Aircraft versus Steel

[BenBurch]

LC, Bull Custard!

Had the explosives gone off on the surface of the steel, the blast pattern would have been obvious and the holes SMALL.

The REASON they rig the explosives to detonate a brief time after collision is to maximize damage. A the force of a bomb with no delay hitting a steel ship will mostly bounce off. INSIDE, well, there is nowhere for the force to escape to. The entry hole is way too small, and so the force is expended destroying the interior of the ship.

ANY wartime vessel would would have shrugged off a surface strike, and damage control would have had the holes patched up very quickly.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Wow, could this silly troll get any more ridiculous? Please, people, stop humoring it and just put it on ignore.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

ANY wartime vessel would would have shrugged off a surface strike, and damage control would have had the holes patched up very quickly.

heck, isnt some tank armor essentially explosives around the outside, designed to blow any impacts back outward?

http://www.sharecg.com/images/medium/6812.jpg

 

[AZCat]

heck, isnt some tank armor essentially explosives around the outside, designed to blow any impacts back outward?

http://www.sharecg.com/images/medium/6812.jpg

Wikipedia has an explanation of explosive reactive armor.

 

[LastChild]

Let me make sure I understand you. You're claiming that explosives packed into the nose of the aircraft went off on impact, then the rest of the aircraft went through the hole created and exploded (along with the rest of the bombs) deep inside the ship?

You don't know any of that. Just more bull. How do you know how many explosives or when they all went off? Just a little while ago the depukers were claiming only some of the kamikaze planes used in WWII had explosives as if the one in the picture had none. Which is it? And how do you know?

A Kamikaze plane doesn't compare to a jetliner. A battleship doesn't compare to the WTC. That's all you need to understand. Now go find some pictures of planes that have hit buildings. There are some out there you know. What you won't find however is any damage that looks like what happened to the WTC. That's why some people keep trying to compare overpasses and kamikaze attacks. They got nothing else.

BTW that battleship doesn't look like it suffered any kind of global failure. Did it sink?

 

[AZCat]

You don't know any of that. Just more bull. How do you know how many explosives or when they all went off? Just a little while ago the depukers were claiming only some of the kamikaze planes used in WWII had explosives as if the one in the picture had none. Which is it? And how do you know?

A Kamikaze plane doesn't compare to a jetliner. A battleship doesn't compare to the WTC. That's all you need to understand. Now go find some pictures of planes that have hit buildings. There are some out there you know. What you won't find however is any damage that looks like what happened to the WTC. That's why some people keep trying to compare overpasses and kamikaze attacks. They got nothing else.

BTW that battleship doesn't look like it suffered any kind of global failure. Did it sink?

Not only are you hostile, you are ignorant. Welcome to ignore.

 

[BenBurch]

Just so. Thanks for the link AZCat, saved me looking it up.

Generally, the rule is that an explosive outside of armor only realizes about 50% of its energy, but you do have to add the KE of the projectile too.

HE rounds with impact fuzing is for soft targets like troop concentrations and buildings and similar. AP (Armour Piercing)rounds with delay fuzing are for targets like ships. The intention of the Kamikaze was to pierce the armor, and detonate INSIDE, because the Japanese were MUCH smarter than "truthers."

 

[AZCat]

Just so. Thanks for the link AZCat, saved me looking it up.

Generally, the rule is that an explosive outside of armor only realizes about 50% of its energy, but you do have to add the KE of the projectile too.

HE rounds with impact fuzing is for soft targets like troop concentrations and buildings and similar. AP (Armour Piercing)rounds with delay fuzing are for targets like ships. The intention of the Kamikaze was to pierce the armor, and detonate INSIDE, because the Japanese were MUCH smarter than "truthers."

My pleasure. Thanks for the additional info - that's why I started this thread in the first place.

 

[Garb]

Last Child: Perhaps you missed my post...

The point was to show planes can crash through objects much more robust than they are.

What have you shown? That some kamikazes' planes had bombs in them.

Do you not understand the obvious?

Have you learned physics? Does kinetic energy ring a bell?

 

[LastChild]

Last Child: Perhaps you missed my post...



Do you not understand the obvious?

Have you learned physics? Does kinetic energy ring a bell?

So you have nothing? Glad to see you're getting my point.

 

[Garb]

So you have nothing? Glad to see you're getting my point.

I asked you a question.

 

[Slayhamlet]

What kind of moron can look at that hole and think it was caused by blast effect?

 

[JimBenArm]

What kind of moron can look at that hole and think it was caused by blast effect?

A very special kind...

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I was aimlessly browsing the internet when I happened upon the following image:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1495347661711b6011.jpg[/qimg]

This is a photograph of the USS Hinsdale, after it was hit by a kamikaze attack on April 1st, 1945 (wiki entry for Hinsdale).

