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: 86
13
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein
reply to post by waypastvne
 


The crash test is the way to go.



Do you intend to put any liquid in your test wing to simulate fuel ?

You also seem to think the steel thickness was 3/8" at impact point . Is that the thickness you intend to use in your test ?




posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Yankenstein
reply to post by waypastvne
 


The crash test is the way to go.



Do you intend to put any liquid in your test wing to simulate fuel ?

You also seem to think the steel thickness was 3/8" at impact point . Is that the thickness you intend to use in your test ?


Shucks, and I thought you read my post.

I'm still scraping up the money to launch the website, but I have received a phone call from Jim Fetzer who claimed he was interested but I'm doubtful, several emails from the AE9/11T folk against it with some revealing quotations therein, and enthusiastic support from Morgan Reynolds. Simon Shack and Phil Jayhan hate me so I'm pretty sure they won't join in but once I get the site launched I'll be able to devote more attention to it.

The url will be 911crashtest.org.





For ten years I’ve been fixated on the question of how it was possible for two jets to wipe-out 7 buildings. In order to move past 9/11 and get-on with trying to figure out what I want to be when I grow-up, I would like to do a simple test; a test to recreate the conditions on 9/11 when a relatively thin-skinned aluminum aircraft, traveling at about 550 MPH collided with dozens of ¼-inch thick steel box-columns, each one 14 inches square, set 39 inches apart on center.

The New Mexico Tech Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center has the facilities in place for just this sort of testing. The popular show Mythbusters has used it so it appears to be something one can rent if one has the means to do so. Below is a link to a Mythbusters episode wherein they cut a car in half with a two-ton steel “plow”:



I would like to do a test similar to the above video. In place of the steel plow I would like to use an 8-foot section of the strongest part of the wing of a 767 obtained from a scrapyard. Using that part which is between the fuselage and the engine, I would simply disconnect the wing from the fuselage, and cut off enough for the test. I would seal the fuel tank and fill it with enough water to compensate for the fuel weight; then using the same connections that once connected the wing to the fuselage; I would then connect it to the rocket sled.

In place of the car, manufacture and place a 6-8 foot section of a box-column panel to the same specifications as the World Trade Center, as shown below. Place it on its side so the box columns are horizontal, such that the vertically placed wing-section will strike the three columns at right-angles to simulate the wings striking the buildings on 9/11. If the wing section doesn’t shatter against the steel columns I will apologize to all my family and friends for being such an OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Dick), hang up my “Truther” shingle, and get back to farming.

yankee451.com...

edit on 15-6-2012 by Yankenstein because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankenstein
 


You are defiantly going to have some problems setting the wing at the proper angle of attack to achieve a neutral force on the rocket sled. In other words the lift generated by the wing will want to tip the rocket sled over. That is a lot of surface area you are dealing with.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


The engineering will all be part of the budget. Using the part that connects to the fuselage should provide enough strength. The rocket stages might need to be slower so it doesn't start too fast and rip the wing off, but for the most part it should be plenty strong to withstand the launch torque. Besides, it cut a building in half, of course it'll be strong enough.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein


The engineering will all be part of the budget. .


Beyond structural problems of accelerating the mass without destroying the wing, you have some serious aerodynamic problems. Believe or not I really really do design aircraft for a living. Placing the wing vertical on a single track is a really bad idea your chances of success are very slim. The wing will never make it to the box columns.

Aerodynamics is all about balancing forces and that is what you need to do. I would mount the wing horizontal at about 2 deg negative angle of attack. The wing is tapered so you would need to calculate the area and center it over the track. (the wing would be slightly off center.). If the wing doesn't make it to the box columns you wasted your money.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Yankenstein


The engineering will all be part of the budget. .


Beyond structural problems of accelerating the mass without destroying the wing, you have some serious aerodynamic problems. Believe or not I really really do design aircraft for a living. Placing the wing vertical on a single track is a really bad idea your chances of success are very slim. The wing will never make it to the box columns.

