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.

 

We need a real experiment

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I am just baffled to see so much heated debates about this and that.I wont take any stand but i ask that to end this would you guys and i mean everyone want a real live demonstration of a lets say remote controlled Boeing 767 type of plane being slammed to a lets say wtc like towers and see whether it falls down or not.?

now this can only happen if any nation state govt approves it which it would never happen as it wont want the same horrors repeated even no life are at stake.

SO just imagine that
a) what would happen if the plane is guided lets say to a twin tower and it dosent falls down.what would skeptics say?

b)if the tower falls down what would truthers say?
discuss


I think the only option is for some game dev to make a computer simulation and not take the 9\11 event in its physics engine and then see what happens.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by greenjuice]

[edit on 21-6-2008 by greenjuice]

[edit on 21-6-2008 by greenjuice]

[edit on 21-6-2008 by greenjuice]




posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
You would not have to use a real building or a real airliner.
They make pretty good jet engines for radio control model planes that will run them over three hundred miles an hour.
Just build a radio controlled plane with two engines, then build a scale model building in proportion to the model plane.
I would bet on the building not coming down, not without some high explosives thrown in.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   
This kind of relates:


Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer and forensics expert, contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings that skyscrapers could not be designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner.

Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers.

He also questioned the makeup of the society's investigation team. On the team were the wife of the trade center's structural engineer and a representative of the buildings' original design team.

"I call this moral corruption," said Astaneh-Asl, who is on the faculty at the University of California, Berkeley.


www.911truth.org...


The article was originally from the Associated Press, but it seems Yahoo and Google at least have already "yoinked" this one from their caches, so I had to resort to a "truth" website. There was an ATS thread on it not too long ago.

The structural engineer in question actually modeled (or tried to model) the collapses for years, before coming out in this article. He was part of FEMA's BPAT team.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Does he show his work?

Thank you
:TY:



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Alright, you pay for the buildings, ground, workers, and the planes to do the test. I think the US people will be even more angry because it is just a waste of money to rebuild and destroy again. No offense to your post though.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Does he show his work?


He may have, but as far as I know he's shown no more or less than NIST, FEMA, or the ASCE have. On the other hand, like I said, he did work with FEMA on their WTC report, and has received grants along these lines for research.

You can email him and ask him about it if you want (his university email address). I've emailed him in the past and he's actually responded with honest answers.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Yes people would be pissed for what that would cost, and all the varibles that would go with it, would make it impoosible 2 compare, unless they built a exact Wtc and didit all over again, right!
I have done some much cheaper experiments, i once worked in a place that had a woodfired pizza oven that was super hot, it cooked pizza in 2 minutes or less.Anyway i would sometimes put a fork or spoon in there for a while until it got red hot, i put some weight on it 2 see if it was soft, they never went soft or bent, and these were little pieces of steel of some sort.So when you think of this massive building with 8 tonne steel beams in a fire, u cant imagine that it would do much, hay not much of a comparsion, but my 2 cents.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by john_locke78
 


First off, I agree that doing an physical recreation of the event would really anger some. The tax-payers and the ones who lost family members or friends most of all. Not to mention having to let it sit around for 30 years before actually doing the experiment.

Just a really big experiment to solve what essentially is a pissing match between two sides.

Though the good part is that it would create some more jobs and maybe do something for the economy...


john_locke78, do you have an idea of how hot your oven is? It's an interesting experiment for sure.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Thanks mate. The oven was hot enough that if you put ur hand in there for 2-3 seconds that would hurt, and you'd have to pull out,it would have been good if we had a thermonitor that would go the temperatures requied.we also had a wood fired grill that had six 45 pound steel plates, we would get the fire so hot the steel(or some other metal, he said it was special for a fire) would get red, than white hot,no soft metal there, they cooked great steaks though. I heard flames cannot go past 600-700degrees celcius, thats nearly double in fareheiht, an object can only be heated to the same temperature as the flame, i sure someone on this site knows the correct answers.At the end of the day in 10 years of cooking i have never seen no metals soften or melt, due to any heat, so if the food industry can make metal objects that dont give way to fire, than i sure building and construction industry has mastered it.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by john_locke78]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Where are pictures of big fire balls.
Right after 9/11 I went to the drug store and bought all the special issue magazines that were produced to cover the event.
If you are an average person and that was what you had as a reference of what 9/11 was, you would accept that there were tremendous hot fires.
If you watch the videos, what strikes you is how fast the fire went away.
As soon as the fuel went out the windows, it immediately went straight up.
That only took a few seconds.
What was left was only isolated bits of flame that could not have done any structural damage.
Something happened to those buildings that had nothing to do with the fires.
The fire was just a cover for what really damaged the buildings.
There were three main explosions.
One, right when the plane hit, then, 1 1/2 sec. later, then one right before it started to collapse.



[edit on 22-6-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
The tax-payers and the ones who lost family members or friends most of all.


Actually a lot of family members would probably be for it.

The ones that refused to accept the money from congress and want to know the truth about what happened that day.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Though it would solve a lot of questions, it's still kind of a slap in the face for the families. They lost loved ones and are trying to move on, so dredging up 9/11 again would anger most of them. It's the whole "We don't think they should have died" mentality that goes with the experiments. They'll probably respond with "Really? Well they did die, so go shove it with your experiment".

Look at the trouble all of them had for the memorial that's being built. Even the new Freedom Towers had issues being sensitive to the families.

