Aluminum versus Steel
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (37)
sorted by:
Im fully on board with the controlled demolition of all 3 buildings by an evil cadre that wishes to enslave us but kinetic energy is powerful. A planes wings going 500 miles an hour compared to one taxiing on the runway will produce two completely different outcomes.
These types of comparisons are not my favorite. They leave our argument open to attack.
Consider the damage done by the theorized rods from God. A 10 ton rod of tungsten steel dropped from orbit will out damage any thermonuclear device. There are no explosives involved it is pure kinetic energy.
I am a CE though and it is impossible for a plane to bring down the WTC without massive amounts of preparation beforehand. These buildings are designed with impacts of this nature in mind.
My first thoughts as well. Tornados can impale blades of grass into wooden telephone poles.
When this strawman gets raised, just say the following:
Even a WATERjet can slice steel, with enough momentum!
Water jets are moving at Mach 3 --- 60,000 psi pressure at a "microscopic" point.
I have skydived at 200 mph
Energy required to increase speed goes up by the cube.
My point: alu. parts can slice steel with enough momentum
the steel beam/column is going that same tremendous speed in the other direction.
Stand the wing up vertically ----- send these massive columns through it at 500 mph --- you will barely scratch the paint on the columns.
https://www.911research.wtc7.net/~nin11evi/911research/wtc/arch/docs/col_dimensions.gif
9/11 proved this wrong
Physics ----- proved 9/11 "official story" wrong.
Yes it did.
The columns in the 9/11 towers were not made of lamp posts.
Paper can cut aluminum. Oh sure maybe not the best aluminum, but a fun experience is to replace a table saw blade with paper to see what it can cut. It's a lot more than anyone would expect.
I'm not convinced that it wouldn't do substantial damage, but I am convinced that it wouldn't bring a whole reinforced tower down as it did.
Of course.
Explosives, whose residues have long been scientifically well documented, did the rest.
So why do birds beat up planes?
And what happens to the bird? Im not saying one or the other is left unaffected. The kinetic energy plays on both structures. And if you read my entire post, I stated I dont believe it possible that a plane could bring down these buildings.
Newton’s Third Law of Motion, probably.
You can flex the skin of an aluminum plane with your finger.
The aluminum skin loading of a airliner is about one pound per square inch.
"ONE" POUND PER SQUARE INCH
A 100 mph fastball would damage the shit out of it.
gasp. Is this trying to say that a government official would LIE????
Only if their lips are moving. Or their fingers are typing, or pretty much ALL the time.
Shills who downvote clearly sarcastic astonishment that the government isn’t working in our best interest are pretty decent shills, but not as good as the shills that downvote calls for prayer.
Don’t worry though, xers, you’ll get there.
First off, I didn’t down vote you. Second, don’t call anyone who disagrees with you a shill, it cheapens the term. And third, my post agreed with you, can’t understand sarcasm? Maybe I should down vote you for being a tool.
Sorry about the unclear communication, I wasn’t referring to you at all, but to the 2 downvotes on my post before your response.
The other day the shills were downvoting a prayer thread. They’ve been out in force lately, and following me and others around all over the site.
Been a lot of downvotes on silly posts. It’s cute.
The newer wings are carbon fiber.
From the damage we see, that wing is definitely carbon fiber.
That light pole didnt kill itself.
The pole is buckled.
The pole is not supporting multiple floors above it.
I don't think this is the argument you think it is.
Yet the pole is still noticeably deformed from a very low speed collision. Now imagine what that looks like when the collision is 500 mph faster
August 8, 2022 is the date of this photo. Looks like a composite wing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvFKQ_jmERU
Well obviously that light pole was built better than the twin towers, way better lol.
Planes tend to disintegrate when hitting hard objects. People as well. That is why the military takes foot prints. Often the only thing left is the feet in the leather boots.
disintegrate, yes. evaporate, no.
There's a lot of mechanics (both material and structural) that go into analyzing events like this, but yes it appears that very evil people planned and carried out bringing the towers and building 7 down, and the pentagon was a directed missile strike and coverup from what I've seen as well. For starters as far as the airplane vs. building, you have to consider that the strength of a material in the direction of force is a cubed factor (a*b^3). For example a 10mm thick plate 100mm wide will be a LOT stronger if the wide end is vertical as a structural member, vs. if it's laying flat. This is why you see "I" beams holding up building floors with the widest part vertically oriented. When you start getting into the material properties ("compressive force"), that is another aspect to be considered. Concrete has a compressive strength of 2500 to 10k PSI, whereas 2024 aluminum (typically used for aerospace applications) has a compressive strength of ~40 kPSI. but with the cube factor of flooring in the direction of the force, concrete maybe 2" thick above corrugated steel (think of the horizontal floors now having that cubed factor working for them) vs. the planes wall thickness of maybe an 1/8", and you'd have to at best assume the plane had to hit at a perfect right angle to even have a chance to take down the building. This assumes something happening right at the impact. But the aluminum would crumple, and lose that cubed strength factor pretty quick.
The real tell-tale was the building coming straight down. It would be about impossible that all the support beams would give out together in unison. It would be way more likely one corner or side would buckle first, and the building start toppling in another direction, which it obviously didn't.
Stop with the retarded attempt at math and physics. What part of the weight of floors above the impact tipping over before the collapse is difficult for you to wrap your head around?
You can clearly see the pole in the picture is compromised just from a taxiing aircraft. You do that to enough of them in a tower and then soften them up with a fire, shit that should be holding up 10's of thousands of pounds above them are going to fail!
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e3/1b/c8/e31bc8c99f4778389f1a81e3846995a0.jpg
Fuck you people getting distracted by this controlled demolition shit. Who green-lit their passports?
WHO Green Lit their passports?
WHO GREEN LIT THEIR PASSPORTS???
Why do you people get distracted by psy-ops's? You've been misdirected!
It was the C I FUCKING A!
This is currently floating around on Facebook and the normies still believe the narrative. Claiming "velocity". The government tested the impact of an F4 Phantom into a concrete block at 500 MPH and the plane completely disintegrated. Is concrete harder than steel?
No, but a solid block of concrete can be stronger than a mesh of steel.
Also an empty test F4 Phantom has WAY less mass than a freaking 767 packed with people and fuel.
Force = mass x acceleration
An aircraft that weighs 12-15x more than an F4 is going to exert 12-15x more force on a stationary object.
Hurr durr I'm sure this was a controlled demolition.
I'm sure the floors buckling at the impact and the floors above the impact leaning over was all due to a team of firefighters placing explosives exactly where the impact was.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e3/1b/c8/e31bc8c99f4778389f1a81e3846995a0.jpg
Sooo.. Is the wing steel or the lamp pole ?