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: 84
13
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
How about the WTC's Manager of the Construction and Project Management, does his opinion matter? Or do you experts know more than he did about how the WTC was built?


In the following interview clip, which took place inside of the Twin Towers on January 25, 2001, and aired on the 7th Season of the History Channel's Series "Modern Marvels" on June 25, 2001, Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management, explains how the Twin Towers were "designed" to withstand the impact of a "fully-loaded Boeing 707." He also goes on to say that each of the Twin Towers would "probably sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door: this intense grid; and, the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing this screen netting; it really does nothing to the screen netting."

It is interesting to note that the planes that slammed into the Twin Towers were Boeing 767s, which have a maximum take-off weight of 300,000 pounds, slightly less than the 330,000-pound maximum of the Boeing 707, making them slightly smaller than the planes the architects designed the Twin Towers to withstand the impacts of.


www.youtube.com...

Did you miss the part where he says "the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing this screen netting; it really does nothing to the screen netting." The plane punctured the netting without compromising the rest of it. That's exactly what happened.




posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
So tell me again who the credible professionals are who have published research contradicting Wierzbicki's research? The ones who assert the "wings from Krypton" theory.
edit on 12-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)


Research papers and hypotheses and computer-generated models are nice, but I prefer the real world and to trust my own eyes and common sense.... and here's a sample of the real world for ya....




posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Research papers and hypotheses and computer-generated models are nice, but I prefer the real world and to trust my own eyes and common sense.... and here's a sample of the real world for ya....





Do you have any videos where the telephone poles survive the impact ?

Both of them were cut like a hot knife through butter in this video.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 

For those interested--if the links to the articles I posted earlier are not working, get them HERE



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
So tell me again who the credible professionals are who have published research contradicting Wierzbicki's research? The ones who assert the "wings from Krypton" theory.
edit on 12-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)


Research papers and hypotheses and computer-generated models are nice, but I prefer the real world and to trust my own eyes and common sense....

This is a cop-out. Common sense is great, but is not always useful for uncommon situations. You can reject scientific research if you like, but don't be surprised when your credibility collapses into it's own footprint (at free-fall speed).

(ETA) I'm not surprised, by the way, that you cannot find a credible physicist or engineer in support of your comic-book theory. I guess the entire community of scientists and engineers working in the field of applied physics have lost their "common sense", which is a shame since these are the guys designing our modern world.
edit on 14-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Research papers and hypotheses and computer-generated models are nice, but I prefer the real world and to trust my own eyes and common sense.... and here's a sample of the real world for ya....





Do you have any videos where the telephone poles survive the impact ?

Both of them were cut like a hot knife through butter in this video.


Those telephone poles were made out of WOOD. And they were SHATTERED, not "cut like a hot knife through butter".

The video makes a mockery of loonyasparagus' "scientific" paper. Why not just fess up?

It also presents a serious problem for your plane at the Pentagon that allegedly kept flying another 300 YARDS without touching a blade of grass after shearing off 5 METAL poles..

So which turd will you continue polishing? Unfortunately you'll have to pick one.
edit on 14-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

(ETA) I'm not surprised, by the way, that you cannot find a credible physicist or engineer in support of your comic-book theory. I guess the entire community of scientists and engineers working in the field of applied physics have lost their "common sense", which is a shame since these are the guys designing our modern world.
edit on 14-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)


I'm not done looking. I have a full time job and I cannot spend 40-50 hours a week on this stuff like the LIAR camp does...... and still, until you recreate the exact scenario of 911 all the research papers in the world aren't going to prove anything.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 





I have a full time job and I cannot spend 40-50 hours a week on this stuff like the LIAR camp does...... and still, until you recreate the exact scenario of 911 all the research papers in the world aren't going to prove anything.

But you have to admit that there's a reason why their are not hords of physicists from all over the world screaming fowl.
Even you have to admit that countries like Iran have credible physicists. And even they accept the planes could cause that kind of damage. Now why would a country who doesn't like the US accept the findings if it was impossible?

You can't really believe that all physicists in the world have been silenced can you?



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 



It also presents a serious problem for your plane at the Pentagon that allegedly kept flying another 300 YARDS without touching a blade of grass after shearing off 5 METAL poles..


So the plane was just supposed to drop to the ground right there - 250,000 lbs travelling at 500 + MPH

Ever hear of inertia ....?

