IPB




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

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

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Some Say Aluminum Planes Can't Penetrate Steel., How about pumpkins ?

aerohead
post Jul 26 2009, 06:24 AM
Post #21





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



Watch this video, and you begin to understand how
a wing spar, with 10.000 Lbs of fuel behind it,
can penetrate just about anything, at over 400 mph.

Clicky ----> Boeing Wing Spar Test
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 26 2009, 09:55 AM
Post #22



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I think that after a certain speed, its the velocity and mass that counts,
not so much, the structural integrity of the types of materials involved in the collision.

(edit) added
For instance a sharp spear thrown by hand, weighing the same as the pumpkin, at the van, would penetrate; but a pumpkin, thrown by hand probably wouldn't have enough velocity to break through the side of the van.

This post has been edited by lunk: Jul 26 2009, 10:11 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Jul 26 2009, 11:13 AM
Post #23





Group: Guest
Posts: 564
Joined: 2-June 08
Member No.: 3,485



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jul 25 2009, 08:28 PM) *
I havent read this thread thoroughly.. but if this is drifting into NPT, please move it to Alt Theory forum. Thanks.


Moved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 26 2009, 01:20 PM
Post #24



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 26 2009, 02:33 AM) *
I'm still trying to figure out what happens when an airplane hits a building, at high speed. So far I think that the building breaks first.

Moving up from smashing beer bottles on the beach...

Another friend was explaining bullet proofing, long ago.
He found that by having a thick piece of aluminum with a space behind it and then a thin sheet of steel would stop a bullet. The bullet would smash through the thick piece of aluminum causing it (the bullet) to mushroom or flatten into a greater surface area which was easily stopped by the sheet of steel behind it. It was important to leave a gap between the aluminum and steel so that the bullet could spread out, before hitting the steel.

In other words the bullet maintained its shape going through the aluminum, like the beer bottle being thrown down at another beer bottle in the mud.

There should not have been any debris found directly below the gash from the impact of a plane on a tower, the entire plane went through the wall and would have broken up inside the building, with parts flying out after.


I think the fastest baseball ever thrown was around 90 mph. There have been many questions about the speed of the aircraft's hitting the towers, in the order of around 500 mph, I think.

If the planes had have plowed into the towers at lower speed, they may not have penetrated the buildings, and then there would have been debris under the impact sites.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 26 2009, 01:22 PM
Post #25





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



QUOTE (aerohead @ Jul 26 2009, 11:24 AM) *
Watch this video, and you begin to understand how
a wing spar, with 10.000 Lbs of fuel behind it,
can penetrate just about anything, at over 400 mph.

Clicky ----> Boeing Wing Spar Test


A great clip Aerohead.

What this tells me is that I could picture a lot of damage to the wtc frame but I should also expect deceleration as well - something not exibited in the CNN video. At some point, starting from the wingroot, as steel beam is encountered, phyics should kick in and cause deceleration of the wing resulting in NOT punching through beams but instead causing the wings to ROTATE FORWARD. This is not what we see in the impact videos. We see the wings puch through with absolutely NO DECELERATION or FORWARD ROTATION. An absolute impossibility. Was the building made of tissue paper? Additionally, the nose punches THROUGH the building in the CNN/FOX videos. Why does no one adress this? Also, why does no one comment on the below witness?

9/11 Witness: No 2nd plane, it was a bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNt7YFKyvU...PL&index=19

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 27 2009, 04:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 26 2009, 01:23 PM
Post #26





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



QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 26 2009, 10:33 AM) *
There should not have been any debris found directly below the gash from the impact of a plane on a tower, the entire plane went through the wall and would have broken up inside the building, with parts flying out after.


Do you mean to say that the plane's nose is SOLID - like a bullet? Do you mean to say that no impact video should show the plane crumpling from the nose to wingroots? Nor deceleration? My contention has always been that was why the videos had to show no crumpling or deceleration, to make plausible to the viewer the notion that the entire plane went into the building with no debris falling to the ground below the gash. After all, the plane is hollow and it's frame is in sections as well. Again, you mean when the hollow plane shell with a sectioned frame hits the steel beams and concrete floors, the building will just say, "Ole"? At what point would the WTC beams hold?

If I took a phone both and was able to stand it on end and hurl it a the WTC at 500MPH, would the phone booth punch through and exhibit no crumpling or deceleration? Next, If I took a hollow, aluminum camper trailer and did the same, no crumpling or deceleration? If I took a small Cesna and did the same, still no crumpling or deceraltion (like in the CNN video)? If did did likewise with a Lear jet (no offense John Lear ;-)), no crumpling or decelration? Would the wings break off or punch through the building with the Cessna? How about the Lear jet? Would the wings in either case show deceleration or there positional relationship from wingtip to the fusealge (forward rotation) as they encountered unbroken beams? That is not what happened in the CNN video. The CNN video looked ike the building was made of TISSUE PAPER because of the behavior of the WINGS. There was absolutely NO DECERATION or FORWARD ROTATION exhibited by the wings as they encountered unbroken beams.

