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.

 

How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

page: 31
13
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 11:06 PM
link   



What happened to the "kinetic energy" of the jet now?



The kinetic energy, no quotes necessary, was expended in the debris plume ejecting from the impact site.




posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by StudioGuy
By the way, to correct another poster's quotation on the video format, it's not NTFS, it's NTSC.


Of course it is
perfect example of what happens when you're formatting another PC while replying to a post here.

Considering that the plane was moving around 7m per frame at 30 fps any deformation would be blurred out especially if a CCD was picking up the image. Film *might* pick up something if the shutter speed was fast enough (like 1/1000 or better) and the right frame was snapped at the right time but again just one or two frames, maybe. Compression of it for YouTube would remove any trace of detail like that.

The tail end of the plane would keep travelling at 220m/S until the telescoping and compacted mass that used to be the front of the plane slowed it down and that was already well inside the building.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Ultima, sometimes i think you just like to disagree for disagreeings sake. for example recently i said:

Originally posted by Damocles
you once posted (im not going to look it up) that the wings of a plane are designed to take the verticle stresses of lift and flight.


to which you replied


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No, you did not get it correct. I stated that wings are designed to withstand lateral (up and down) stresses but they are not designed to take impact.


and i have to ask, in what world does verticle not mean up and down?

so i guess at times i just wonder if youre wanting to share information and discuss ideas or if you just want to argue for arguments sake?

doesnt matter i was just curious.

in the end i think the important thing is that at least some of us here are now fairly sure that aluminum cutting steel is possible given the proper mix of mass and velocity.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
Bear in mind, this reinforced concrete may have been designed to withstand this impact, but so were the WTC towers!


NO THEY WERE NOT

No one designed those Towers to take a deliberately targetted airliner hitting them at 466mph.

The outer walls of the towers were NOT made from mass reinforced concrete, they were made from hollow box steel.

As for all of this "where is the kinetic energy" watch the damn video particularly the part at the end where she mentions the wingtips escaping complete destruction, because you can clearly see them carrying on forward at considerable speed. Thats the same effect as not wearing a seatbelt in a car that hits something when travelling at 30mph. The car will stop but you will keep moving forward at 30mph until you hit something that prevents you from moving further forward.

Another thing that you seemingly want to try and forget is that the plane was full of aviation fuel, luggage and passengers. ALL of these add to the combined mass of the object as it hits. It is NOT just the airframe that hit the building, in effect its a solid mass while its contained, and then its millions of smaller pieces still moving forward until they run out of kinetic energy.

As for anyone who claims they can see deformation on that F-4 video, they are either superman or a liar, and I say that they are the latter.

As for Newtons Third law, which states

"To every action force there is an equal, but opposite, reaction force".

The building was not moving towards the plane at 466mph in the opposite direction, the building was stationary. The only way for the building to provide sufficient counter force to the impact was to use its structure to absorb it, which it did by slowing and then completely stopping the mass of the object that hit it.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
No, you did not get it correct. I stated that wings are designed to withstand lateral (up and down) stresses but they are not designed to take impact.


Well you had the part right about the wings standing lateral stress but you were incorrect about the wings being able to take impact.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
Originally posted by buddhasystem

Please, show me some evidence of a wax bullet turning flesh into hamburger meat, I'm sure McDonalds would be interested in that one! Once again, a bogus example is brought in to hide the physics discrepencies on that day:

  1. Newtons 3rd Law upon plane impact (deformation of ALUMINIUM ON PLANE)
  2. Newtons 2nd Law (negligible deacceleration upon impact and penetration)
  3. Newton's 1st Law (freefall collapse of every floor)


Here are a few more physics defying examples:
1. A flying piece of paper killed someone
Blank cartridges for guns, do not contain bullets, but they do contain a paper plug that seals the powder in the case, called a wad. This wad can cause bruising at medium ranges and severe penetrating wounds at close range. Actor John Erik Hexum died when the wad from the blank fractured a piece of his skull.
2. How can my hand be crushed by a cement block but my hand can also crush that same cement block.
If I drop a cement block on my hand from a distance of 4 feet it will crush it but I can put my hand through that same brick from that same distance and break it.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by jfj123]

[edit on 10-12-2007 by jfj123]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by adjay
 


I don't know about you, but I've never seen any of the raw footage. Almost everything I've seen has been compressed, frame sized reduced, frame rates dropped, etc.. Could you please post some uncompressed raw footage so we can see what you are referring to? Thanks.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by StudioGuyIs your contention that there mustn't have been airplanes hitting the tower? Or is this a "wrong conlusion in NIST report" post?


To be completely honest, I don't know, and I don't care much to make assumptions that I can't back up. What I do know, is there are things not right about that day. NIST's figures look right to me, for the most part, but the physics defied on that day do not.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
NO THEY WERE NOT

No one designed those Towers to take a deliberately targetted airliner hitting them at 466mph.


