IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Some Say Aluminum Planes Can't Penetrate Steel., How about pumpkins ?

Quest
post Aug 3 2009, 09:23 AM
Post #101





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (lunk @ Aug 3 2009, 05:35 AM) *
"Imagine a pencil going through a screen door",
that is how the twin towers were designed,
to accept aircraft impact,
without comprimising the buildings' structual integraty.

They were not designed to shread crashing aircraft.
This is an assumption.


Lunk, please comment on the witnesses' testimony. Do you think he's legit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72yx9lxUQNg...feature=related

This post has been edited by Quest: Aug 3 2009, 10:38 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Aug 3 2009, 06:06 PM
Post #102





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



Exactly Lunk.

The Towers were designed to ABSORB and
WITHSTAND the impacts.......which they did
and swayed for a few minutes afterwards, and
then regained their stability. They were not
designed to be IMPERVIOUS to the impacts,
as the outer shell was a stabilizing and secondary
support network.

Clicky-----------> Intense Grid
(disreguard the Pentagon theory, we know what happened)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Aug 3 2009, 07:15 PM
Post #103





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (aerohead @ Aug 3 2009, 11:06 PM) *
Exactly Lunk.

The Towers were designed to ABSORB and
WITHSTAND the impacts.......which they did
and swayed for a few minutes afterwards, and
then regained their stability. They were not
designed to be IMPERVIOUS to the impacts,
as the outer shell was a stabilizing and secondary
support network.

Clicky-----------> Intense Grid
(disreguard the Pentagon theory, we know what happened)


Aerohead, will you please comment? Lunk? Anyone? Do you think this is a legit witness? Do you think he is telling the truth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72yx9lxUQNg...feature=related

This post has been edited by Quest: Aug 3 2009, 07:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Aug 3 2009, 07:29 PM
Post #104



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Quest @ Aug 3 2009, 06:23 AM) *
Lunk, please comment on the witnesses' testimony. Do you think he's legit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72yx9lxUQNg...feature=related


Seems legit to me.
He may have been refering to the people who ran to the windows and openings,
to get away from the thick, black, acrid, smoke, and were blown out,
by subsequent explosions behind them, or perhaps,
jumped to escape the heat of thermite,
not actually to, people falling out of the aircraft on impact.

This post has been edited by lunk: Aug 3 2009, 07:30 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Aug 3 2009, 08:22 PM
Post #105





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (lunk @ Aug 3 2009, 11:29 PM) *
Seems legit to me.
He may have been refering to the people who ran to the windows and openings,
to get away from the thick, black, acrid, smoke, and were blown out,
by subsequent explosions behind them, or perhaps,
jumped to escape the heat of thermite,
not actually to, people falling out of the aircraft on impact.


I guess you didn't notice the change of accent?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Aug 3 2009, 09:21 PM
Post #106



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Quest @ Aug 3 2009, 05:22 PM) *
I guess you didn't notice the change of accent?


I thought it was camera shyness at first, then he started recalling the tragety, and his voice changed.
He seemed pretty animated at first.

What's the little house logo on his shirt represent?

This post has been edited by lunk: Aug 3 2009, 09:25 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Aug 4 2009, 01:01 AM
Post #107



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I thought there was only 4 inches of concrete poured on top of the metal deck for most floors, which sat on the steel spanning between the central core and the outside wall.
Not 2 feet of concrete, on every floor.

(I don't have a clue to why any of this would have even needed fireproofing)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Aug 6 2009, 01:24 AM
Post #108


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



sorry, im out of synch with this thread, but i'd like to go back to where i left off...

aero - in some places the concrete was as thick as 8 inches (according to NIST*), but for the sake of argument 4 inches is fine. now - here is the context in which i see the floors as "monsters":


in the above 4 inches = weak







in the above 4 inches is less relevant than overall length,
thus 20 feet = strong


for simplicity's sake, im not including the steel columns that would also have been in the way. but the above is not something that a plane can achieve, especially so effortlessly and without resistance. the plane maintained the same (pixel) speed outside the building, as it did while going into the building. thats what would have been impossible if the concrete floors (and columns) were in the way. so noplanery/fakery has a legitimate point about the plane's entry (imo), but it seeks a more complicated than is necessary answer for what happened.


now what i didnt establish (or mention) before, was the plane's own skeletal structural components, namely the airframe's own "support columns", which run the length of the plane from front to rear. these frame members are what keep a plane structurally sound, intact, and stable. the strongest/thickest of these "beams" make up the floor of the plane:







it is (any or some of) those beams which should have met with either the actual floors of the building, or the support columns inside the building, or both. it is my belief that when contact between these 2 components occurred, that some substantial resistance would result in slowing down the plane's penetration. enough so that there would be some visual record of this resistance seen in the videos of the event. but instead what we see is total penetration, without the slightest hint of resistance offerred by the building.



