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.

 

9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

page: 24
7
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



1. Photo of aluminum airframe shredded by trees at pretty slow speed. At high speeds mean more destruction to the airframe.


Once again coke can and velocity. Not listening to me again are you?



2. Well at least you agreed the wings did not go through the outter walls.


They penetrated and their parts continued on. Just not intacts as a recognizable wing.



3. Please post photos of the beginnig of the video showing the plane head on being shredded as it comes through the outter wall.


And how pray tell am I to post pictures of something that did not happen on that video? I can't draw anywhere near as good as they can otherwise I might fake it for you.

So which is it?
Liars or fools?
Stop avoiding the question.

Or perhaps we should agree to disagree and drop this?

[edit on 2-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]




posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 07:32 AM
link   
i am a structural firefighter by trade and i have worked with structural steel for 6 years. the flash point of diesel fuel is 120 degrees fahrenheit and has an incendiary temperature of... at a maximum of 623F that 2000 degrees give or take, shy of the melting point of steel (the minimum temps for structural steel are down around 2500F but can get up to 4500F thats something nobody tells you...) however i am not one sided in my argument the cumulative temperatures considering the class A combustibles could have easily reached temperatures in INXS (get it) of 1800 degrees F. class A combustibles put out approximately 70000 btu's an hour which is by far insufficient to reach melting points for structural steel in a tens of thousands of square foot enclosed (even though they were open air, but that just further proves my point) environments. thats all i really know ... and i AM a source i dont need one



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 07:34 AM
link   
sorry please send any arguments to turnupthehype@yahoo.com i dont have time to check this form regularly



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Once again coke can and velocity. Not listening to me again are you?

They penetrated and their parts continued on. Just not intacts as a recognizable wing.

And how pray tell am I to post pictures of something that did not happen on that video? I can't draw anywhere near as good as they can otherwise I might fake it for you.


1. You have to look at the materials the airframe is made of and not just velocity.

2. If you look at the photos of the hole in the buildings you will see the wings barely making it into the builidngs and ends of the wings did not even make it into the buildings.

3. The first few minuites of the video shows a head on of the plane being shredded as it enters the building. I guess you did not see the video from the 1:40 mark on.


[edit on 2-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Well for 1 an aluminum airframe would not survive going through the steel outter walls.



Apparently you are treating the plane as if every square inch of it hit the wall on impact. As you can clearly see in the Purdue model, the nose of the fuselage (and then subsequently the leading edges of the wings) disintegrate as they punch through the external wall. BUT, the fuselage and trailing edges of the wings are then able to pass through the holes that have already been created by the front areas of the plane at impact.

So it is absolutely wrong to state the entire airframe could not survive past the outer walls.

And it is the trailing portions of the airframe, passing through the impact passages, that would be able to go further into the building and produce structural damage in the core area. We have actually discussed this same thing on Pentagon threads. This is why on the Pentagon crash you would tend to find the rear occupants of the plane most likely further into the building than the front occupants.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
As you can clearly see in the Purdue model, the nose of the fuselage (and then subsequently the leading edges of the wings) disintegrate as they punch through the external wall.


Yes, showing that very little of the airframe actaully made it past the outter walls intact. So the pieces that were elft would not cause a lot of damage, specailly in the South tower where the plane went in at an angle through the side of the building.

As for the Pentagon i still need more evindece of how an aluminum airframe is going to punch a hole through reinforced concrete wall (with kevlar), several reinforced collumns and the interior walls and out the other side.





[edit on 2-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Yes, showing that very little of the airframe actaully made it past the outter walls intact. So the pieces that were elft would not cause a lot of damage, specailly in the South tower where the plane went in at an angle through the side of the building.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]


No, it doesn't show "very little of the airframe" making it past the outter wall. It shows the greater length of the plane making it through. I'm not sure why you're trying to miscontrue the video the way you are. You can clearly see it. The plane is over 150 feet long for pete's sake. That's a 150 feet of cargo hold, cabin contents, mechanical systems, landing gear, engine components, etc. still trying to move forward at about 500 mph.

If your position is that the plane couldn't cause enough damage to cause the resultant collapse, fine. But don't start trying to prove that point by making statements that are physically unsound and from a technical standpoint, ridiculous. There was nothing in the way at the plane created by the outer wall of the building for almost 150 feet of that airframe...hence it was free to move further inward and cause damage to more inward structures.

The question is not whether the greater part of the plane made it into the building. Now, a legitimate question is how much kinetic energy did the surviving plane and its components and contents have once they got inside the building. One would need to review Purdue's impact energy calculations to see what measure of kinetic energy loss they applied. I would think this is where one would want to start in vetting the accuracy of the Purdue model. And by the way, that statement doesn't mean I think they didn't do it right, I'm stating that as if I was going to be a doubter (as you apparently are) I would start there.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
No, it doesn't show "very little of the airframe" making it past the outter wall. It shows the greater length of the plane making it through.

But don't start trying to prove that point by making statements that are physically unsound and from a technical standpoint, ridiculous. .


1. So you can quote how long the plane is. Ok then how far is it between the outter wall and the inner core ?

Becasue if you are stating the whole airframe survived, the tail would have been sticking out of the building when the front section hit the core.

2. I am stating facts i know from having a background in avaiiton, not just from an animation.






[edit on 2-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 2-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   
*couch*
can anyone please close this...



