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.

# What are the 2-3 best introduction points that have to do with science?

page: 3
0
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:59 AM

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

Which means any object it hits also gives back an equal force of a 'BILLION joules'

And unless both objects are constructed exactly the same way, the reaction will be expressed differently for "both" objects.

Also, please note that simply labeling the Pentagon as "an object" and the plane as "an object" does not make the obsservation correct. Both were very complex constructions wherein millions if not billions of individual actions-reactions were taking place.

Agreed. Being complex constructions with multiple individual actions, I'm focusing on the lightweight wing tip. take the rest of the plane out of the equation. Now take just one beam, and take the rest of the building out of the equation.

It's a wing vs a steel beam. At any speed, that wing will be disintegrated by the beam, because the density of the material is the deciding factor in this case. Even if that beam is bolted to other beams, the wing doesn't contain enough mass and density of material to maintain its integrity long enough to dislodge the beam from its bolts. The wing would shatter before the momentum could be fully transferred to the beam.

I use a steel sledge hammer to break up concrete. If all I needed to use was an aluminum sledge hammer, just swing it harder and faster, I'd do it...that steel sledge is pretty heavy.

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:14 PM

Water can cut steel if you accelerate it to a fast enough velocity. Are you saying that Newton's second law doesn't apply? Water is MUCH softer than aluminum, and yet, it can cut steel.

And you could take that same velocity with the same amount of water and only cause a little rust if you don't apply the right pressure. That is akin to increasing the density of the water. This is a disingenuous argument. We're not talking about water, we're talking about lightweight aircraft aluminum sheeting colliding with steel columns.

At the BASE of the tower, correct. I am sure you've been told this numerous times but the only thing that had to fail for the plane to enter the WTC, is the connections. Which, just FYI, is the WEAKEST point of the structure.

The connections which were already holding up the weight of the tower above them and all it's alleged contents and occupants for decades? The photos of the debris pile don't support catastrophic collapse of joints, or pancaking, but they do support the use of explosives.

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:25 PM
reply to post by Yankee451

All it took was enough force to shear the bolts or welds holding the columns in place - that is the weakest point
of the system

Dont; have to penetrate or destroy the column, simply break the connections between it and its neighbors

The broken columns can then be pushed out of the way

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:36 PM

You cannot SEE an "equal and opposite reaction" because it is occuring INSIDE the building due to the velocity. I calculated that the entire plane entered the building in about 2/10th of 1 second at that speeds. Can any video camera detect any type of deceleration or any other measurable difference in 6 frames? Not likely. In fact, I have pointed this out to Jim Fetzer NUMEROUS times. Please show your math showing that it would be impossible. Remember, the jet has a cumulative KE of over a BILLION joules.

I don't need the math of the velocity to know aluminum doesn't trump steel.

Here's a video for any laypeople out there who would like to understand without the confusion introduced by folks arguing the math. Remember the old wives' tale about the straw punching through the oak tree in a hurricane? That is impossible for the same reason 911 is impossible. The density of the straw makes penetration of the far more dense tree trunk impossible.

The next time you're on a commercial airliner, look at the wing and compare it to the size of the steel in this video. No math required:

www.youtube.com...

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:38 PM

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Yankee451

All it took was enough force to shear the bolts or welds holding the columns in place - that is the weakest point
of the system

Dont; have to penetrate or destroy the column, simply break the connections between it and its neighbors

The broken columns can then be pushed out of the way

And I repeat, the wing didn't contain enough mass or density to transfer it's momentum to the column before it would have been shattered. Perhaps the engines and landing gear could, but not the wings.

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343

So, all it takes is momentum in your world? Density of material doesn't enter into the equation, like the straw through the oak tree?

Get in at the ground floor! Aluminum bullet manufacturing!

I bet I could make an aluminum bullet that works. Hell, we have car crushing water!

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Yankee451

And you could take that same velocity with the same amount of water and only cause a little rust if you don't apply the right pressure. That is akin to increasing the density of the water. This is a disingenuous argument. We're not talking about water, we're talking about lightweight aircraft aluminum sheeting colliding with steel columns.

You seem to forget what is under that lightweight aircraft aluminum sheeting.

Also, I highly doubt that the very tips of the aircraft did much damage to the WTC, if any at all.

Oh wait, it didn't. That's right. The impact hole is not an exact cutout of the aircraft. Imagine that

Originally posted by Yankee451
The connections which were already holding up the weight of the tower above them and all it's alleged contents and occupants for decades?

Yes, are there other connection that deal with the structural integrity of the building that I am not aware of? Phone connections do not apply.

Originally posted by Yankee451

The photos of the debris pile don't support catastrophic collapse of joints, or pancaking, but they do support the use of explosives.

The meteorite does.

So does this.

Do you see the arrows? What do they point to? Does this look like a stress failure? Or does this look like an explosive cut?

Also, since you claim the debris has signs of an explosive cut, please show them here.

I would love to see them.

edit on 6-3-2011 by FDNY343 because: Fix HTML codes

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 02:18 PM
reply to post by FDNY343

And I repeat, the wing didn't contain enough mass or density to transfer it's momentum to the column before it would have been shattered. Perhaps the engines and landing gear could, but not the wings[/ex

The section from the fuselage to the engines is one of the strongest parts of an aircraft. It has to support
the engines which weigh several tons each and generate tremendous power. Also the fuel tanks are in the wings - tens of thousands of pound of fuel have to be contained. To accomplisg this are ribs and spars
made of heavy gauge solid aluminium

Add that mass of fuel and have a very effective battering ram.....