But if you think otherwise, then feel free to go contact them with the proposal of the experiment and see how many agree.

To me, it's a huge waste of material and manpower. Think of all the other things that could be built with the materials that would go to this experiment that would just end up getting destroyed.

If the towers don't fall, one side would say that it was because you couldn't get all the variables exactly alike. If the towers did fall, the other side would start back up with the experiment being rigged and explosives were used.

Unless it was documented very closely, it wouldn't really settle anything in the long run.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
A re-creation would be great to prove ones theory,one way or the other.
Or at least attempt to.
But id like to see an experiment where steel is melted by jet fuel and fire.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
It's a very interesting experiment , and I have also thought about it !

I guess it would be easier to reenact the pentagon attack then the WTC.
Just construct one side of the pentagon and voila !

But of course all that would be a tremendous waste of money.

Money that would be better spent in.......... Irak and Afghanistan.........


[edit on 23-6-2008 by Monte-Carlo]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
reply to post by john_locke78
 


First off, I agree that doing an physical recreation of the event would really anger some. The tax-payers and the ones who lost family members or friends most of all. Not to mention having to let it sit around for 30 years before actually doing the experiment.

Just a really big experiment to solve what essentially is a pissing match between two sides.

Though the good part is that it would create some more jobs and maybe do something for the economy...


john_locke78, do you have an idea of how hot your oven is? It's an interesting experiment for sure.


The CIA & FBI recreated the shoe bomber explosion on a life size jetliner on a tarmac. The video was used as evidence to PROVE a shoe bomb could actually destroy a plane.

I think that the precedent has been set, so why not follow up correctly for all cases?



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Interesting idea........ it would take some time do properly make a scale model of the plane that represented the same scale/ratio mass, velocity and materials. IMO, it'd take an even longer time to make a representative scale building, as you'd have to replicate the galvanic loss, thus having to make tiny steel members with tiny aluminum webbing, and allow for the galvanic action to take place. Better get started now, so we have an answer before TSHTF.

There is also, in my mind, a question of a smaller scale being equivocal in regard to explosive brisance. I've heard it questioned time and time again..... "how can fuel at X temperature cut steel?" Well, it's the speed of the explosion that is more critical than its inherent power. If I recall, a blast of 28,000 fps cuts steel. Now, curiously enough, you add aluminum to the equation, and that increases the brisance -- plus increasing the speed.

This is old school chemistry -- stuff I studied long, long time ago. I think it's definately possible to create smaller models of both the building and the plane, however I suspect that the plane will have to be larger than one would expect to account for the implosion factor of aluminum sheeting..... that is, a smaller, denser aluminum plane would be stronger per scale than a 1:1 ratio would suggest.

Cheers



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by smans
 


I don't know the full details of that, but I'm assuming that was just a shoe bomb on a decomissioned airplane. That is a relatively small-scale experiment compared to what's being proposed here.

Recreating 9/11 in real life would mean rebuilding the WTC complex and finding enough fully assembled decomissioned airplanes to support all theories. All of this must be done down to the last detail too.

That's a lot of man-power, money, and materials to burn just to prove one side or another... Good luck finding anyone willing to finance that.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Monte-Carlo
 


A postulate: You'd like to see jet fuel that melts steel. It doesn't have to MELT it, it has to cut it. Jet fuel alone will do no more than any uncontained explosive will, but consider an airplane...... a sealed tube, whose integrity is not compromised until than instant that it makes contact with the building. Even then, it's entirely possible, IMO, that the plane might collapse upon itself (all within microseconds, mind you), creating a sealed and compressed directional charge. It needs to reach perhaps 25,000 fps to cut the primary structural (possible already weakened) members, and dont forget to consider the added brisance by the aluminum.

Now, having said that...... do I believe that all is as it was portrayed with the 9/11 event? Well......no. I think the Pentagon was as represented. I think Flight 93 was shot down just prior to impact, having been directed to the ground by the heroic efforts of the folks on board. I'm on the fence a little about the Twin Towers. I can easily see how the pancake effect could happen with stressed, galvanically compromised structural members each failing in turn under the accelerating load.

I have no dog in this race. I just have to apply experience and logic to the situation. NOT trying to change anyone's mind.

Cheers

[edit on 23-6-2008 by argentus]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
You would not have to use a real building or a real airliner.
They make pretty good jet engines for radio control model planes that will run them over three hundred miles an hour.
Just build a radio controlled plane with two engines, then build a scale model building in proportion to the model plane.
I would bet on the building not coming down, not without some high explosives thrown in.


when you say scale model what scale? there is a severe problem with materials having different consistancies when applied in different quantities.

for example a 2000 pound jet flying 300 MPH will not have the same effect on steel and cement as an actual jumbo jet weighing 80,000 pound flying 500 MPH. the cement is the same but the forces are different.
even if the scale model building were 25% less than the actual building in size. if you use anysubstance that would react as cement and steel at the same level debunkers would have a field day.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
reply to post by Monte-Carlo
 

Even then, it's entirely possible, IMO, that the plane might collapse upon itself (all within microseconds, mind you), creating a sealed and compressed directional charge. It needs to reach perhaps 25,000 fps to cut the primary structural (possible already weakened) members, and dont forget to consider the added brisance by the aluminum.

out of curiosity how do you get 25,000 FPS? do you mean feet per second or foot pounds of force?
because feet persecond would have the plane traveling at nearly 5 miles a second. where as foot pound of force is logical.
if you could please enlighten me.

thanks
SNOW



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join