Car disentigrates against bridge

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Wow one of the craziest wrecks I've seen. Got to be a trip driving down the road and witnessing this




posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
There was still bits of the car chassis scattered on the road, correct me if I'm wrong but that wasn't the case with the pentagon crash?



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by TheGreatest
 


there were pieces of the car left over, its just smaller and scattered around the place. exactly like the pentagon, just because people dont recognise what they are looking at and the photos are from a distance they say there is no wreckage when there is.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





Where is the evidence a plane can penetrate steel? If it was steel foil then yes, but massive 4" thick box columns?

Think kamikaze. Wooden planes through steel decks.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I liked the part where the bridge collapses in its own footprint



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by ANOK
 





Where is the evidence a plane can penetrate steel? If it was steel foil then yes, but massive 4" thick box columns?

Think kamikaze. Wooden planes through steel decks.


LOL
wooden planes steel decks

It was decided then that pilots would purposely crash their planes — with half a ton of explosives — into American warships.

www.u-s-history.com...

Whaddya know?
an untruther
think with your brain not your A44
edit on 28-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 





Whaddya know?
an untruther
think with your brain not your A44

There cases of unexploded bombs below decks. Learn your history.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
This recent one in Russia on the M-7 is just as bad.



The M-7 is a deadly bit of road
edit on 3/28/12 by Cyprex because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Danbones
 





Whaddya know?
an untruther
think with your brain not your A44

There cases of unexploded bombs below decks. Learn your history.


its history I just showed you lying by ommision


edit on 28-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
Let's not exaggerate. Those "massive 4" thick box columns" were hollow, the walls averaging .37 inches in thickness.




The box columns had at least 4" thick walls at the impact points, four of them arranged in a box configuration. (they were 6" nearer the bottom, as they tapered in size, and had an extra steel plate in the center of the box)

That means the plane went through two 4" thick steel plates, and two 4" thick steel plates side on. There were 47 of those columns.

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

Core column at the bottom...



A little further up, they lose the middle plate and increase thickness from 5" to 6"...



And the top...



Where are you getting 0.37 from?

No exaggeration, just facts.

edit on 3/28/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

Think kamikaze. Wooden planes through steel decks.


LOL more OSer nonsense.

Kamikaze planes were loaded with bombs and torpedoes.

Wooden planes can not go though steel decks mate.

If you understood physics you would know that.



Kamikaze aircraft were essentially pilot-guided explosive missiles, purpose-built or converted from conventional aircraft, without the ability to deliver torpedoes or bombs or attack other aircraft, or even to land. Pilots would attempt to crash their aircraft into enemy ships in what was called a "Body Attack" (体当たり; 体当り, taiatari) in planes laden with some combination of explosives, bombs, torpedoes and full fuel tanks; accuracy was much better than a conventional attack, and the payload larger.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
There cases of unexploded bombs below decks. Learn your history.


So what?

It doesn't mean it was the only bomb being carried by the Kamikaze plane.

All you are doing is proving you fail to understand the physics of colliding objects. Something really important to understand in order to understand why the OS can not be correct.

It has been painfully obvious over the years that OS supporters fail to understand basic physics.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
Let's not exaggerate. Those "massive 4" thick box columns" were hollow, the walls averaging .37 inches in thickness.




The box columns had at least 4" thick walls at the impact points, four of them arranged in a box configuration. (they were 6" nearer the bottom, as they tapered in size, and had an extra steel plate in the center of the box)

That means the plane went through two 4" thick steel plates, and two 4" thick steel plates side on. There were 47 of those columns.

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

Core column at the bottom...



A little further up, they lose the middle plate and increase thickness from 5" to 6"...



And the top...



Where are you getting 0.37 from?

No exaggeration, just facts.

edit on 3/28/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


I'm referring to the exterior perimeter columns, not the core columns.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


You mean parts like these ?


Yes, aircraft parts. But not from NYC.
The discussion was about the Pentagon.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


No kamikaze plane ever went through a steel deck but the bomb attached to the bellies didn't have any problem doing it.
Many US Navy ships in WW2 had wooden decks anyway.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Second post is of Pentagon aircraft parts

Get with the program........



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I wonder if a car from the 1950s hit the bridge in the same way at the same velocity if it would come apart like that.

psik



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

Regardless, at the their velocity, it seems the planes carried enough kinetic energy to easily sever the outer and some of the core columns.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

I'm referring to the exterior perimeter columns, not the core columns.


But you replied to my post, and I was referring to the core columns mate.

According to the OS the planes severed core columns, an impossibility. The planes could not still have enough energy to severe core columns after most of its energy was used punching through the outer walls.

(I'm not about to waste time arguing about the planes going through the outer mesh columns, even there you forget to add the thickness of both steel plates making up the mesh columns, so you need to double your figure.)

edit on 3/29/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by ANOK
 

Regardless, at the their velocity, it seems the planes carried enough kinetic energy to easily sever the outer and some of the core columns.


Again an OSer proves he doesn't understand physics, why am I not surprised?

Have you ever heard of Sir Issac Newton?


Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics.

en.wikipedia.org...

Ever heard of Newtons three laws of motion?

Ever heard the phrase 'equal and opposite reaction?


... in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the force on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

Do you understand what that means lunarasparagus? It means the force on the plane is EQUAL to the force on the buildings when they collided. What does that mean? It means the velocity of the plane is not the deciding factor. Mass is the deciding factor. The object with the most mass will be the least damaged.

Both the plane and the steel would experience the same kinetic energy, that force would be the same on the plane and the steel.

Now read this carefully....


Newton's third law of motion is naturally applied to collisions between two objects. In a collision between two objects, both objects experience forces that are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Such forces often cause one object to speed up (gain momentum) and the other object to slow down (lose momentum). According to Newton's third law, the forces on the two objects are equal in magnitude. While the forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, the accelerations of the objects are not necessarily equal in magnitude. In accord with Newton's second law of motion, the acceleration of an object is dependent upon both force and mass. Thus, if the colliding objects have unequal mass, they will have unequal accelerations as a result of the contact force that results during the collision.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

It's the unequal acceleration that causes the damage. The object with the most mass will decelerate more slowly than the smaller mass, which will stop a lot faster causing is to receive more damage.

You can test this for yourself here...

www.fearofphysics.com...

Try it and learn what happens when two objects collide.

edit on 3/29/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join