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.

 

Meteorite Crashes in Russia

page: 79
382
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireballStorm

Originally posted by piotrburz
I dont know if anyone has mentioned about it, but its weird that this asteroid had caused such damage.

I tried some calculations using this site:
impact.ese.ic.ac.uk...
And i tried various scenarios with different values that i gathered across the media news.
Diameter of russian asteroid was estimated to be around 3 to 15 m[at most!!!]
Velocity was estimated to be around 12,7[nasa data] to 30km/s[roskosmos data]
Density was unknown, but i tried calculations for 3000kg/m3 and 8000kg/m3[iron/nickel asteroid]
Impact angle tried from 25 to 60.
And distance from impact at 1m.

Even with a worst case scenario -15m diameter, 30km/s velocity, 8000kg/m3 density,60 degree impact angle, and distance from impact at 1m[standing on the ground perpendicular to airburst] only glass windows will shatter, but you can check from news that few building were destroyed by blast, so i guess it wasnt such weak.
And that's with the worst case scenario where asteroid is going 30km/s[usually its around 12-16km/s], impact angle is very steep[usually 45 degree], density is rarely such high.

Could it be that a true DA14 airbursted and only a very few remainings hit the ground?







No. As I explained a few posts back, the ground damage reported might not have occured had the impact angle been higher (it was around 18 deg.), which makes it more likely that an object would survive for longer, and cause an air burst closer to the ground. Try inputing 18 deg. instead, and don't forget the size estimates might still be out by a bit.


I already proven that the psi in this test was sufficient to easily destroy glass, even the weak buildings roof.
Check a few posts later i gave a link to overpressure estimates needed to destroy windows.

Another thing is, why nasa didnt target a big badass telescope at DA14, to show us some good photos, instead of that crappy webcam ones. Is it because tracking/angular/radial speed of badass telescopes are too low for such low and high speed object? Or because NASA didnt want to show us the asteroid...




posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I scanned the last few pages. I didn't see this before but this site has video of meteorite over Japan. Anyone see this?

snardfarker.ning.com...



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by zoomer72

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by zoomer72
 

Are you a structural engineer?
Can you explain how you come to that conclusion in bit more detail? Why do you conclude there would be no weak points anywhere in the roof structure which could lead to a localized failure?

edit on 2/15/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

No Phage im no engineer, but can you explain me why too much load would bring down one piece of the roof ?(especially the in the middle of it without taking the rest of the roof with it? if it was strain the whole roof would of come down) but that damage looks like something made a hole in the middle of the roof , no strain can do that...


Some roofs don't collapse all the way, nor the entire roof. Simply a weak point can cause a partial collapse:




posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by zoomer72

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by zoomer72
 

Are you a structural engineer?
Can you explain how you come to that conclusion in bit more detail? Why do you conclude there would be no weak points anywhere in the roof structure which could lead to a localized failure?

edit on 2/15/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

No Phage im no engineer, but can you explain me why too much load would bring down one piece of the roof ?(especially the in the middle of it without taking the rest of the roof with it? if it was strain the whole roof would of come down) but that damage looks like something made a hole in the middle of the roof , no strain can do that...


Some roofs don't collapse all the way, nor the entire roof. Simply a weak point can cause a partial collapse:



Yeah but in this case we are not talking about a dome or stadium? are we? atleast im not...
edit on 2/15/2013 by zoomer72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
reply to post by stopbeingnaive
 


Only stupid people make assumptions about paranoia when people question things that are questionable.

Only rude and ignorant people call those that question things that do not fit with statistics or scientific knowledge, paranoid.

Only gullible people believe everything the media tells them and discounts ANY other possible scenario just because their government or the media didn't tell them to think it.

Gullible...much?


Your fatuous comments that have littered this thread trying to turn nothing in to something are comical. I have yet to see anything questionable. Statistics or Scientific Knowledge? haha Your speculation hardly qualifies as such. Furthermore, you have yet to post either.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by zoomer72
 


No Phage im no engineer, but can you explain me why too much load would bring down one piece of the roof
Oh. I got the impression you were since you stated so definitively that it could not happen. As to why? As I said, a weak point anywhere in the roof structure.
edit on 2/15/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by zoomer72


Yeah but in this case we are not talking about a dome or stadium? are we? atleast im not...
edit on 2/15/2013 by zoomer72 because: (no reason given)


No, but you did say that there was no way that the Zinc factory's roof could only partially collapse, then you admitted that you are NOT a structural engineer, but that you still must be right......

why? Where is you supporting evidence that a structure MUST always collapse and that not just a single part of it can fail, making a partial collapse?



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Let's just acknowledge the lesson learned and move on....

Don't stand near windows after you see a huge burst of light outside!

/thread



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by karen61560
 


I questioned something questionable and was called paranoid for it, I called out the guy that called me paranoid.

You jumped on a criticizing bandwagon.

Furthermore, you DO NOT know the truth or the facts, you are just PRESUMING something that MSM told you and totally DISCOUNTED all other possibilities.

You cannot see that it is UNLIKELY that a perfect circle was made in the ice after impact, no jagged edges, no irregularities, and that the parallel contrails were IDENTICAL. This would mean the two rocks or two tail chunks were IDENTICAL, this is also UNLIKELY.




edit on 15-2-2013 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by stopbeingnaive
 


You are also presuming.

I questioned things that are questionable, that isn't an attempt at suggesting ''aliens'' or ''them'' nor is it an attempt at turning a thread into ''something else''.