Oh, really? Chief structural designer Leslie Robertson says otherwise.


Originally posted by neformore
The outer walls of the towers were NOT made from mass reinforced concrete, they were made from hollow box steel.


*golfclap* I never said they were made from reinforced concrete.


Originally posted by neformoreAs for anyone who claims they can see deformation on that F-4 video, they are either superman or a liar, and I say that they are the latter.


You are right, I watched it again and I can't see any deformation. The plane is 100% intact after it hits the wall, and appears on the other side. /sarcasm


Originally posted by neformore
The building was not moving towards the plane at 466mph in the opposite direction, the building was stationary. The only way for the building to provide sufficient counter force to the impact was to use its structure to absorb it, which it did by slowing and then completely stopping the mass of the object that hit it.


It makes little difference which was moving into what, except for the things inside you mentioned like passengers, luggage etc. The plane structure and contents absorbed the same as the building, orr do you still not understand Newton's Law's of Motion?



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjay

Originally posted by neformore
NO THEY WERE NOT

No one designed those Towers to take a deliberately targetted airliner hitting them at 466mph.


Oh, really? Chief structural designer Leslie Robertson says otherwise.


Actually if you read the quote, it is very misleading:

We designed the towers to resist the accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land. The impact of the Boeing 767s, commandeered by the terrorists, even though larger and flying much faster, was still unable to bring down the towers. The fire-resistive systems, however, did not and could not have contemplated the subsequent fire fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.


Yes it was designed to take a jet impact, but anticipating an accidental impact from a plane landing. Not sure many planes land going 466+ mph.

Plus they admit the fire resistive systems were insufficient for the fires caused by the jet fuel.

It could go either way though....meh.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Disclosed
 


Yeah, there is a slight conflict there, but I interpret it as being proof enough - the plane hit, the plane did not cause the collapse, they designed it to withstand an impact of a 707 "lost in fog", it did withstand the impact.. Therefore, it must have been designed to withstand the 767 that hit.

But I do see your point, either way.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I never thought Newtons laws could cause so much misunderstanding. The planes delivered a massive packet of kinetic energy and the buildings had to dissipate that energy to remain upright (not talking about fires and 'other factors' etc here btw). If the tables were reversed and the building were to hit the stationary plane at 220m/s, the planes would be swatted like flies because they couldn't dissipate that much kinetic energy (of a moving building).

The design that could withstand a 707 collision does in no way imply that the 707 would just bounce off. It means the building was designed to do exactly what it did to absorb and dissipate the application of an intense localised external force by deformation of its structure. The fact that they stood for so long after handling an impact well over design rating shows how good that design was but the 'other factors' in the aftermath got them in the end.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjay

Oh, really? Chief structural designer Leslie Robertson says otherwise.



Actually he says this



accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land.


Read it. And then read it again and then think about it, because a plane coming into land is not flying at 466mph, and deliberately targetted into the middle of a building, and a sane and rational pilot would seek to take evasive action as soon as he saw the towers infront. These people did not do that. What these people did was, up untill 9/11 unthinkable




*golfclap* I never said they were made from reinforced concrete.

You are right, I watched it again and I can't see any deformation. The plane is 100% intact after it hits the wall, and appears on the other side. /sarcasm



Your attempt at sarcasm makes you look stupid.

You can't compare the towers to that specially constructed piece of reinforced concrete. They are not the same at all. One was a hollow box structure, the other is a solid mass. Had the towers been a solid mass the plane would not have penetrated into them. They weren't. It did.



The plane structure and contents absorbed the same as the building, orr do you still not understand Newton's Law's of Motion?


I understand it perfectly, and I explained it out above.

[edit on 10/1207/07 by neformore]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Plus they admit the fire resistive systems were insufficient for the fires caused by the jet fuel.

It could go either way though....meh.


But the fires in the towers did even last 1 hour and were burning out.

The jet fuel was burned off in a few minuets so you basically had an office fire that lasted less then 1 hour.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Read it. And then read it again and then think about it, because a plane coming into land is not flying at 466mph,


But the point remains the towers were built to withstand a planes impact. They were also designed to take a very high wind loading.

So the reports are correct when they state the builidngs withstood the planes impacts.



[edit on 10-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Read it. And then read it again and then think about it, because a plane coming into land is not flying at 466mph, and deliberately targetted into the middle of a building, and a sane and rational pilot would seek to take evasive action as soon as he saw the towers infront. These people did not do that. What these people did was, up untill 9/11 unthinkable


I disagree. If it was so unthinkable, then this list of people would not have made these comments - link

I read it again, and it doesn't say "coming in to land", it says "seeking to land", which would definitely be the part before adjusting speed for approach, so to assume they would use anything less than the cruise speed of a 707 doesn't seem plausible.

