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.

 

Thermate, C4, Micro Nukes Prove 911 Was and Inside/Outside Job

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


The exterior columns broke at the joints because the joints were the weakest points, but the aircraft was capable of cutting the columns.




posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The exterior columns broke at the joints because the joints were the weakest points, but the aircraft was capable of cutting the columns.

The aluminum shell would not have cut any of the columns, period. The engines and landing gear maybe. But I keep forgetting that you know more than the hundreds of architects, engineers, scientists and physicists researching 9/11.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

BoneZ,
This may help you. Scientists and engineers have studied this problem. These folks from MIT show that there was more than enough energy available to cut steel columns. Please note that the structure of a commercial airplane wing is only covered in thin aluminum and is exceptionally strong. Note that the calculation was not for a joint failure but for a complete shear.
The full paper should be available at any university school of engineering library should you wish to see the details. Copyright laws prevent me from posting the paper or sending it to you.


From the International Journal of Impact Engineering; abstract below.

Titre du document / Document title
How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
WIERZBICKI T. (1) ; TENG X. (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Department of Ocean Engineering, Impact & Crashworthiness Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 5-218 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139-4307, ETATS-UNIS

Résumé / Abstract
The problem of the airplane wing cutting through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center is treated analytically. The exterior columns are thin-walled box beam made of high strength steel. The complex structure of the airplane is lumped into another box, but it has been found that the equivalent thickness of the box is an order of magnitude larger than the column thickness. The problem can be then modeled as an impact of a rigid mass traveling with the velocity of 240 m/s into a hollow box-like vertical member. The deformation and failure process is very local and is broken into three phases: shearing of the impacting flange; tearing of side webs; and tensile fracture of the rear flange. Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column. It was also found that the energy absorbed by plastic deformation and fracture of the ill-fated column is only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing.
Revue / Journal Title
International journal of impact engineering ISSN 0734-743X CODEN IJIED4
Source / Source
2003, vol. 28, no6, pp. 601-625 [25 page(s) (article)] (25 ref.)
Langue / Language
Anglais

Editeur / Publisher
Elsevier Science, Oxford, ROYAUME-UNI (1983) (Revue



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


It's about time! Thank you.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

BoneZ,
This may help you. Scientists and engineers have studied this problem. These folks from MIT show that there was more than enough energy available to cut steel columns. Please note that the structure of a commercial airplane wing is only covered in thin aluminum and is exceptionally strong. Note that the calculation was not for a joint failure but for a complete shear.
The full paper should be available at any university school of engineering library should you wish to see the details. Copyright laws prevent me from posting the paper or sending it to you.


From the International Journal of Impact Engineering; abstract below.

Titre du document / Document title
How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
WIERZBICKI T. (1) ; TENG X. (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Department of Ocean Engineering, Impact & Crashworthiness Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 5-218 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139-4307, ETATS-UNIS

Résumé / Abstract
The problem of the airplane wing cutting through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center is treated analytically. The exterior columns are thin-walled box beam made of high strength steel. The complex structure of the airplane is lumped into another box, but it has been found that the equivalent thickness of the box is an order of magnitude larger than the column thickness. The problem can be then modeled as an impact of a rigid mass traveling with the velocity of 240 m/s into a hollow box-like vertical member. The deformation and failure process is very local and is broken into three phases: shearing of the impacting flange; tearing of side webs; and tensile fracture of the rear flange. Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column. It was also found that the energy absorbed by plastic deformation and fracture of the ill-fated column is only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing.
Revue / Journal Title
International journal of impact engineering ISSN 0734-743X CODEN IJIED4
Source / Source
2003, vol. 28, no6, pp. 601-625 [25 page(s) (article)] (25 ref.)
Langue / Language
Anglais

Editeur / Publisher
Elsevier Science, Oxford, ROYAUME-UNI (1983) (Revue



The wingspan of the alleged plane covered 5 to 6 floors.

Each wing would therefore have had to hit 2 concrete floors with trusses that butted
in to what appears to be 3 - 4 feet wide steel plates. Not columns.

Is it not a bit dishonest and disingenuous omitting this fact?

Is there any good reason why this fact was not taken into consideration when these
people did their calculations?

According to the quote above only the perimeter columns seems to be considered!!

Did they assume that the columns and the floors + trusses + steel plating offered
equal resistance?

[edit on 11-2-2009 by djeminy]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy
Each wing would therefore have had to hit 2 concrete floors with trusses that butted in to what appears to be 3 - 4 feet wide steel plates. Not columns.


And what would you expect from this?

No-one is questioning whether the wings were damaged during entry, just that they could enter the building.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by YourForever

Originally posted by djeminy
Each wing would therefore have had to hit 2 concrete floors with trusses that butted in to what appears to be 3 - 4 feet wide steel plates. Not columns.




No-one is questioning whether the wings were damaged during entry, just that they could enter the building.


So why are you mentioning this then??

would you like me to ask the same questions again!

If so, why do you want me to do that??

If not, why not just inform me that you have no desire to answer them??

Indeed, very odd reply of yours!



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Then I will be more clear...


Originally posted by djeminy
Is there any good reason why this fact was not taken into consideration when these
people did their calculations?


Because it is irrelevant. Two concrete floors and their steel pans is not going to stop a 767 wing @ 450 mph. It may severely damage the wing, but it will not stop the mass from entering the building. I can't imagine how you believe that.

Now you can answer my question.


[edit on 11/2/09 by YourForever]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by YourForever
Then I will be more clear...


Originally posted by djeminy
Is there any good reason why this fact was not taken into consideration when these
people did their calculations?


Because it is irrelevant. Two concrete floors and their steel pans is not going to stop a 767 wing @ 450 mph. It may severely damage the wing, but it will not stop the mass from entering the building. I can't imagine how you believe that.