Get real, there are some questionable things. If you cannot see that it is your loss.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Here this will make it easier.




posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
reply to post by karen61560
 


I questioned something questionable and was called paranoid for it, I called out the guy that called me paranoid.

You jumped on a criticizing bandwagon.

Furthermore, you DO NOT know the truth or the facts, you are just PRESUMING something that MSM told you and totally DISCOUNTED all other possibilities.

You cannot see that it is UNLIKELY that a perfect circle was made in the ice after impact, no jagged edges, no irregularities, and that the parallel contrails were IDENTICAL. This would mean the two rocks or two tail chunks were IDENTICAL, this is also UNLIKELY.




edit on 15-2-2013 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)


The meteor most likely claved towards the beginning of it's entry into the atmosphere, give 2 large chucks. It traveled for quite a ways, but the amount of energy building up as it compressed the air in front of it was finally too much for it and it exploded. Now instead of 2 large chucks providing 2 parallel smoke trails, we go back a single trail because we have a cluster mass.
Eventually this cluster's forward velocity slowed enough to where it no longer was being heated by friction, but was still many, many miles up in the atmosphere.....which was getting thicker the more it lost in altitude.
Eventually it's forward momentum would be lost and the debris start to fall vertically.

The circle in the ice was not made by the physical form nor the angle of impact by the meteorite......

It was made by the energy release upon impact.

I invite you to take a good look at the moon.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


You cannot see that it is UNLIKELY that a perfect circle was made in the ice after impact
While we don't know if the hole in the ice definitely was a result of the meteor, have a look at the Moon. A lot of circular craters there. But the thing is, as the fragments are slowed by atmospheric drag they would fall more and more vertically.


This would mean the two rocks or two tail chunks were IDENTICAL, this is also UNLIKELY.
Or that is was just one chuck which was streaming two tails of vapor.

But to clarify, are you implying that this was a hoax or that it wasn't a meteor?


Oh...what he said ^

edit on 2/15/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


Exactly, it could be many things.

Whichever it was we can be sure that MSM are calling it a meteorite that has the ability to make two identical parallel contrails and make nice neat shiny non jagged circles in ice and happen to hit the same Russian lake as other meteors and wreck no buildings but a zinc factory, damn intelligent meteor if you ask me.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 





Any physicist will tell you that the patterns on the smoke trails are unlikely, unless the two rocks or rock 'tails' were identical, which is also unlikely, also the perfect ice circle is unlikely.



wtf are you basing this off of? Are you a physics expert? or just pulling those "facts" out of your you know where? I am certain it's the latter.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by prophetboy12
 


Been hearing that crap for over 20 years now. The end is near, the end is near! Well the end must be an obese sloth, cuz it's slow as hell.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
reply to post by karen61560
 


I questioned something questionable and was called paranoid for it, I called out the guy that called me paranoid.

You jumped on a criticizing bandwagon.

Furthermore, you DO NOT know the truth or the facts, you are just PRESUMING something that MSM told you and totally DISCOUNTED all other possibilities.

You cannot see that it is UNLIKELY that a perfect circle was made in the ice after impact, no jagged edges, no irregularities, and that the parallel contrails were IDENTICAL. This would mean the two rocks or two tail chunks were IDENTICAL, this is also UNLIKELY.




edit on 15-2-2013 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)


I could get behind this line of thinking if the meteor hadn't ignited and exploded in the atmosphere. If had stayed intact and not ignited until it hit, then I'd expect to see a skidding effect or elliptical hole in the ice.

The force of the explosion, fracturing the meteor, could have cause some pieces to be forced down from the blast. The hole in the lake is only one of pieces that broke apart in this hit and entry into out atmosphere. I don't think it's outside common sense to imagine that blast sent hurtling pieces of rock in all directions, including down and up and every other direction. Hence the popping, as though hail was raining down from the skies.

Peace,
Cirque



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by zoomer72
 


No Phage im no engineer, but can you explain me why too much load would bring down one piece of the roof
Oh. I got the impression you were since you stated so definitively that it could not happen. As to why? As I said, a weak point anywhere in the roof structure.
edit on 2/15/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Maybe you should take a closer look how the roof or the whole building is constructed....
a strain would of caused the whole roof would to come down not just part of the roof ,if this was build as a dome or hall it would of come down but as you see in the pictures just the middle part of the roof is down and that just cant happen unless something comes through it at high velocity....
One really doesnt have to be a engineer to figure that out....
Ps .Your link wasnt from the russian factory today? aye

edit on 2/15/2013 by zoomer72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


You cannot see that it is UNLIKELY that a perfect circle was made in the ice after impact
While we don't know if the hole in the ice definitely was a result of the meteor, have a look at the Moon. A lot of circular craters there. But the thing is, as the fragments are slowed by atmospheric drag they would fall more and more vertically.


This would mean the two rocks or two tail chunks were IDENTICAL, this is also UNLIKELY.
Or that is was just one chuck which was streaming two tails of vapor.

But to clarify, are you implying that this was a hoax or that it wasn't a meteor?

Oh...what he said ^

edit on 2/15/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Exactly, I said it was a questionable, the smooth shiny ice hole, I didn't imply anything else, I suggested it was possibly bad reporting among other possibilities.

Even if the one chunk had two vapour trails it is UNLIKELY that they would be identical in exactly the same way, look close at the vapour pic I posted, they even have identical inclines and vapourisation at a sudden point, this is highly irregular.

I never implied it was ANYTHING in particular, only that these are QUESTIONABLE.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



new topics

top topics



 
382
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join