Using the BBC's fog guide we see:


* Fog - visibility below 1,000 m (1,100 yards) - mainly affects aircraft.
* Thick fog - visibility 50-200 m (55 - 220 yards) - dangerous for road traffic.
* Dense fog - visibility below 50 m (55 yards) - seriously disrupts all forms of transport.


Thick fog would mean no room for any sane pilot to make any adjustment, as he wouldn't see it in time. I guess the kind of fog they used in design lay somewher between Fog, and Thick fog in this list, if we assume they used 1000M, this would give the pilot an upper limit of ~4 seconds to correct the aircraft upon seeing the tower - not really enough time to do anything.

This link shows some calculations for both planes, and an example calculation for a 707, and clearly shows that at cruise speed, the amount of kinetic energy spent upon impact for a 707 lies between the two aircraft that struck the towers on 9/11. So, I refute that the towers were not built to withstand the impacts. Maybe the designers didn't know it at the time (impossible due to the 767 not even being built yet), but that doesn't mean they weren't built to withstand it.


Originally posted by neformore
Your attempt at sarcasm makes you look stupid.


Thanks. I prefer to use sarcasm as opposed to childish insults.


Originally posted by neformore
You can't compare the towers to that specially constructed piece of reinforced concrete. They are not the same at all. One was a hollow box structure, the other is a solid mass. Had the towers been a solid mass the plane would not have penetrated into them. They weren't. It did.


Hollow box structure? Can you prove the WTC was a hollow box structure? Since when is steel and concrete hollow? Do you have any idea how much concrete/steel was behind the part of the building the plane was ploughing into when it hit the WTC?


Originally posted by neformore
I understand it perfectly, and I explained it out above.


So why do you, and others, continue to act as if the only work done was the building being deformed? The bulding was designed to withstand the impact, the plane wasn't. Upon impact, the kinetic energy is released to both objects equally. Massive amounts of kinetic energy must be spent to break the steel and concrete, this energy would be equally devestating to the aluminium on the plane, as shown in the clip posted by Disclosed. And yet, we end up with a "Road Runner" scenario.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
But still no one can explain the dustification of the concrete. With all of the arguing and back and forth about certain issues, the fact still remains that as we watch the Towers explode outward and turn to dust, including the core steel, we are seein an event that CANNOT be explained by fire and gravity. No way. How does fire and gravity make concrete turn to dust? Dust as fine as flour? How does a building turning into dust as it literally falls apart in front of us on film keep enough weight to ' crush ' anything beneath it? It CANNOT!!

The huge top section that tilted and then righted itself and went straight down did NOT end up as a huge chunk on top of a pile of debris..it never made it out of the dust cloud!! That huge section turned to dust at the same rate that the rest did..and that cannot be explained away by gravity and fire. ONLY a DEW or advanced fusion/fission device could account for that massive energy being shown. There are NO other choices!! The actual ' collapses ' of the Towers CANNOT be explained without resorting to lies and denials of reality, unless one accepts a massive energy source.

WHAT was that source? WHAT could turn the Towers to DUST in just seconds? When that question has been proven answered truthfully, we will know what happened on 9-11.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


So what you're saying is that once a piece of material has been reduced to a smaller size, it no longer has any weight? That should come as a relief to anybody who has ever worked at a grain mill!

It amazes me how you can make a statement about the tremendous amount of energy you THINK would be needed to essentially create a dust cloud surround the collapse. Have you ever considered what concrete SHOULD look like when the structure it is contained within collapses? Do you expect there to be no debris cloud at all? Just a clear, falling mass of materials.

Besides that, you can't say the towers were reduced to dust in seconds. There were certainly plenty of huge pieces that remained intact thru the collapse. These theories of directed energy weapons and nuclear devices being used to bring down the towers do nothing but draw attention to their claimant, and not in a good way.

It's this attention seeking mentality of some that really makes me sick. Now we're being treated to people who weren't even old enough to attend a PG movie alone in 2001 coming up with all sorts of Star Trek/Hollywood explanations. There's simply NO evidence that anything other than the damage from the collision and ensuing fires brought those towers down, regardless of how much you want there to be.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by StudioGuy
There's simply NO evidence that anything other than the damage from the collision and ensuing fires brought those towers down, regardless of how much you want there to be.


Sorry, but there is not actual evidence or official reports that the planes impacts and fires brought down the towers.

In case you did not know the FBI and the NTSB are the main investigating agencies for 9/11



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The evidence that the planes and ensuing fires brought the towers down is that I saw the collisions (well, the 2nd one live, the first one later), the fires burn, and the buildings fall.

Without evidence that there was something more, you can't make that leap.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join