The attack is described as follows:
What I find interesting is that, despite the aluminum construction of the aircraft, it managed to penetrate the double-layer steel hull of the ship. Neither the bombs nor the aircraft frame bounced off the exterior (although it appears that the wings may not have completely penetrated). I am surprised that this photo has not popped up before, since it seems relevant to the discussion of the aircraft impacts into the WTC towers.

Anyway, I thought I'd start a thread to see if anyone else had any other information about the incident. Other photos or narratives would be nice, if they exist.

The problem many have is they think that since aluminum is not as hard as steel that an object made of aluminum can't penetrate an object made of steel. That would be correct if one were trying to simply cut a piece of steel with an aluminum knife. However, the hole in the ship and those in the Twin Towers were not pure shear. They were generally created by large bending moments. The hole in the ship was caused by plate bending. I use the analogy of a large wooden log moving at several hundred mph and hitting a hollow 1/4" wall 10" diameter pole supported at the floor and ceiling. In general it will break at its supports due to high bending stress.

 

[beachnut]

speed kills

Not getting what? Yet another lame attempt from the debunkers trying to explain what happened to the WTC by asserting some ridiculous comparison? What's the matter did you run out of highway overpasses?

You missed the whole point in the beginning if you asked what was the point! Are you too research challenged to understand anything 9/11, or the topic? You asked a stupid question, and you are still lost. Your question showed how ignorant you are on 9/11 topics. You have zero clue on 9/11. Go study a few years and try again!

Kamikaze pilots would attempt to intentionally crash their aircraft — often laden with explosives, bombs, torpedoes and full fuel tanks — into Allied ships with a goal of causing greater damage than a conventional attack, using bombs or torpedoes.What’s your point?

The point was about an idiot CTer, who said planes can not leave a cartoon like outline like flight 11 and 175 did. But they did~!

That is the point; and if you had any knowledge on 9/11 truth idiots, you would understand the OP. But since you do not even posses a superficial understanding of 9/11 topics, you have failed again to bring facts to the table to help you or the world understand 9/11.

 

[AZCat]

The problem many have is they think that since aluminum is not as hard as steel that an object made of aluminum can't penetrate an object made of steel. That would be correct if one were trying to simply cut a piece of steel with an aluminum knife. However, the hole in the ship and those in the Twin Towers were not pure shear. They were generally created by large bending moments. The hole in the ship was caused by plate bending. I use the analogy of a large wooden log moving at several hundred mph and hitting a hollow 1/4" wall 10" diameter pole supported at the floor and ceiling. In general it will break at its supports due to high bending stress.

Interesting point - thank you!

 

[Corsair 115]

It's a self-serving debunker assumption that a plane alone caused the hole without any explosives. An assumption not based on any factual information or history in regards to kamikaze attacks.

But the bombs went off AFTER the aircraft penetrated the hull. It's right there in the OP. Thus, the hole is caused by the aircraft going through the hull. How else did the bomb get INSIDE the ship?

Are you suggesting the aircraft completely disintegrated upon hitting the hull and just the bomb went through the side of the ship?

 

[Newtons Bit]

The problem many have is they think that since aluminum is not as hard as steel that an object made of aluminum can't penetrate an object made of steel. That would be correct if one were trying to simply cut a piece of steel with an aluminum knife. However, the hole in the ship and those in the Twin Towers were not pure shear. They were generally created by large bending moments. The hole in the ship was caused by plate bending. I use the analogy of a large wooden log moving at several hundred mph and hitting a hollow 1/4" wall 10" diameter pole supported at the floor and ceiling. In general it will break at its supports due to high bending stress.

Do you really understand this little about engineering? Shear and bending are failure modes due to applied forces, they have nothing to do with the objects that are causing that load. It is only a function of the geometric properties of the member being loaded as to whether it fails in shear or bending.

 

[AZCat]

Do you really understand this little about engineering? Shear and bending are failure modes due to applied forces, they have nothing to do with the objects that are causing that load. It is only a function of the geometric properties of the member being loaded as to whether it fails in shear or bending.

I'll admit it's been forever since I had a mechanics class. I vaguely remember concepts like shear and bending, but I don't feel as familiar with them as I did when I was in school. If there's anything about them on the PE exam, I'm going to need to study quite a lot.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'll admit it's been forever since I had a mechanics class. I vaguely remember concepts like shear and bending, but I don't feel as familiar with them as I did when I was in school. If there's anything about them on the PE exam, I'm going to need to study quite a lot.

There will be. Even if you're taking an EE PE exam the general portion will have some basic engineering stuff. Some easy structural and civil and geotech stuff.