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 02:22 PM
reply to post by Yankee451

It's a wing vs a steel beam.

Nope, it was a point load vs. a connection. The connections lost. That is all.

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 02:37 PM

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451

It's a wing vs a steel beam.

Nope, it was a point load vs. a connection. The connections lost. That is all.

A 4 foot high spandrel backed up by the edge of a 4 inch thick concrete slab perpendicular to the spandrel was a CONNECTION?

ROFL

psik

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 04:42 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451

It's a wing vs a steel beam.

Nope, it was a point load vs. a connection. The connections lost. That is all.

A 4 foot high spandrel backed up by the edge of a 4 inch thick concrete slab perpendicular to the spandrel was a CONNECTION?

ROFL

psik

Yep, just a connection. That's what failed. That's what the load found and destroyed.

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 06:15 PM

edit on 6-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: duplicate post

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:13 PM
reply to post by thedman

The steel exterior columns were 1/4 in thick. The beams were held togather by spandrel plates which were bolted and welded to the columns.

Are you being deliberately misleading? The 1/4 steel was formed into a square tube...a tube made of 1/4 steel is much stronger than just the 1/4 steel it's made from. The spandrel plates were holding up the floors, which would have provided lateral support to any horizontal force striking the spandrel plate from the outside. The floor sections would transfer that force to the core columns, or to the exterior columns on the opposite side of the tower.

The plane did not so much cut the columns as to snap the welds and bolts connecting them together like a a picket fence. The broken columns were then pushed out of the way

With floors behind and above the columns, they had no room to "push out of the way", unless you're suggesting there were no floor sections, which is the only way your theory can be explained. Photos of spandrel plates with sheared bolts are expected in an implosion where the core collumns would be blown and the building would pull the outer sections in on itself.

Here is a diagram of the exterior sections damage. Note how even the wings on the outside of the engines cut through the exterior columns, not "pushed out of the way", it's a cartoon cut out of a plane:

killtown.911review.org...

Furthermore, our favorite Frenchmen caught the evidence of HOW the hole was made. Below is a link which shows the shaped charges cutting the hole after the alleged jet disappeared into the building and after the initial explosion. This is is also in September Clues, but the below link shows frame by frame shots of the cutting charges making the cartoon cutout.

letsrollforums.com...

edit on 6-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: typo

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:20 PM

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343

So, all it takes is momentum in your world? Density of material doesn't enter into the equation, like the straw through the oak tree?

Get in at the ground floor! Aluminum bullet manufacturing!

I bet I could make an aluminum bullet that works. Hell, we have car crushing water!

Go for aluminum sledge hammers too...I wonder why no one's thought of this before?

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343

So, all it takes is momentum in your world? Density of material doesn't enter into the equation, like the straw through the oak tree?

Get in at the ground floor! Aluminum bullet manufacturing!

I bet I could make an aluminum bullet that works. Hell, we have car crushing water!

Aluminum is too soft and deforms easily. Aluminum bullets are coming, they are the prefered medium in rail guns because they conduct electricity without being magnetic.

Go for aluminum sledge hammers too...I wonder why no one's thought of this before?

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:24 PM

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451

It's a wing vs a steel beam.

Nope, it was a point load vs. a connection. The connections lost. That is all.

For my hypothetical situation, we were talking just the wing tip and a 14 inch square tube of 1/4 thick structural steel. See my earlier post showing the damage allegedly caused by the wing on the outside of the engine. The mass, momentum and density of material of the wing CANNOT cut steel in the real world.

Charges cut the hole. The connections failed during demolition. That is all.

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:32 PM

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by FDNY343

The section from the fuselage to the engines is one of the strongest parts of an aircraft. It has to support
the engines which weigh several tons each and generate tremendous power. Also the fuel tanks are in the wings - tens of thousands of pound of fuel have to be contained. To accomplisg this are ribs and spars
made of heavy gauge solid aluminium

Add that mass of fuel and have a very effective battering ram.....

Again you're being misleading talking about the section of the wing between the fuselage and the engine, where I keep referring to the wing from the engine to the tip.

Heavy gauge solid aluminum wrapped in 1/8 thick aluminum foil is no match for even one 14" tube of 1/4 inch thick structural steel, not to mention many columns bolted and welded together with spandrel plates also made of 1/4 inch steel backed by all the lateral support of the floor system and the walls on the other side of the floor. Filled with fuel adds mass to the wing, but not density to the aluminum. Being filled with fuel, a real wing would have shattered on the face of the tower, and exploded on the side of impact, not on the opposite side.

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:47 PM
reply to post by Yankee451

Section of exterior wall dislodged from North Tower

Can see it was broken off at the connections

This was taken about 9:30 am - before collapse of South Tower buried the area......

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:50 PM
reply to post by thedman

Also notice the aircraft wheel embedded in the panel ......

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:58 PM

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by thedman

Also notice the aircraft wheel embedded in the panel ......

Bit confusing..Is that the entrance wall or the exit wall.??
BTW, I don't think anyone was arguing that certain parts of the plane would easily penetrate..
The wheels etc being such parts..

new topics

top topics

0