i have tried finding more resources on the subject, and i found my way to a guy named RIERA who apparently did some studies about airframes meeting with solid objects. unfortunately i couldnt actually find any of his actual dissertations on the subject, but i did find a simulation done by Purdue that used his theories and calculations to model one such impact:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulat...hase3/Riera.htm
QUOTE
In 1968, Riera published a paper that analyzed the impact of an aircraft on a rigid surface; J. D. RIERA, "On the stress analysis of structures subjected to aircraft impact forces," Nuclear Engineering and Design, 8:415-426, 1968. The paper abstracted an aircraft into a longitudinal array of crush zones of different characteristics and a mass distribution. The approach allowed Riera to compute an approximate variation of the total reaction in the impacted structure over time. The resulting load curves were then used to study the dynamic response of the impacted structure numerically.




note the shattering of the plane with small pieces flying out at impact points. note also the forward buckling of the plane's tail and wings towards the end of the simulation. presumably this is a result of the plane (after initial penetration) beginning to slow down after colliding with something solid enough to resist penetration. unfortunately Purdue only defines their resisting surface as "a rigid surface", so no details are given as to how rigid such a surface would have to be to cause the resistance that's seen. keep in mind also that the above simulation represents 0.2 seconds (the original AVI transpires much more quickly than the GIF i made of it), so it did not take long for the plane (in Purdue's simulation) to meet something solid enough to "fight back", i.e. offer resistance . it is thus that i believe what was seen at the WTC should have reacted similarly (buckle forward and/or slow down) at some point BEFORE the whole plane disappeared into the building.



***



i spoke earlier about each location being different, and i would like to expand on that a bit:

the easiest place to do their bidding unabated, was shanksville, cuz it was so remote and so rural. so pennsylvania, check.


arlington/pentagon, not so easy, BUT not so hard either. the place is low and can barely be seen from anywhere unless you're right up on it. its not a tourist attraction (didnt used to be on 9/11), and nowhere near is there a place where some random person might be filming or taking pictures. maybe at the cemetery, but there is no view of the impact area from there. plus it was illegal to shoot pictures of the building, so the chances of anyone documenting the event would be very slim. add to that - that the location is one that can very easily be contained and held under control. its not an urban sprawl, and its not generally populated by foot traffic. so if you happened to be a random guy who by complete coincedence happened to be filming or taking pics in that region (in proximity of and with a view of the pentagon), then chances are very high that perps would have seen and caught you and taken your footage.


the only real location that would be liability that they would need to post "agents" at (to make sure no random joe ends up with footage/pics) is the (citgo) gas station and the end of columbia pike (the hill overlooking the building has a huge parking lot). everywhere else: its roads, or pentagon parking lot, or there is no view of the facade. so it would be a miracle if someone decided to have a camera up and running when the flyover occurred. note also, that 99% of people were glued to televisions watching the events in nyc unfold. so no one was out and about looking at the pentagon. either they were unaware and driving to work, or they were sitting somewhere watching a tv screen. so overall, the pentagon event had some risks/contingencies, but was do-able and could be "contained" with a little effort.



now back to nyc. it would be silly to think that when the plans were made for what was going to happen, that they would forget what the targets were and where they were. in other words even a non-military person could predict that after one of the 2 tallest towers in the world was on fire, that 1000's of eyes, and dozens (if not 100's) of cameras would be pointed at them. the planners knew they were going to have 2 plane crashes, and planned accordingly. so here is deal: the money shot that day, wether seen live on the streets of nyc, or broadcast on television, was going to be the 2nd wtc hit. it was the thing that was gonna shock and awe everyone into outrage and blindness, fear and vulnerability. so to me, its no accident that the 2nd plane did what it did, when it did it.

in other words, they (probably) could just as easily have crashed 2 planes back to back (within a few short minutes of each other) into the towers and avoided awhole lot of press and eyes. before the word got out or people began noticing, talking, AND filming - immediately after flight "11" crashed - they could have had their second crash. but they didnt even tho it would have facilitated fakery more sufficiently or efficiently than waiting/delaying. had the crashes happend in quick succesion, they wouldnt have as many people (capturing on film an explosion without a plane) to worry about. but instead they waited and made sure eyes, ears, and cameras were all looking, and THEN they crashed their second plane into the building.

