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.
What happened to the "kinetic energy" of the jet now?
Originally posted by StudioGuy
By the way, to correct another poster's quotation on the video format, it's not NTFS, it's NTSC.
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.
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.
Originally posted by adjay
Bear in mind, this reinforced concrete may have been designed to withstand this impact, but so were the WTC towers!
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.
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:
- Newtons 3rd Law upon plane impact (deformation of ALUMINIUM ON PLANE)
- Newtons 2nd Law (negligible deacceleration upon impact and penetration)
- Newton's 1st Law (freefall collapse of every floor)
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?
Originally posted by neformore
NO THEY WERE NOT
No one designed those Towers to take a deliberately targetted airliner hitting them at 466mph.
Originally posted by neformore
The outer walls of the towers were NOT made from mass reinforced concrete, they were made from hollow box steel.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by adjay
Oh, really? Chief structural designer Leslie Robertson says otherwise.
accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land.
*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
The plane structure and contents absorbed the same as the building, orr do you still not understand Newton's Law's of Motion?
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.
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,
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
* 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.
Originally posted by neformore
Your attempt at sarcasm makes you look stupid.
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.
Originally posted by neformore
I understand it perfectly, and I explained it out above.
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.