground and jump on it and not be able to take the curve out it permamently. We could then borrow a street sign (for scientific purposes of course) and bend it with our bare hands (and use the ground or knee) and bend it to any shape we wish. That is the difference between T3 and regular aluminum.
T3 has the same hardness as steel. You could make an axe, or hammer or even a girder out of the stuff and it will be just as tough as steel, just lighter.

The reason the plane entered the building is speed, the reason it didn't wad up like a paper airplane hitting a brick wall is the strength of the material. At 500MPH it could punch through due to the force behind it. The mass and size of the building kept it from being plowed over.

If you taxi a plane slow enough you can crush a car and not damage the plane. You could lift the plane, crush the car carefully, and then still fly the plane. Just like you can crush a car by dropping a steel girder on it and not damage the girder. It is all in the material strength and force.

2024 T3 Aluminum is just as hard as steel. And in planes, they use it in the outer skin, inner supports and the honeycombing in the wings and the folded ridges in the body.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
2024 T3 Aluminum is just as hard as steel.

I may be wrong but I find that extremely hard to believe considering it's alloyed with copper aluminum and magnesium. Without trying to sound facetious, can you provide some data to back that up?

So you're trying to tell me that aircraft aluminum sheets have an equal or greater tensile strength than construction grade steel beams?

[edit on 9-6-2007 by twitchy]

Yah, and if you bothered to look at the link I gave, IN EVERY CASE the sheet ksi rating listed for steel was LOWER than the annealed bar rating, which is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. Annealed bars were listed at between 80ksi as the LOWEST rating, and 120ksi as the highest. Sheet was rated at between 65ksi min on the low end, and a 100ksi max on the high end. Now TELL ME that sheet isn't rated lower than annealed bars.

[edit on 6/9/2007 by Zaphod58]

Sheets... Beams... Think about that for just a second. Aircraft= Aluminum Sheet, Buildings=Steel Beams.
Imagine the money they could save building skyscrapers with aluminum sheeting.. I wonder why they don't.