i wont deny that maybe they intended to be more expedient and tried to have the 2 nyc crashes happen close to each other. sure its a possibility that "175" ran into delays and ended up taking longer (than intended), but its just as possible that the delay was intentional and meant to get as many viewers as possible (watching tv BUT on the viewing LIVE on the streets as well) before executing the big money shot.


so yes we were faked out, but the op was psychological, NOT photographic. we were sold binladen and bad arabs along with the repeated images of destruction and doom. the key brainwash was the lies about who did the event and why, although yes - there were certainly plenty of lies about the actual occurrences of events also. BUT for them to have foregone the chance to inflict such awe and terror (via a live crash into the wtc with 175) would have been a waste of a vital psyop opportunity (imo).





*NIST: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf ----- page 39:
The floor system of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was composed of concrete-steel composite members. The area
inside the cores and on the mechanical floors was framed with rolled structural steel shapes with welded
shear studs acting compositely with normal-weight concrete slabs. The thickness of the slabs varied from
4.5 in. to 8 in. depending on design loads. The area outside the core, typically on tenant floors, was
framed with steel trusses acting compositely with 4 in. thick lightweight concrete slabs cast on 1 in.,
22 gauge fluted metal deck. The trusses consisted of double angle top and bottom chords with round bar
webs. Some floors, immediately adjacent to the mechanical floors, used a hybrid of beam and truss
framing acting compositely with the concrete slab.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Aug 6 2009, 02:26 AM
Post #109





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



i suppose it is sort of a normal impulse...very few want to accept the reality that what they were/have been furnished concerning the events of that day were illusions. david copperfield staged events.

how virtually all suspend the realities that they have encountered throughout the course of their lives.

consider the illusion of an aircraft flying at high speed into a building...a collision where the aircraft, in its entirety, enters into the building as if a spoon into a bowl of soup.

i don't know about you, but over my lifetime, i have experienced a few collisions. not aerial ones, but vehicular ones.

at much lower speeds, of course. but you know, no vehicle that collided with mine ever entered mine as did the aircraft entering a much more robust wtc 'scraper.

it continues to fascinate me how it is that so many commenting on the collisions with terrain that day work to repudiate realities that they may have encountered in other circumstances in their lives.

if that is too opaque, let me put it this way. you are driving a ferrari at speed. there is a sonderklasse mercedes in a parking lot, stationary. for whatever reason, you tbone the benz. do you think that you would pass through the benz unscathed, leaving no debris on the collision side of the benz?

you should get my point, i think. no vehicle colliding with a wtc tower could have entered it as if a spoon into a bowl of soup. perhaps aircraft did collide with nelson and david that day[i don't think so, by the way], but the photographic record of those collisions is a fraud. a palpable fraud. collisions don't result in spoons into soup.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Aug 6 2009, 08:47 AM
Post #110



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Flying pumpkins!

The plane was completely absorbed by the building.
If it was going slower, then it would have looked more like a fly hitting the windshield,
but even water at high enough pressure (speed) can cut through steel.

(Rob posted some pictures of steel cut, with high pressure water,
somewhere here)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Aug 6 2009, 09:23 AM
Post #111





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (lunk @ Aug 4 2009, 01:01 AM) *
I thought there was only 4 inches of concrete poured on top of the metal deck for most floors, which sat on the steel spanning between the central core and the outside wall.
Not 2 feet of concrete, on every floor.

(I don't have a clue to why any of this would have even needed fireproofing)


They used 4" of lightweight aggregate concrete, which at the time was a bit controversial since before that 6" was the norm.

In regards to the fireproofing, it wasn't put on to protect the steel or concrete. The main purpose of fireproofing and firewalls is to keep an office fire from spreading quickly or jumping floors. Steel and the concrete are very good firewalls. Does anyone know if they sprayed fireproofing on all of the steel or was it just on the trusses? I've always assumed it was on all of the steel, but I've been finding out lately not to assume anything with these buildings. For example, I had assumed the Towers were welded steel buildings and it turns out most of it was bolted together rather then welded. Sure would have made it easier to the building apart if it wasn't welded together.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Aug 6 2009, 10:35 AM
Post #112



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Aug 6 2009, 06:23 AM) *
For example, I had assumed the Towers were welded steel buildings and it turns out most of it was bolted together rather then welded. Sure would have made it easier to the building apart if it wasn't welded together.


The bolts would have been harder steel than the beams and columns, they would have been more brittle, too.
The weak points of an otherwise, solid structure.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Aug 6 2009, 12:16 PM
Post #113





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi All!