Aerodynamics is all about balancing forces and that is what you need to do. I would mount the wing horizontal at about 2 deg negative angle of attack. The wing is tapered so you would need to calculate the area and center it over the track. (the wing would be slightly off center.). If the wing doesn't make it to the box columns you wasted your money.


Why would I be concerned it would be damaged by acceleration? I don't understand, you are saying it's strong enough to slice the steel, why wouldn't it be strong enough to withstand acceleration? We all saw on the TeeVee that it survived decelerating against steel just fine; Purdue even made a video about it, it sliced the plate steel. Surely a simple 6-8 foot section of the strongest part of the wing would survive. It would be wider than tall at that height.

Having it placed vertically on the sled similarly to the way they did on the Mythbusters video would ensure the sled won't take flight and it will facilitate filling the fuel tank with water to compensate for fuel.

The engineering hurdles are nothing compared to the testing they do on a regular basis at NM Tech.

I welcome your comments though, I want the test to be done transparently so there will be no doubt from all parties.

edit on 16-6-2012 by Yankenstein because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Nah, no more guessing for me. The crash test is the way to go.

Think of it, we could put an end to all this Truther BS, we could finally pull the country together to prosecute the War on Terror properly.

Once the wing cuts the steel columns in half, it's an immediate victory for truth. I for one will hang up my Truther hat and apologize to everyone.

Of course, if the wing shatters against the steel, then all the troops need to come home and we need to start trying our military and political leaders for crimes against humanity while we begin paying reparations to the victims.

Who's with me?


Hey Yankee, I remember your long thread from a few years ago, I'll have to reread that. Also I was checking out your site.

There is one problem I can immediately see possibly emerging from this test if the wing does happen to cut the steel.

And that is SO WHAT?

That will then only prove that such a thing is possible and not necessarily, that therefore, that explains both 'plane-shaped' holes in both towers? Right? Like even if the wing cuts the steel you can't then give up, for that doesn't mean that's what happened on 9/11. You follow?

Many people have speculated on what that blurry blob in the sky was on the Naudet first hit. It could be a small plane. It could be a missile. It could be inserted CGI. It could be a hologram. Me, I don't care what it is. I don't care if it's a small plane. I don't care if it's a missile. I don't care if it's CGI. I don't care if it's a hologram. I don't care if it's the Colonel's Secret Recipe.

I'm not concerned or speculating on that.

What I noticed in the 9/11 threads is you got Group 1 who say like: "The jet impacted and the fuel went down the elevator shafts..." and then you got Group 2 who say like: "Sir Isaac Newton thinks you're all out of your minds..."

So it's back and forth speculating, one from authority, the other from a position of disbelief.

Many people have speculated on what may have made the right wing gash on the North Tower in the Naudet clip. Some think it's explosives. Some perhaps think it's thermite. Richard D. Hall speculated on it being an energy beam weapon in his latest video etc. Me, I don't care what made it. I don't care if it was explosives. I don't care if it was thermite. I don't care if it was a beam weapon. I don't care if it was a group of BASE jumping ninja garden gnomes with ice picks.

I'm not concerned or speculating on that.

I think people who speculate without providing evidence are wasting theirs and everyone else's time.

Me I'm into Negative Evidence, but make no mistake, it's Real Evidence.

And it is this:

I don't care what the flying blurry blob is or what actually made the right wing gash shape on the Naudet North Tower hit. I just know with absolute certainty (by using frames from the Naudet Video which simply PROVES it) that that right wing gash WAS NOT MADE by the wing of a 767 AIRCRAFT.

Now I don't know if you agree with me on that or not or whether you've explored my argument and reasoning, which I personally feel is obvious, concrete and irrefutable (Based on evidence from the video itself - coupled with the design of a 767's actual right wing.) but you see what I'm saying above right?

Just because a wing can cut steel like in your experiment (If hypothetically it does - remains to be seen) don't you still have the problem then of whether that was what actually happened on 9/11 or not? Because I'll tell you right now, you can do the experiment and cut steel all day with your wing experiment and film it 1000 different ways. But there's NO WAY you'll get me to agree that the right wing tip gash on the North Tower Naudet Video hit was done with the right wing of an actual 767 because the Naudet Video clearly shows that that is not the case.