Now you can answer my question.


[edit on 11/2/09 by YourForever]



What question is that??

I don't see any!!

[edit on 11-2-2009 by djeminy]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy
Each wing would therefore have had to hit 2 concrete floors with trusses that butted in to what appears to be 3 - 4 feet wide steel plates. Not columns.


And what would you expect from this?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
These folks from MIT show that there was more than enough energy available to cut steel columns.

Then them folks at MIT don't know what the hell they're doing. This is what a wing looks like after a large bird hits it:



So are you gonna sit there and tell me that a steel column is softer than a bird and will allow this wing to cut the column in half? You have got to be kidding me.

Aluminum is soft and will tear/rip apart against the steel column, just as it will a bird. The steel column will be bent, but it most certainly will not become cut in half.

I bet any amount of money that if MIT were to get a wing from an aircraft junk yard and test it to see if it will sever a steel column, they will be sorely disappointed. This is what happens when places like MIT spew out numbers instead of doing actual tests.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Not that this BS makes any difference in massive tritium, massive craters, wilting spires, and massive heat. A bird collision where the mass of the bird would hit at its speed plus the velocity of the plane. Thanks for the bird pic it certainly shows the damage that can be done to metal by a soft bird. It illustrates mass x velocity = energy. It shows that its not the what hits, its the velocity of the hit and illustrates the point quite clearly.

He, Larry, Us,

DrEd



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


The photo of a bird strike on a small aircraft is very interesting. Remember that the wings of the commercial aircraft have to lift 500,000 pounds and are not sheet aluminum wrapped around a structural foam core. The main spars are strong and massive.
If you look at the closeups of the impact, you will see columns sheared at the joints and a few sheared between the joints. If you would like to prove those guys at MIT wrong, you should publish a paper refuting their claims with calculations of your own.
If you really want to see what high speed aluminum can do, look at a few railgun shots on you tube.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by EdWardMD
 


I see you continue to ignore my other posts in this thread, including this one:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Reminds me of the BYU crew, ignores anything that doesn't fit their BS. Believe what you want to believe, since it certainly apppears your only interest is to promote BS. The facts/evidence are referenced and proven, unlike the 'no need' BS. The evidence states there is CLEARLY A NEED to support ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. Massive craters, massive heat, wilting spires, massive spectrum of cancers - hiroshima effect, massive reduction in debris pile, BILLIONS of Tritium Units, 2 BILLION pounds of instant micronized building, and alot more. Done with your BYU BS.

DrEd

[edit on 11-2-2009 by EdWardMD]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by EdWardMD
 


I told you I would have looked at your evidence, had you not insulted the entire 9/11 truth movement including first responders and victims families that are a part of or support the 9/11 truth movement.

And you should quit calling yourself doctor, unless you like the term Dr. Evil. You should also get some professionalism. You expect people to take you seriously when you insult or talk to people the way you do? Not a chance.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


ROFL, gotta love BYU scumbags. Amazing isn't it. The BYU crew had a movement going. But, somehow after it came to power and was making to much progress, it mysteriously fell apart? And why? ghost airliners. The BYU crew suddenly self destructed over complete insignificant BS. It meant nothing to the overall picture, but it miraculously managed to destroy the movement. It amazed me until they started lying about the proven referenced nuke facts. Then it all fit. Textbook CIA control the 'revolution' scam. Gotta love these lying accesories to murder in the name of God. Just my opinion based on the facts. Got no facts? Try BS personal attacks.

DrEd


[edit on 11-2-2009 by EdWardMD]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
knowing what I know about the government testings, look at the very first nuke tests in Nevada, they did hundreds of experiments per blast to get the most data on a wide range of activities. I believe that the WTC builds were demolition and the gov't wanted to test new methods of "take down" power for the military. It wouldn't surprise me if the major agencies of the US govt were all ionvolved, AEC, FEMA, CIA, NSA, NASA, FBI, etc. They just sat back and like watching a fireworks show, took their data and then denied everything else. How many people died so far? Someone must take responsibility for this. (sound's familiar?) There is WAY too much evidence proving a "fals-Flag" OP. think about it, first 9/11, now a socialist president. What's next, another Socialist country, USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika). God help us all! see prophetpower.com



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by YourForever


Originally posted by djeminy
Each wing would therefore have had to hit 2 concrete floors with trusses that butted in to what appears to be 3 - 4 feet wide steel plates. Not columns.


And what would you expect from this?



Answer the questions in my post and your silly question above would be answered
that way.

You're a funny guy, yourforever!



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by EdWardMD
Thanks for the bird pic it certainly shows the damage that can be done to metal by a soft bird. It illustrates mass x velocity = energy. It shows that its not the what hits, its the velocity of the hit and illustrates the point quite clearly.

He, Larry, Us,

DrEd


Metal is a very broad term Ed, you should know that. You should also know how soft and light aluminium is, they make coke cans from it. The fuselage of an airplane is millimeters thick. You know how thick the steel facade of those towers were too.

Again, I suggest you think about this some more, seriously.

Newton's Third Law says it matters not which object is in motion - the tower hit the plane, the plane hit the tower. It makes no difference, what so ever. The outcome will be the same. There are no exceptions to this law.

Now look at that picture of the bird in the wing and ask yourself, what if that bird was made of steel? Or what if it were just one of those 50 ton steel sections of the outerwall.

What would you expect to happen if a 50 ton piece of steel hit a stationary plane at 500mph?

I look forward to hearing your answer. Please have a good think about it.

Best regards,

Insol..





Flight 93, where is your plane debris?



[edit on 12-2-2009 by Insolubrious]




top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join