Paranoia is thinking like me in his Post 110 above.

Something Albert said in Post 111 caught my eye.

QUOTE
you should get my point, i think. no vehicle colliding with a wtc tower could have entered it as if a spoon into a bowl of soup. perhaps aircraft did collide with nelson and david that day[i don't think so, by the way], but the photographic record of those collisions is a fraud. a palpable fraud. collisions don't result in spoons into soup.


I agree with Albert generally but I think there is one part of the video record that is not a fraud. His post sent me to the Internet Archive where I just watched the live feeds from the six networks (ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, FOX and NBC) of the second plane impact. You can fast forward the streams to 9:03 AM. http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_...ive#September11

All six are busy showing the North Tower burning and the shots are generally being taken from the north looking south. They are naturally focusing on the hole in the north side of WTC 1. The second plane as we all know 1 came from the SSW and hit the south side of WTC 2 and the explosion then ejected out of the east side. The second impact is on the other side of the building from all six network cameras and you don't see the second plane hit in any of them. All you see is either the explosion coming around and through the building or an explosion coming into the left side of the shot.

You do see some confetti come around WTC 2 and start raining down right after the second impact, which looked a lot like the illustration in paranoia'a Post 110. It looks like a plane disintegrating on impact and falling down outside in small pieces, and not like an entire plane slipping into and being swallowed by the building.

That said, I think that these six original contemporaneous accounts of a shocking event (along with the twelve like accounts of the two buildings collapsing) are the only visual record that you can reasonably trust. Getting back in line with Albert, anything else was susceptible to tampering and potentially fraudulent. That includes any footage (other than replays of the original accounts) or pictures that the six networks aired after 9:03 AM.

We have to remember that when we talk about doctored visual evidence of the second impact, the six original accounts didn't show the impact and thus there is no image of the impact to alter. They also seem to be satisfactory proof that some kind of plane hit WTC 2.

I'm leaving the Naudet film of the WTC 1 impact out of this. Although my sense is that it is legitimate, it still has to be included in the category of suspect evidence that surfaced after the original accounts.

BTW, if anybody looks at the FOX coverage, listen to the announcer right as the second plane hits and compare it to the other five accounts. The other five are preoccupied with other things when it occurs and they don't pick up on the explosion right away and don't mention a plane for about 30 seconds to a minute . I swear the FOX guy announced that a second plane hit and cause the explosion before it occurred. In actuality, although the explosion is off to the extreme left of his feed and his feed doesn't show the plane at all, he immediately starts telling you that a plane hit and caused the explosion. Within five seconds, he jumps on terrorism like a fly on s h i t. The seed is planted within 10 seconds.


_____________________
1. EDIT: Stricken out of respect for our brothers who capably and sincerely question this.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Aug 6 2009, 12:27 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Aug 6 2009, 01:47 PM
Post #114





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (lunk @ Aug 6 200http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//style_images/b_future/folder_editor_images/rte-email-button.png9, 10:35 AM) *
The bolts would have been harder steel than the beams and columns, they would have been more brittle, too.
The weak points of an otherwise, solid structure.


Then add the wind load that the Towers were subjected to and these bolts would have been weakened even further.


This is what happened to the Citicorp tower in NYC, but they decided to fix this one instead of knocking it down.

THE FIFTY-NINE-STORY CRISIS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Aug 6 2009, 04:30 PM
Post #115





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



I respect all the work and thought that went into
this no plane theory. But i have a few questions that
i would like to ask you.

1)- If no planes hit, then what were the sounds that people
heard, and picked up on film, of aircaft engine noise.

2)- I work on heavies evey day and i am familiar with their
rigidity. The illustration you showed, had debris rainig
down like was seen in some of the closer videos. The
Wing spars and center wing boxes/fuel tanks are extremely
rigid and tough peices of work. Each wing is designed to handle
a 12,000 lb engine hanging from it for its entire lifetime and hold
upwards of 10,000 lbs of fuel under ANY weather condition or
stress that could be encountered in flight. With this much mass,
strength, and inertia moving at over 400 mph........ do you really
think it could not penetrate 1/4" box beams and 4 inches of composite
material?

You have to undestand that buildings are designed for
VERTICAL stiffness, not horizontal impact. Thus the hollow box
beams around the perimeter, that provide excellent vertical support,
but not much in the way of impact resistance. The core columns
were the real monster supports for these buildings, and this is what
shredded the planes.

Clicky------> Cop car though wall

Clicky---------> Restaurant wall



Guys, this no plane / hologram theory is making its way
around the internet to debunk and confuse.

