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 Yankenstein
reply to post by waypastvne
The crash test is the way to go.
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 ?
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.
Originally posted by Yankenstein
The engineering will all be part of the budget. .
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.
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?
Originally posted by Yankenstein
We all saw on the TeeVee that it survived decelerating against steel just fine;
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.
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.
Please link the results of the physical experiments, I am aware of the mathematical models created by MIT and Purdue.
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.
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?
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
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?
The wing did not survive the impact with the tower. You know that. I thought you wanted to talk seriously. My mistake.
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.
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.
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.