Just know, though I am a poor working man I support your experiment and even thought myself if I had enough money I would do the same. Forget world hunger and the big C, some things need to be gotten to the bottom of! lol

So, to recap, IMO, someone needs to step up and show me how a 767 right wing can make the sequenced damage pattern that appears on the Naudet Video that I have previously outlined in my most recent posts.

To that I say "Good Luck."

For frankly, I don't know for sure if the wing will cut the steel but what I do know for sure is that right wing gash on the North Tower was not made by the wing of a 767 airliner. And I can prove it. With 'evidence.'

I hope you will think over and address the point that I make concerning the results of your experiment.



Cheers
edit on 16-6-2012 by NWOwned because: context



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein

We all saw on the TeeVee that it survived decelerating against steel just fine;


The wing did not survive the impact with the tower. You know that. I thought you wanted to talk seriously. My mistake.




Having it placed vertically on the sled similarly to the way they did on the Mythbusters video would ensure the sled won't take flight and it will facilitate filling the fuel tank with water to compensate for fuel.



You have an unbalanced system, the airfoil will generate lift on one side. You need something to balance that force. By attaching the sled to single rail you won't have enough leverage to balance this force. every thing I've seen shot down that rail is aerodynamically balanced

.You can try to balance it by making your best guess and giving the wing a negitave angle of attack. Good luck, I wouldn't try it,

Any unknown or unbalanced forces should be applied in the vertical axis, not the lateral axis.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein

Physics doesn't lie, but people do and photos can be altered. What is physically possible is what this test is about.

Did you look at the articles I posted earlier? People lie and research can be faulty, but the point of publishing research in peer-reviewed journals is so that any research presented can be subjected to the scrutiny of other researchers and professionals in the field. As far as I know, the research by Wierzbicki and others who have reached similar conclusions regarding the aircraft impacts at the WTC has yet to be challenged, at least in regard to the shearing of the outer columns.
Find the articles HERE



Please link the results of the physical experiments, I am aware of the mathematical models created by MIT and Purdue.

Simulation and Validation of Structural Models
September 11 WTC Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna
Fluid-Structure Interaction Using Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH)

Or, if you really want to do some reading try THIS:
Abstract:

On efficient modeling of high-velocity fluid solid impact by Brachmann, Ingo, Ph.D., Purdue University, 2008 , 347 pages; Abstract (Summary)
Estimating damage that can be caused by aircraft impact is important in proportioning or retrofitting certain building structures. Simulating an aircraft impact on a structure requires expensive modeling and computational efforts.

This study investigates if an aircraft model assembled using simplified geometry and an approximate mass distribution will lead to calculated damage those for an "exact" model. Reliability of models assembled using Ls-Dyna 3D was tested against a series of seven fluid-structure impact tests and for an F4 Phantom aircraft impacting a concrete block. Impact studies of the two F4 aircraft models, a detailed and a simple model, on a deformable structure were conducted for various initial aircraft speeds.

The applicability of a simple model representing a commercial aircraft impacting a structure was then tested for the case of the attack on the World Trade Center. Calculated column damages in the façade and interior column core of the WTC building model were compared for two Boeing 767 aircraft models differing in their complexity. A sensitivity study of the structural damage to variations in the initial aircraft attitudes was also conducted. Results of this study have shown that a simple aircraft model is able to cause equal damage to a structure as an "exact" model by requiring less labor and computational time.


edit on 16-6-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
There seems to be a good number of scientific studies and reports covering the impacts. These reports have numbers, calculations and name on them.

Where are the studies and reports from those who says planes could not have caused the damage?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Here's another mythbusters rocket sled with a direct bering on the topic.

If you jump to 3:00 they show the remains of a 1 inch thick plate steel. Which is larger than what theWTC had.
The speed they measured was 650 mph. Which is slightly above the reported Pentagon speed.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
There seems to be a good number of scientific studies and reports covering the impacts. These reports have numbers, calculations and name on them.