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Since it has been stated to me by some on this site, I will repeat it. Being a crew chief/maintenance tech, does not make one qualified in all aspects of aviation. Not an insult, not a slam, but if it applies to me with my background in aviation/helping with crash investigations, then it applies to all of us.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

1. So you can quote how long the plane is. Ok then how far is it between the outter wall and the inner core ?

Becasue if you are stating the whole airframe survived, the tail would have been sticking out of the building when the front section hit the core.

2. I am stating facts i know from having a background in avaiiton, not just from an animation.



I'm not saying "the whole airframe survived". There you go making extreme statements again. I think it is the extreme statements I took issue with in the first place. You said


Well for 1 an aluminum airframe would not survive going through the steel outter walls.


And all I was trying to do was point out the wrongness of that extreme statement. Now you're swinging my comments to the opposite extreme.

And what does it matter if the tail was still sticking out of the building when surviving components hit the core? I'm not sure how that changes anything at all. Can you explain why that would be of any importance?

I believe the distance from the outside wall to the core would have been right at 60 feet.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Since it has been stated to me by some on this site, I will repeat it. Being a crew chief/maintenance tech, does not make one qualified in all aspects of aviation.


Not all aspects (though crew chiefs are trained on all areas of an aircraft) but it does help with knowledge and resources.


Originally posted by Valhall
And what does it matter if the tail was still sticking out of the building when surviving components hit the core? I'm not sure how that changes anything at all. Can you explain why that would be of any importance?


Do you see any photos or videos of the tail sticking out of the building ?

So you are saying that a 150 feet airframe fit into 60 feet ?

I am trying to understand what you saying.





[edit on 2-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Kind of what I think too.....but some on here don't think that over 20 years in aviation (especially taking them apart and putting them back together after the stick actuators in the cockpit break them) means that you know anything.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 2-2-2008 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
(stick actuators in the cockpit break them)


LOL,, i have not heard the phrase stick actuator for a while.

It used to be so easy to mess with the pilots, pilots usually only know what the instruments tell them most of them do not know much about the real workings of the aircraft.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Do you see any photos or videos of the tail sticking out of the building ?

So you are saying that a 150 feet airframe fit into 60 feet ?

I am trying to understand what you saying.



Why would the tail be sticking out of the building??? Just because the leading edge of the remaining fuselage impacted the core section doesn't mean the plane just stopped. If it was going to do that it would have bounced off the building wall like Wiley Coyote! It kept going and continued to disintegrate due to the impact with the core columns. So the fuselage is being chewed away as it travels on through the building impacting columns.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Why would the tail be sticking out of the building???

Just because the leading edge of the remaining fuselage impacted the core section doesn't mean the plane just stopped.


Becasue there is not enough room for the tail section to be inside the building if the whole airframe survived the impact.

So where did the 150 feet of airframe go if it did not stop at the core ? It did not come out the other side of the building did it ?

Come on guys make up your minds what happend to the airframe. Did it survive or was it shredded, it cannot be both ?




[edit on 2-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Valhall
Why would the tail be sticking out of the building???

Just because the leading edge of the remaining fuselage impacted the core section doesn't mean the plane just stopped.


Becasue there is not enough room for the tail section to be inside the building if the whole airframe survived the impact.

So where did the 150 feet of airframe go if it did not stop at the core ? It did not come out the other side of the building did it ?

Come on guys make up your minds what happend to the airframe. Did it survive or was it shredded, it cannot be both ?


GEEZE LOUISE, ULTIMA! This is not that hard to understand. IT DID BOTH! I've said it already. The fuselage was destroyed from the front backward as the remaining leading edge impacted obstacles. So...the nose and some portion back from that was destroyed in the initial impact at the outer wall. So was the leading edge of the wings (and shortly after that probably the rest of the wings due to the explosion). As the remaining plane structure went into the building the new leading edge of that remaining structure would also have been destroyed each time it impacted a new obstacle. The Purdue model shows this.

No - we don't have to try to shove 6 pounds of plane in a 5 pound bag because when the remaining leading edge of the plane struck the central cores it was destroyed and the overall length of the remaining plane continued to do 2 things: get shorter! and continue forward.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


No I am not seeing what did not happen.

Ok.

Just thought of something as well. An impact with the ground is vastly diffferent than a impact with well a wall a fair ways into the air.


So.
Fools or liars?
And Ultima the words "Arguing for the sake of argument" comes to mind.

And.....


Come on guys make up your minds what happend to the airframe. Did it survive or was it shredded, it cannot be both ?


LoL!
If this picture doesn't speak louder than words for the second time I am thinking I am not going to bother to continue this because your just being hard headed.






And me being human I naturally find repeating myself endlessly to be frusterating.
But doesn't make you right. Just makes you frusterating.





[edit on 2-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

[edit on 2-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Makes you high velocity impact physics experts by proxy?
Wow I need to get into that line of work.
Especially considering all you need is a high school diploma to get into aircraft maintenance with some time in technical school or military training but they more or less send you to a technical school albeit a military one.
Not meaning your stupid by any means.
But I find it to be a rather out there to assume what you are assuming.



[edit on 2-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1



Problem is if you look at the plans for the elevators, ony 1 freight elevator went from the upper floors all the way down to basement sub-level 6.

No passenger elevator want from the upper floors to the sub basement.


Not really a problem, as many elevators shared the same shafts. Several shafts went from the top to the bottom.

(There was also one passenger car that went top to bottom in each tower, to serve the Windows of the World restaurant in the North Tower, and the observation deck in the South tower. [paraphrasing from the book 102 minutes, p.75])



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join