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 Varemia
It has something to do with any object that reaches a certain velocity will be able to pass through any other object. Now, the condition of the impacting object isn't very favorable.
Something about mass x velocity squared... says that the faster something goes the more kinetic energy it has to impart on another object. Since the planes were going 400-500 mph, and they did have a lot of mass, while the aluminum would no doubt be shredded, it would certainly damage anything it came into contact with.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by DIDtm
It has something to do with any object that reaches a certain velocity will be able to pass through any other object. Now, the condition of the impacting object isn't very favorable.
Something about mass x velocity squared... says that the faster something goes the more kinetic energy it has to impart on another object. Since the planes were going 400-500 mph, and they did have a lot of mass, while the aluminum would no doubt be shredded, it would certainly damage anything it came into contact with.
Most of us would agree that planes are flimsy things, as Marcus Icke points out: “Computer simulation and mathematical analysis of the impact by MIT, University of Purdue and others indicate that upon impact the wings of the 767 would have shattered and the fuel ignited outside the towers facade, the aircraft would have lost about 25% percent of its kinetic energy on impact and that the tail fin would have sheared off due to torsional forces. In layman’s terms this means that the aeroplane would have decelerated sharply [emphasis added] crumpled up and exploded against the tower’s wall with only heavy objects like the engines and undercarriage puncturing the towers facade. The entire airframe would not have glided through the outer wall and would not have left a large hole roughly the same shape and size of a Boeing 767-200.” Icke’s accompanying photos support his analysis by showing a MD80 landing hard, with its air frame bending and tail breaking off.
Originally posted by Varemia
I'm pretty sure we all can agree that the planes didn't impact a steel wall. They impacted and flew through a material known as glass, wrenching steel out from its bolts, not cutting steel. It's not very difficult to comprehend.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK
So you are willing to stand in a thin steel mesh while I fire a large aluminum can at 500 mph? I highly doubt that it would be a safe situation. Steel may be harder than aluminum, but force does not just dissipate because it is steel.
A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow
The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn't a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won't publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by DIDtm
Your "off-topic" link to 'nomoregames.com' was more enlightening than you think.
Since, that site's statements and "conclusions" are ghastly inept, and quite laughable.
@OP: Even IF you can find some indication of "explosions" at around the seventh floor.....still won't explain the very obvious progression of the collapse...in other words, a "blow out" that is alleged to have occured down lower would have been quite evident, as the portion between "those" floors, and the impact zone floors, would have shown signs of failure BEFORE the cascading, and accumulating, weight of the debris from on top reached it....TOP DOWN, all the way.