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: 87
13
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
My friend, one day your conscience will catch up with you. It's called karma.


Originally posted by samkent
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.

edit on 16-6-2012 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
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?



Maybe it's tough to compete with all that government funding.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein

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



Have your tap shoes ready.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned

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.



I don't see how there could be any problem with any results of this test, regardless which way it goes. It is designed to get to the truth, whatever it is.




And that is SO WHAT?



So what? The test can send the Truthers home or bring the Troops home. That's 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?



It is a valid test which will recreate the conditions to the best of our abilities.

I'm pretty sure no matter which way you slice it the plane wing section will lose. If the test is done multiple times, once with the wing on the sled, and once the columns on the sled all parties should be satisfied. I would be blown over if the wing slices the steel but I'll reluctantly go back to the drawing board.




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..."



Anyone who has researched 9/11 with an honest and open mind knows what is possible and what is not.




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



I don't rely on any authority to do my thinking for me.




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



Hey, how about we do a crash test to recreate the conditions so there will be no more speculation!



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.



I use the damage evidence to glean what could have caused it.



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?


I intend to not only prove what didn't cause it, but also what did.




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.



The test would prove what is and isn't possible. That should go a long way towards explaining what happened on 9/11. If it is impossible (it is), then the only way to explain footage like the Naudets' is fraud.




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


Solving 9/11 would immediately stop a few wars and make great strides towards solving world hunger by helping to stop world-wide corruption.

I am poor too, so this will require a public fundraiser, which in itself will help raise awareness whether or not the test actually occurs. I think it's a foregone conclusion that the government will not allow this test as it will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that what we saw on the TeeVee was fraudulent.



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."



They'll need it.




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.'



Okay



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Yankenstein

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



Have your tap shoes ready.


I thought you were trying to be serious. If you're really concerned the airfoil will cause the sled trouble, then we'll use sections from two wings so that they balance each other out.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
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?



It couldn't be because business, government, media, military and academia are all in on it, could it?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
While I'd hate to add anything to help answer this question against the light in which I believe the whole ordeal happened.

Tornadoes have put wood through sheet metal and other dense materials, and it's only the velocity that's the factor there.

Hurricanes can do similar damage as well.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Yankenstein

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



Have your tap shoes ready.


I thought you were trying to be serious. If you're really concerned the airfoil will cause the sled trouble, then we'll use sections from two wings so that they balance each other out.


That would work.

Now you have the problem of accelerating the mass of the water within reasonable g limits. You do want the wing to reach the columns in one piece. You will need a rail much longer than the one in your video and accelerate the wing in stages. Take a good look at the length of the dual rails the used on the f4 crash.




posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 





That would work.

Now you have the problem of accelerating the mass of the water within reasonable g limits. You do want the wing to reach the columns in one piece. You will need a rail much longer than the one in your video and accelerate the wing in stages. Take a good look at the length of the dual rails the used on the f4 crash.


I don't understand why you think the wing connection is so flimsy, the wings didn't snap-off when they impacted the steel columns at 550 MPH, they'd certainly be able to withstand acceleration against air.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
It's difficult to even conceptualize what went on with this event much less do it in practical terms we believe to exist each and every day of our lives. Yet my training and my reasoning are violated when considering the empirical evidence as a whole.

How could so many people be involved? I'm not sure they all needed to be or knew they actually were. Psyops relies upon that. Something happened on that day other than what we thought we saw. Of that I am positive. Theories as to why this happened or needed to happen or who caused it? That's the perplexing issue. Inside job? To what end? Build the military machine larger and create a state of dependance or needed protection from terrorism to reduce our reluctance to seeing drones flying over our homes? Perpetrated by an earthly government enemy yet covered up by our government in order to preserve the appearance they can still protect us? Or perpetrated by an other than earthy entity to either display the power they posses to send us a message of some sort?

All I do know it the official story doesn't hold water. It defies any reason if one is to separate their emotions from the event and it's intricate details.


Originally posted by Yankenstein

Originally posted by samkent

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?



It couldn't be because business, government, media, military and academia are all in on it, could it?

edit on 16-6-2012 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moneyisgodlifeisrented
While I'd hate to add anything to help answer this question against the light in which I believe the whole ordeal happened.

Tornadoes have put wood through sheet metal and other dense materials, and it's only the velocity that's the factor there.

Hurricanes can do similar damage as well.


Not so.


A hurricane can blow a straw through a tree.

This is an old wives’ tale.

Q: There are reports of straw and other debris penetrating cattle, trees and other solid objects during a tornado. Does this occur because of the wind speeds involved, or is there any truth to something I was told which is the “inside” of the tornado is a perfect vacuum that causes solid objects to basically “open up” or pull apart?

A: You’re correct, there are confirmed reports of straws penetrating trees or boards in tornadoes. Years ago some thought that tornado winds were fast enough to drive straws into trees, but measurements of tornado wind speeds have shown that they rarely approach 300 mph. The air pressure inside a tornado is lower than the surrounding pressure, but is far from a perfect vacuum. The most generally accepted theory about what happens is that the winds bend trees or boards enough to open up the grains, a straw flies in and the tree straightens up when the tornado moves on. (12-29-96) Source

For what it’s worth, the popular Mythbusters T.V. show “busted” this old wives’ tale.


yankee451.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22
It's difficult to even conceptualize what went on with this event much less do it in practical terms we believe to exist each and every day of our lives. Yet my training and my reasoning are violated when considering the empirical evidence as a whole.