We gotta get past this. The planes hit the buildings.
There is absolutely no proof that they didnt.

This post has been edited by aerohead: Aug 6 2009, 06:27 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Aug 7 2009, 04:13 AM
Post #116



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (Turbofan @ Aug 10 2009, 11:46 PM) *
- The 'moving bridge' clip
- Multiple paths on approach


The paths do not differ, nor do bridges move, nor are buildings in the wrong places ... all that stuff is the result of people not taking into proper account the effects of optics and perspective. I carefully debunked many of those claims here a couple of years ago. I know some of those claims about the plane's path differing in different clips look valid, but when you figure out where the camera position was and plot as per the reported flight path and speed, the planes in all those clips is exactly where it's supposed to be (really).

I won't take issue with any of your other points, I too don't buy that a stock 7x7 penetrated those buildings in the way we were shown ... but these myriad of claims such as those included in September Clues are nearly all debunkable - all you need is a map and a ruler.

FYI wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Aug 7 2009, 11:06 AM
Post #117



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (Turbofan @ Aug 11 2009, 05:23 AM) *
Can you link me up to your study on this 'moving bridge'? I'd like to see what's happening. thx.


Awe, jeeze, I knew someone was going to ask that. tongue.gif

That was 2 years ago. I found one thing ...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10006252

It's not about the bridge, but about the flight path seeming to differ in two different clips. The science is the same, the ease with which people are fooled by the effects of perspective, optics (footage taken from a long way off with a zoom lens), and the high speed of the aircraft is the same.

......

EDIT:
One should probably read from even earlier in the thread, from this post
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10005377
or even earlier to get a sense of it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Aug 7 2009, 11:52 AM
Post #118



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE
The water cutting steel is a totally different ball game. The water jet is anywhere from 50,000 to 80,000 pounds per square inch of pressure.
The nozzle itself may only emit a stream of water measuring 0.125" in diameter. Also consider that the water pressure is not 'instantaneous',
or 'impulse force'. It's a constant force over time.


50-80 thousand p/si, over an 1/8 inch hole.
Hmmm, isn't the volume of water going through a hole,
the cube of the diameter of that hole?

What was the p/si of the mass of the plane hitting the tower, over all?
and what is the shear force needed to break that steel?

Four inches of concrete on reticulated floor pans, is just going to crumple or slice, and may not be that much of a factor, in horizontal resistance. IMO.

(I seem to recall it starting off, being 2 foot thick,
near the beginning of this thread.)

Unlike most of the footage I've seen, since 9/11,
the planes did not come in slowly frame by frame.

(edit) added
QUOTE
It's a constant force over time.

Yes, a huge force, over the time it takes,
to move one plane length,
at 500 mph.
At that speed a contained liquid would behave like a solid.

This post has been edited by lunk: Aug 7 2009, 12:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Aug 8 2009, 01:53 AM
Post #119



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (Turbofan @ Aug 11 2009, 05:23 AM) *
Can you link me up to your study on this 'moving bridge'? I'd like to see what's happening. thx.


Turbofan, is this what you're talking about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KYaqenqXgk

The helicopter is moving around, so of course the bridge will move as well, it's 7 miles out. If you take a drive and look out your window, you see the trees rush by but landmarks miles away hardly move ... stars or the moon at night won't move at all, they'll "follow you" down the road. It's the same phenomenon, nothing weird about it at all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post May 13 2011, 10:56 AM
Post #120





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 577
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 26 2009, 12:39 PM) *
Interesting video, however it started after the impact of the plane.
Is there any footage taken before this, from the same camera?
I often have to look for the shutter button on my camera,
taking my eyes off the view finder for a second.

Remember, the plane was going fast.

The construction material of the planes' parts
becomes less relevant at higher speeds.
Look at the pumpkin surely that isn't as strong as a nosecone of a plane,
but it went though the solid steel side of a van!


Err... It didn't "go through the solid steel side of the van". It punched in the van door.

Obviously the pumpkin shell is not as strong as the steel door. Which is why the
pumpkin shatters. But the steel door acts as a "sail" and collects the energy of
the pumpkins mass, even as that mass spreads. Eventually it collects enough energy
to distort the door and overcome it's hinges.

This is why we need real physics people in here to explain these things.
What we think will happen, when forces meet, is not what will actually
happen.

Just as these Pilots here are able to explain that what happens when
an inexperienced man get's in control of a heavy, is not what we lay
people think can happen.

As they say, the devil is in the details.

Obwon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th January 2020 - 08:13 AM