It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jfj123
No offense but buddhasystem is right. You haven't posted anything of substance stating that aluminum would not do that much damage.
Originally posted by ncbrian211
wings are made to flex and not to crack!
the wings on an aircraft go through some serious stresses, from take off to landings all types of forces are at work..
think about how they are made to withstand these forces..
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Birds have put holes through wings and airframe.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well, ULTIMA1, you have done it.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Birds have put holes through wings and airframe.
Well, ULTIMA1, you have done it. You proved yourself way wrong. Birds are very, very soft objects compared to anything metal. You can try using the palm of your hand as a model of a bird and drive various objects (kitchen knives, nails, needles) through it without much force. When you are done with this test and come back from the emergency room, and can hopefully type, let me know how a soft furry ball can make a hole in a metal object. Then maybe you'll have an epiphany about kinetic energy and it's role in damage mechanics.
Originally posted by jfj123
Unfortunately for our young friend ultima,
We've tried analogy after analogy and NADA, ZIP, ZILTCH.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
Unfortunately for our young friend ultima,
We've tried analogy after analogy and NADA, ZIP, ZILTCH.
1. I am not young. I have over 25 years combined military and government service.
2. Analogies are not facts or evidence. I have posted facts and evdience, you have not.
Originally posted by jfj123
So once again, if you can disprove everyone else with physics/math, please do so. If you can't then you have no argument.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
So once again, if you can disprove everyone else with physics/math, please do so. If you can't then you have no argument.
I have already proven my point many times here with facts and evidence..
If you are not mature enough to accept the evidence that is not my fault.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
So once again, if you can disprove everyone else with physics/math, please do so. If you can't then you have no argument.
I have already proven my point many times here with facts and evidence..
If you are not mature enough to accept the evidence that is not my fault.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes, i have proven the aluminum aiframe is fragile and would not have done a lot of damage to the steel beams of the buildings as agreed with in every report.
Originally posted by adjay
My hypothesis is that most of the aluminium, fibreglass and other lightweight materials would be "blown away" by the impact, and the heavy parts like gear, struts, engines would cause some damage to the structure, but never enough to initiate a collapse.
Inside of ten feet, a wax round or an ordinary blank round will turn flesh into hamburger and bone into tooth picks.
Originally posted by ncbrian211
Oh yeah.... and when comparing aircraft accidents dont use a Gulfstream/ corporate aircraft vs a B767..... big difference, big, big, big, difference.....
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Hey ULTIMA1, you couldn't even compute the kinetic energy of a plane
Originally posted by StudioGuy
I know it's irrelevant, but how did that gulfstream's right wing bust a hole in that brick wall? What I'm really asking is WHY the wing isn't still in the hole?
Originally posted by Disclosed
And this has to with with aluminum cutting thru steel how?