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.
So the wing mass, most of which is between the engine and the fuselage has now been equally distributed to the whole wing. All of the material used for support is now used to create a 34.5 mm thick wing-shaped box of aluminum for the sake of their model. Is this an accurate and fair representation to begin this test with?
The main structural part of the wing is the spar – a continuous beam that extends from one tip of the wing to the other. For modeling purposes, we assumed that the mass of the wings (excluding engine) was approximately 21300kg wing M . This mass does not include the mass of the fuel in the wing tanks. Assuming that this mass is now uniformly distributed over the whole wing span and the wing is modeled as a thin-walled square section cross section ...the equivalent thickness becomes 34.5mm.Even with making a wing into an aluminum machete, they don’t quite have enough modeling power to give a detailed account on this interaction? Why do they talk about their aluminum machete wing striking the columns at right angles? Wouldn’t a swept wing contact the corner of the column first, and isn’t the corner of the column the sturdiest part? With the wing striking the corner like that, would not the corner act like a more massive knife than even the massive machete-wing? Is this why they chose not to press this argument, settling instead with their lame approximated "engineering analysis"?
The wings are swept at approximately 35o so that upon impact, external columns are contacted sequentially, one by one. However, the problem of a hollow beam striking another hollow column at a right angle and a speed of 240 m/s has not been analyzed in the literature. Therefore it is not possible, at this point in time, to give any detailed account on this interaction, between the wings and outer column, with a higher degree of accuracy than our approximate engineering analysis.They made a wing four times the thickness of the beam of a skyscraper...how is this reasonable?
The equivalent thickness of the hollow wing beam is approximately four times larger than the thickness of the exterior columns, 9.5mm ext t . It is therefore reasonable to treat wings as rigid bodies upon impact with exterior columns.First they make a machete-wing, and then they want it to be a 3 dimensional lattice work as strong as the floor trusses. How many trusses are they using for this estimate? It’s too difficult to carry out analytically at the present level of approximation? Is that a fancy way of admitting they’re talking out their bung holes?
In actuality the wings are constructed as a 3-dimensional lattice of open section beams, ribs and sheet metal skin that maybe of comparable strength to the floor trusses. However, interaction between two 3-dimensional space frames impacting each other is too difficult to carry out analytically at the present level of approximation.
As to the paper, do what you wish. Rebut the mathematics, show your own model and publish it. This won't require anything but a pencil and paper. You don't need red paint samples from Jones to do it.
Originally posted by impressme
Are you still pushing that red paint blew up the WTC?
So, are you implying that thermite cannot cut through steel?
Red paint was what Jones found and it had nothing to do with the collapse.
Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine
Red paint was what Jones found and it had nothing to do with the collapse.
Are you saying that is all Jones found was just red paint, because if you are then you would be lying.
Originally posted by pteridine
Red paint was what Jones found
Originally posted by pteridine
I have said before that it is not my paper and is a model.
The model is simplified to make calculation easier and the caveat in the paper explains some of the assumptions "This article was completed prior to the public release of the FEMA/ASCE report, therefore only the generally accessible information from the media and literature were used in the analysis."
For the wing, the mass of the engines and the fuel in the wing tanks is not considered, making the wing lighter and less likely to penetrate the building. The mass is also assumed to be equally distributed across the wing which makes it much easier to model.
Given the dimensions and mass of the wings, they can be calculated to be equivalent to a piece of solid aluminum about 34mm thick.
On the upper floors, the external columns were box members made from 6.5mm steel. If, as you claim, aluminum cannot penetrate steel, that should be no problem. What the model shows is happening is that the steel and aluminum are mutually destroying one another and the building runs out of external column before the plane runs out of aluminum.
The thing that is most difficult to penetrate are the floors and as they roll up they spread the force of collision over a larger area causing more bending of the core columns than shearing.
If you still pushing your missile theory are there planes plus missiles or only missiles?
Originally posted by Yankee451
My missile theory is a better explanation than your fairy princess airplanes.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Proof?
You've already been shown tons of data from analysis to indicate it isn't paint. Someone even posted a nice video for you going down the list. You just chose to ignore all that.
Originally posted by pteridine
If it is that good a fairy princess missile theory, you should explain it in detail, if you can. Explain how planes impacted the towers and where the missiles came from. Of course aluminum can't break steel. The NAVY just uses those silly aluminum projectiles for show in their railgun and actually uses missiles to destroy the target.
Originally posted by Yankee451
This is your chance to defend your position. Prove how a wing tip can cause the damage, and show me how my explanation for the damage is so off base.
Your boorishness wears thin; if your only reason to suspect a plane is because you saw it on the TeeVee, spit it out already.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451
If you are claiming the full mass of the airplane, and all of it's interconnected parts, I get to claim the full mass of the building and all of its interconnected parts.
This isn't a board game. The plane, as a unit hit one particular section of the building. Thats how life works. The plane did not hit the whole building. It only challenged those pieces of the building it made contact with. It can't be any simpler than that.
Red paint was what Jones found and it had nothing to do with the collapse.
Are you saying that is all Jones found was just red paint, because if you are then you would be lying.
Harrit et al. can conclude all they want, the actual evidence speaks for itself. It's red paint.
Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine
Red paint was what Jones found and it had nothing to do with the collapse.
Are you saying that is all Jones found was just red paint, because if you are then you would be lying.
Originally posted by Laokin
Thermate is also just a variation of Thermite, coincidentally, a more powerful variant is known as nanothermite.
Originally posted by Laokin
I think it's fairly obvious that a plane looking object hit the building. Nobody really knows if those were the planes that went missing, as there really wasn't anything left of them and the only sources we have are those from the media.
Originally posted by Laokin
I was born and raised in NYC, and have plenty of friends and family that were at ground zero when this happened. I even knew the captain of Rescue 5, Staten Island FD.
Originally posted by Laokin
There is no evidence, just media reports. It looked like a plane, but couldn't we put wings on a missile?
Originally posted by Laokin
I'm not a no planer, but I am in favor of the plane not being able to do that kind of damage. WTC wasn't the first skyscraper to be hit by a plane.... it is the only one that ever collapsed, and it was a building rated higher than buildings that were previously hit by planes.
Originally posted by Laokin
Not only that, but sheer physics states that jetfeul wouldn't have been able to do it...
Originally posted by Laokin
not to mention, as soon as the plane exploded all the jet fuel was ignited and burned off in the fire ball.
Originally posted by Laokin
There wouldn't be any left to linger and burn for hours. Only things that would be burning are office supplies, which don't take down megalithic buildings.
Originally posted by Laokin
If it truely was a plane, then there was a catalyst on the beams, if it was a missile designed to look like a plane, than it's anybodies guess as to what kind of explosive it was..... Could of been a nano thermite napalm bomb designed to burn over time.... could just been a mega bomb too....
Originally posted by Laokin
No way to know for sure, but one thing should be made clear. People cutting on dude for using thermate, instead of thermite, when what they found was remains of nanothemite, which is once again -- considerably more powerful than thermate, which is a step up from thermite already.
Originally posted by Laokin
Also, thermate isn't designed to cut through steel, it's designed to be a weapon in the form of incindiary grenades, which is the worlds #1 product for the use of thermate.
Originally posted by Laokin
Cool story on all these people who do their research before they speak.
Originally posted by Laokin
So many absolutley generic sweeping statements.
Thermate is also just a variation of Thermite, coincidentally, a more powerful variant is known as nanothermite.