In addition highway lightpoles are designed to break off when struck



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
So the plane was just supposed to drop to the ground right there - 250,000 lbs travelling at 500 + MPH
Pretty much, yeah.


Ever hear of inertia ....?
Yep, I have. 300 yards is an eternity for a plane with no wings flying about 10 feet off the ground, especially by an incompetent pilot. In fact, I would say 30 feet would be a miracle.


In addition highway lightpoles are designed to break off when struck
Okay, reaching for straws I think, but that would require a whole new set of studies and theories and hypothesizing.... but I guess you do what you need to do to keep polishing this.... well, you know, "official story".



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Maybe you should look through these sites for credible people who have a different opinion. A friend sent these links to me in 2010 and I dismissed them out of hand because, as I stated earlier in the thread, I believed what I thought I saw that day and I couldn't believe it was anything other than what it looked like. Nor could I believe our federal government could or would cover something up as devastating as this event was.

Now, after seeing the evidence that's been independently tested and not with government oversight, and after reading their analysis and seeing the many videos and studying the construction drawing of the towers that are available on the internet, I've reached a different conclusion.

AE911 Truth
Patriots Question 911


Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
So tell me again who the credible professionals are who have published research contradicting Wierzbicki's research? The ones who assert the "wings from Krypton" theory.
edit on 12-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)


Research papers and hypotheses and computer-generated models are nice, but I prefer the real world and to trust my own eyes and common sense....

This is a cop-out. Common sense is great, but is not always useful for uncommon situations. You can reject scientific research if you like, but don't be surprised when your credibility collapses into it's own footprint (at free-fall speed).

(ETA) I'm not surprised, by the way, that you cannot find a credible physicist or engineer in support of your comic-book theory. I guess the entire community of scientists and engineers working in the field of applied physics have lost their "common sense", which is a shame since these are the guys designing our modern world.
edit on 14-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22

Patriots Question 911



Do you think it's OK for them to have Edna Cintron's name on their list ? I don't.

Do you think I should make up a list of names and claim they all support my beliefs on 911.

A lot of those people don't know their names are on that list.

A lot of those people do not support the truth movement.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Want to make that a more coherent post? I'll then try to answer.


Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Bilk22

Patriots Question 911



Do you think it's OK for them to have Edna Cintron's name on their list ? I don't.

Do you think I should make up a list of names and claim they all support my beliefs on 911.

A lot of those people don't know their names are on that list.

A lot of those people do not support the truth movement.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 



In addition highway lightpoles are designed to break off when struck


Okay, reaching for straws I think, but that would require a whole new set of studies and theories and hypothesizing.... but I guess you do what you need to do to keep polishing this.... well, you know, "official story".



I suppose this is "faked" too.....


Transpo's "Double Neck" Pole-Safe® breakaway support system is designed for poles located within roadside clear zones and other locations vulnerable to vehicular impacts. The primary component of the system is a high-strength coupling, designed to break away quickly and cleanly upon impact, thus saving lives and reducing property damage. Pole-Safe® couplings are omni-directional, meaning the system breaks away with consistent, predictable behavior, regardless of the vehicle's angle of impact.


www.transpo.com...

Lightpoles are designed to break away when struck by a automobile

What do think they will do when hit by an aircraft weighing 250.000 lbs going 500+ mph.......



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


I've noticed that every single one of your posts to this web site are to the 911 forum. Not even one to another forum. Now I know some people are obsessed, but I cannot fathom how someone can cruise this web site and never see another topic that somehow compels them to contribute. No I cannot. Care to explain this anomaly? Do you have an agenda other than trying to fully understand this horrendous event?

Also, let's be clear, I have never suggested that something didn't hit the towers and Pentagon or that people didn't die. I know for a fact people did die as there were literally hundreds from my community that perished on that horrible day.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Research papers and hypotheses and computer-generated models are nice, but I prefer the real world and to trust my own eyes and common sense.... and here's a sample of the real world for ya....





Do you have any videos where the telephone poles survive the impact ?

Both of them were cut like a hot knife through butter in this video.


Those telephone poles were made out of WOOD. And they were SHATTERED, not "cut like a hot knife through butter".

The video makes a mockery of loonyasparagus' "scientific" paper. Why not just fess up?

It also presents a serious problem for your plane at the Pentagon that allegedly kept flying another 300 YARDS without touching a blade of grass after shearing off 5 METAL poles..