My point is, at what point would the laws of physics start to come in to play? WOuld it be the Lear jet? The Cessna? How about the aluminum camper? Maybe the phone booth?

Can I get some comments on this witness?
9/11 Witness: No 2nd plane, it was a bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNt7YFKyvU...PL&index=19

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 27 2009, 05:05 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 26 2009, 01:39 PM
Post #27



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Quest @ Jul 26 2009, 10:23 AM) *
Can I get some comments on this witness?
9/11 Witness: No 2nd plane, it was a bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDm0MkWs9p0...laynext_from=PL


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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 26 2009, 01:43 PM
Post #28





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



QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 26 2009, 06:39 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!


Sorry Lunk, I posted the wrong video.

HAve a look at this one.
9/11 Witness: No 2nd plane, it was a bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNt7YFKyvU...C7&index=19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Jul 26 2009, 01:48 PM
Post #29





Group: Guest
Posts: 564
Joined: 2-June 08
Member No.: 3,485



QUOTE (Quest @ Jul 26 2009, 01:23 PM) *
If I took a phone both and was able to stand it on end and hurl it a the WTC at 500MPH, would the phone booth punch through and exhibit no crumpling or deceleration?


No. A phone booth does not have enough mass behind it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 26 2009, 01:52 PM
Post #30





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



QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 26 2009, 06:39 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!


The reason the pumpkin APPEARED to go through the van is because it had relative weight and as the van door was impacted the door gave in yet the sheet metal on the door was not punched through by the pumkin as far as I could see. The doorsheet metal buckled inward acting as a NET which let the pumpkin's weight momentarily concentrate on a small area whith caused the door to give way from it's hinges. As Sanders said earlier, you cannot compare pumpkins and oranges. Example, If the door had a conical point to it sticking out 3 feet and the pumpkin impacted it I think we would be looking at pumpkin pie filling instead of a busted door on a van. It's all relative and while entertaining, the pumpkin/van example is a crude, amateur comparison.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 26 2009, 02:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 26 2009, 01:57 PM
Post #31





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



QUOTE (JFK @ Jul 26 2009, 06:48 PM) *
No. A phone booth does not have enough mass behind it.


OK, we are getting somewhere.

How about the camper? Should we see crumpling and deceleration?

A small Cesna? Should we see crumpling and deceleration? Would the wings rotate forward?

A Lear jet? Should we see crumpling and deceleration? Would the wings rotate forward?

JFK, would you please comment on this video?
9/11 Witness: No 2nd plane, it was a bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNt7YFKyvU...PL&index=19

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 27 2009, 04:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 26 2009, 02:28 PM
Post #32



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Another witness, where was he standing when he didn't see a plane?
It would have looked like a bomb (and probably was, as well as a plane)
from the other side of the tower.
I have been pondering no planes for a long time.
The video taken through the chain link fence showing the IR guidance beam,
pretty much convinced me, but the research into the plane motor found at Church and Murray, and the research at pumpshitout helped confirm it.

BTW the pumpkin did go through the door and there was pumpkin remains all over the inside of the van, in that video.
Here is a, softer than a nosecone, pumpkin, flying through both sides of a boat and a car!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RryMwlrA4G8

A full beer can will penetrate steel if it is flying fast enough, I bet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Jul 26 2009, 03:33 PM
Post #33





Group: Guest
Posts: 564
Joined: 2-June 08
Member No.: 3,485



QUOTE (Quest @ Jul 26 2009, 01:57 PM) *
OK, we are getting somewhere.

How about the camper? Should we see crumpling and deceleration?

A small Cesna? Should we see crumpling and deceleration? Would the wings rotate?

A Lear jet? Should we see crumpling and deceleration? Would the wings rotate?

JFK, would you please comment on this video?
9/11 Witness: No 2nd plane, it was a bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNt7YFKyvU...PL&index=19


Of course it was a bomb. As Frank DeMartini said, the towers could withstand multiple impacts.

And William Rodruegez said that there was an explosion from below prior to the impact.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 26 2009, 05:05 PM
Post #34



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Still looking for pumpkin debris under gash in van?

...perhaps there was no pumpkin?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 26 2009, 09:30 PM
Post #35





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



QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 26 2009, 10:05 PM) *
Still looking for pumpkin debris under gash in van?

...perhaps there was no pumpkin?


laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 26 2009, 09:37 PM
Post #36





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



QUOTE (JFK @ Jul 26 2009, 08:33 PM) *
Of course it was a bomb. As Frank DeMartini said, the towers could withstand multiple impacts.