How could so many people be involved? I'm not sure they all needed to be or knew they actually were. Psyops relies upon that. Something happened on that day other than what we thought we saw. Of that I am positive. Theories as to why this happened or needed to happen or who caused it? That's the perplexing issue. Inside job? To what end? Build the military machine larger and create a state of dependance or needed protection from terrorism to reduce our reluctance to seeing drones flying over our homes? Perpetrated by an earthly government enemy yet covered up by our government in order to preserve the appearance they can still protect us? Or perpetrated by an other than earthy entity to either display the power they posses to send us a message of some sort?

All I do know it the official story doesn't hold water. It defies any reason if one is to separate their emotions from the event and it's intricate details.




The easiest explanation is that the people in government, media and academia are just as fooled as the rest of us.

This test will bypass all the second-guessing people do about 9/11. What we saw on TeeVee was impossible, implications be damned.

To what end is a good question, but it can't be answered in the context of 9/11 alone. My interpretation of the motives are corruption, criminal insanity and slavery.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein

I don't understand why you think the wing connection is so flimsy, the wings didn't snap-off when they impacted the steel columns at 550 MPH, they'd certainly be able to withstand acceleration against air.


The rocket sled in your video accelerated at 1117 G's

Do you honestly think they design wings for 1117 G's in the longitudinal axis and only 6 G's in the vertical axis.

.2 G's is the average longitudinal G's for a full power take off.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Yankenstein

I don't understand why you think the wing connection is so flimsy, the wings didn't snap-off when they impacted the steel columns at 550 MPH, they'd certainly be able to withstand acceleration against air.


The rocket sled in your video accelerated at 1117 G's

Do you honestly think they design wings for 1117 G's in the longitudinal axis and only 6 G's in the vertical axis.

.2 G's is the average longitudinal G's for a full power take off.


Again, I don't know why you're so concerned. If the wings didn't snap-off on impact, they won't snap-off on takeoff.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein

Again, I don't know why you're so concerned. If the wings didn't snap-off on impact, they won't snap-off on takeoff.


This way I get to tell you "I Told You So"



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Do you honestly believe the collisions of the planes with the various structures involved, would not create debris fields eccentric of the point of impact? What's your agenda here?

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Yankenstein

I don't understand why you think the wing connection is so flimsy, the wings didn't snap-off when they impacted the steel columns at 550 MPH, they'd certainly be able to withstand acceleration against air.


The rocket sled in your video accelerated at 1117 G's

Do you honestly think they design wings for 1117 G's in the longitudinal axis and only 6 G's in the vertical axis.

.2 G's is the average longitudinal G's for a full power take off.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 




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.

Because the north tower was hit . on. The debris could not travel through the core and out the other side.

The south tower was hit at an angle. The debris only had to travel through the office space and out the connecting wall. A much shorter distance and almost no core to deal with.

Your lack of web searching is why you believe in this conspiracy. No laws of physics were broken.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein

Originally posted by Moneyisgodlifeisrented
While I'd hate to add anything to help answer this question against the light in which I believe the whole ordeal happened.

Tornadoes have put wood through sheet metal and other dense materials, and it's only the velocity that's the factor there.

Hurricanes can do similar damage as well.


Not so.


A hurricane can blow a straw through a tree.

This is an old wives’ tale.

Q: There are reports of straw and other debris penetrating cattle, trees and other solid objects during a tornado. Does this occur because of the wind speeds involved, or is there any truth to something I was told which is the “inside” of the tornado is a perfect vacuum that causes solid objects to basically “open up” or pull apart?

A: You’re correct, there are confirmed reports of straws penetrating trees or boards in tornadoes. Years ago some thought that tornado winds were fast enough to drive straws into trees, but measurements of tornado wind speeds have shown that they rarely approach 300 mph. The air pressure inside a tornado is lower than the surrounding pressure, but is far from a perfect vacuum. The most generally accepted theory about what happens is that the winds bend trees or boards enough to open up the grains, a straw flies in and the tree straightens up when the tornado moves on. (12-29-96) Source

For what it’s worth, the popular Mythbusters T.V. show “busted” this old wives’ tale.


yankee451.com...

Then explain this.

Record imbedded in tree
About 2/3s the way down the page.

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



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Maybe you should tell that to those who conducted the Purdue modelling. Their modelling shows the debris from the impact ejecting through the other side of the building. The south tower plane hit at an angle pointing directly at the core. Try again.



Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Bilk22
 




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.

Because the north tower was hit . on. The debris could not travel through the core and out the other side.

The south tower was hit at an angle. The debris only had to travel through the office space and out the connecting wall. A much shorter distance and almost no core to deal with.

Your lack of web searching is why you believe in this conspiracy. No laws of physics were broken.




posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I mainly meant tornadoes

And said Hurricanes can do SIMILAR Damage.

I dunno about a straw with hurricane, but a tornado can. I wanted to be a storm chaser when I grew up, but had kids beforehand, so don't talk to me about my passions, mother nature is far more powerful than us humans.
edit on 16-6-2012 by Moneyisgodlifeisrented because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join