So which turd will you continue polishing? Unfortunately you'll have to pick one.
edit on 14-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

You've done terrific work here, Simon. You've refuted all of Dr. Wierzbicki's published scientific research on this topic with one YouTube video, making a "mockery" of him. And even though the plane crash shown in your video is not remotely similar to what happened at the WTC, it does have Joan Baez singing in the background which makes up for whatever relevance it lacks. Wierzbicki's article doesn't even HAVE a soundtrack, much less a protest song--just a bunch of boring numbers and equations.

Wierzbicki (and his colleagues) should be fired from MIT and formally censured by the greater physics community for publishing such obviously fallacious research. I'm amazed it slipped by the editors of those prestigious peer-reviewed journals which published him. Do they not have eyes? Do they not have any common sense? Do they not appreciate the angelic voice of Joan Baez?

Wierzbicki's contact info can be found here. You should send him that video--teach him a thing or two.

You know--I think I read that Galileo once tried to pull a similar stunt, that is, trying to publish research which flew straight into the face of common sense. At least back then they had men in power with enough balls to punish those who perpetrated such crimes against intelligence.

edit on 14-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Show us specifically where Wierzbicki proved in a laboratory that hollow aluminum wings can slice through steel beams equivalent to those on the perimeter of the towers without even slowing down or leaving any trace of them behind to rain down on the street below. Also show us where he proved in a laboratory that those same hollow wings that had enough mass to slice those steel beams like a hot knife through butter were lacking enough mass to put a very noticeable imprint in those concrete walls of the Pentagon. If you can do that, I'll deal with it and formulate a response.

In the meantime, chew on this for awhile....
We Have Some Holes In The Plane Stories

www.911hoax.com...

What 911 Should Have Looked Like

nomoregames.net...


You looking for evidence? You don't even have to link offsite.

I don't know if you're aware of this or not but recently I've basically PROVEN by using the Naudet 'Fireman's Video' no less, that NO 767 AIRPLANE WING made the right wing "gash" on the North Tower hit. (See my avatar pic for the short version, and some of my most recent posts for a longer one, or just wait for the thread I'm writing up which will include an extensive explanation, video, and at least 3 more larger animated gifs.)

I think my avatar pic says it all... but briefly, if you examine the Naudet first strike hit very very closely, you'll notice something very very strange, indeed IMPOSSIBLE. (As far as the "official story" is concerned.)

And that is that the right wing tip damage is very clearly seen on the building face PRIOR to any damage by the right engine. The right engine, being closer to the nose of the plane than the right wing tip, as wings are angled back etc., would've reached the building face FIRST. But it doesn't.

This Proves that no "wing" made that right 'wing gash' on the North Tower.


Cheers
edit on 14-6-2012 by NWOwned because: sentence structure



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


Its....sad funny that you mention a man whose last recorded words were speaking of the structural instability and pending collapse of at least part of the Tower he was in.....



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
How about we do a test, like that done by Mythbusters?:





I have written to the New Mexico Tech Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center, inquiring as to the cost of a simple test. I don’t know whether or not they allow me to conduct my own Mythbuster’s investigation, but judging by the flurry of search engine activity they’ve already been very keen to investigate me. This video was filmed at their facility.




youtu.be...

If Mythbusters can do it, why can't we?



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein
How about we do a test, like that done by Mythbusters?:


I have written to the New Mexico Tech Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center, inquiring as to the cost of a simple test. I don’t know whether or not they allow me to conduct my own Mythbuster’s investigation, but judging by the flurry of search engine activity they’ve already been very keen to investigate me. This video was filmed at their facility.




youtu.be...

If Mythbusters can do it, why can't we?

That's a pretty cool vid. Not sure how it applies to 9/11 though. A car is not a box column. I read the article which, typically, makes some authoritative sounding assertions but with no attempt at backing-up any of them with reference data.


"Regardless what we saw on the 9/11 T.V. planes cannot slice through steel buildings like that in the real world. That sort of thing only happens in the Movies, but still the vast majority of the country believes it was real."

Really? How does he know this? He doesn't. He's using his no-planer "common sense"and nothing that actually involves real physics.

I'm still wondering why, if the aircraft damage to the WTC was so obviously impossible, there are no credible experts disputing it. It's not even debated among professionals in the field.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 81  82  83    85  86  87 >>

log in

join