And William Rodruegez said that there was an explosion from below prior to the impact.



JFK, the witness said SPECIFICALY, "There was no plane. It was a bomb". Are you sure you were paying attention to the video? The witness makes this VERY clear.

9/11 Witness: No 2nd plane, it was a bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDm0MkWs9p0...laynext_from=PL

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 27 2009, 04:58 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 27 2009, 05:55 PM
Post #37



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Quest @ Jul 26 2009, 05:37 PM) *
JFK, the witness said SPECIFICALY, "There was no plane. It was a bomb". Are you sure you were paying attention to the video? The witness makes this VERY clear.

9/11 Witness: No 2nd plane, it was a bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDm0MkWs9p0...laynext_from=PL


In this, "It's a bomb, mom." video the camera is looking at the back of the tower that was hit on the other side, by the plane. From this vantage point the incomming plane would have been obscured by the tower, and the camera man wouldn't have been able to see its' aproach, and only could have witnessed the resulting explosion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Jul 27 2009, 08:08 PM
Post #38


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,015
Joined: 16-October 06
From: arlington va
Member No.: 96



the pumpkin thru truck experiment is not exactly analogous to the plane in to the wtc, but it is relative. the pumpkin penetrates a thin shell of aluminum or (thin) sheet metal on the van's side. ps - yes even the pilars are thin metal - unless there is a steel rollcage built in. so this part (of the pumpkin vs. van experiment) can indeed be compared to the plane penetrating the outer shells of the wtc building.

BUT what about the plane meeting with the concrete floor sections? for the pumpkin experiment to be more analogous, suppose you put a 2ft thick* section of concrete from wall to wall in the van:





- and then shot a pumpkin towards this concrete block. what happens then? 2 things: pumpkin makes a dent on the outside (barely penetrating the concrete though it may give it surface damage), and secondly, the whole van is displaced:



if you were to shoot something sturdier than a pumpkin, say a lead ball, then you would have more damage to the impact surface of the concrete, and you would have even more displacement of the van, both locally at impact point and at the ground (since the van isnt bolted to the ground it can move in the directon of the impact object). now if your lead ball was solid enough, and going fast enough, it could conceivably tear and shred its way thru the concrete block. but there would be at least some resistance - something you dont see in the wtc 175 video.

so what would/should happen to the wtc building meeting a solid plane, is that both at the concrete floor sections, and at the core columns, there should be resistance and displacement in both directions. on one side the plane should slow down, on the other the building should sway in the direction the plane was going. but that didnt happen. why? what facilitated the plane's easy slide into the building? and why didnt the building sway?

1- the (concrete) floor sections as well as some of the support columns on (at least) the impact side were dropped down and out of the way, immediately prior to impact. this hollowed "hangar" is what the plane crashed into, with the door to the hangar being only the thin outershell walls of the building.

2- the plane itself blew up, not just due to being shredded from the penetration, but from explosives rigged precisely to break it into as many smaller pieces as possible. had this not been done, a substantial and sizeable chunk of moving mass (the plane) would meet with the center core of the building, where instead of passing thru like a grater, it would meet with a solid enough "wall", that it would displace the whole building in the form of a very massive sway (at the top) leaving the whole thing off kilter like the leaning tower of piza, or an impact (and consequent sway) possibly massive enough to break off the top of the building (especially if some columns and floors were dropped to help the plane in).


yes - its just a hypothesis, and yes - it requires some maths/physics and ideally some computer simulations, none of which i am capable of doing. but it would be nice to hear others' thoughts on my ideas...

salute.gif




*edit - after some research i found the thickness of the floors varied from 4 to 8 inches (most of them being 4 inches) thick, NOT 2 feet thick. but my point is still the same about even 4 inches of concrete and the resistance it should have offerred.

This post has been edited by paranoia: Feb 12 2011, 04:33 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 27 2009, 08:50 PM
Post #39





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



QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 27 2009, 09:55 PM) *
In this, "It's a bomb, mom." video the camera is looking at the back of the tower that was hit on the other side, by the plane. From this vantage point the incomming plane would have been obscured by the tower, and the camera man wouldn't have been able to see its' aproach, and only could have witnessed the resulting explosion.



Sorry, Lunk. There is something strage going on the the video link, it keeps jumping to the next video. That was the wrong clip. Let's try it one more time and let's get your opinion.

9/11 Witness: No 2nd plane, it was a bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNt7YFKyvU...PL&index=19

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 27 2009, 08:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 27 2009, 10:24 PM
Post #40



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



There is sort of a lack of information here.

Where was the witness watching from?
Could he have been talking about another explosion?

There were lots of explosions that day,
outside of the plane crashes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st September 2014 - 09:43 AM