Where are the studies and reports from those who says planes could not have caused the damage?


You and a few others like to use "studies" as your foil. The Purdue study was flawed and they have yet to respond to the questions asked or provide the raw data used to conduct the modelling. There are studies, data and empirical evidence which proves the officially sanctioned reports wrong in every respect.

I'm not sure what your purpose or that of the other two posters is here. One wonders if you responded to an add that said you can earn extra money from your computer. You and the others only seem to post to the 911 threads and as debunkers of those seeking the truth. That sir is easily verifiable from searching your posts.
edit on 16-6-2012 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 





Did you look at the articles I posted earlier? People lie and research can be faulty, but the point of publishing research in peer-reviewed journals is so that any research presented can be subjected to the scrutiny of other researchers and professionals in the field. As far as I know, the research by Wierzbicki and others who have reached similar conclusions regarding the aircraft impacts at the WTC has yet to be challenged, at least in regard to the shearing of the outer columns. Find the articles


You constantly cite the Purdue study yet it was shown to be flawed. Hoffman and Popescu have not responded to why their modelling was flawed and did not provide the raw data they utilized to develop it. When directly questioned by Ace Backer they gave no direct answers and deflected the questions. It's a shame, bought and paid for with US tax dollars. It's a disgrace and so are you and the others that sit at your monitors day after day posting their garbage as evidence. You should all be very ashamed.
edit on 16-6-2012 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


So you're saying the jet wing will cut through the steel?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
There seems to be a good number of scientific studies and reports covering the impacts. These reports have numbers, calculations and name on them.

Where are the studies and reports from those who says planes could not have caused the damage?


None of the studies I have seen succeeded in proving the planes could have caused the damage. To what are you referring?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 


Great. "Simulations"

I know! Let's take a real section of a jet wing and slam it into some box columns built to the WTC specs all the way down the the grade of the steel.

You should be excited to see such a test. All we no-planers will shut up.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 






The wing did not survive the impact with the tower. You know that. I thought you wanted to talk seriously. My mistake.



If I was interested in talking seriously with serious people I wouldn't be here.

According to Purdue it went right through and didn't begin to disintegrate until after it already severed the exterior columns.

www.youtube.com...

MIT and NIST also claimed the same. I think you know what will happen with the test. The wing will shatter and the steel will be deformed but not "sliced".



You have an unbalanced system, the airfoil will generate lift on one side. You need something to balance that force. By attaching the sled to single rail you won't have enough leverage to balance this force. every thing I've seen shot down that rail is aerodynamically balanced

.You can try to balance it by making your best guess and giving the wing a negitave angle of attack. Good luck, I wouldn't try it,

Any unknown or unbalanced forces should be applied in the vertical axis, not the lateral axis.



It's a rocket on a monorail. It will be fine.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 




You and a few others like to use "studies" as your foil. The Purdue study was flawed and they have yet to respond to the questions asked or provide the raw data used to conduct the modelling. There are studies, data and empirical evidence which proves the officially sanctioned reports wrong in every respect.

And yet I have never seen one study from the other side. Not one.
Why is that?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 





You and the others only seem to post to the 911 threads and as debunkers of those seeking the truth. That sir is easily verifiable from searching your posts.

Not true!
I respond to other stupid conspiracies on here you just didn't look hard enough.
Just like you don't look hard enough into the physics of high speed impacts.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankenstein
 


The Purdue study shows the residual impact material being ejected through the opposite side of the structure which was what occurred in the south tower, but they have yet to respond to questions as to why that didn't occur with the north tower collision. The impact material ejected through the southern facade in the north tower collision. They cannot explain it because it violates the laws of physics and they know it.

Additionally their graphic modelling shows the floor assembly magically reassembling after being severed by the aluminum wing sections. They're able to override the program modelling dynamics, but would never admit to such. When questioned by Ace Baker on this very issue, you could see it in their face, they knew they were caught playing games.

This whole thing is disgusting.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join