No Thin Air Holograms

[acebaker]

There is no such thing as a hologram that can be projected into thin air. Holograms require the viewer to look through a piece of film.

A hologram is a photographic exposure, just like a photograph. The reason it is 3D is because what gets exposed on the film is not simply light reflecting off the subject, but rather an interference pattern between two beams reflecting off of the subject.

Then you can illuminate the exposed film with a reference beam and cancel out one part of the interference pattern. What remains is the other part of the interference pattern, which is like a normal reflection of light off the subject. Depending on where you are, you will experience the reference beam from a different angle relative to the film, and so you will see a different angle of the original subject.

In all cases, when you observe a hologram, you are looking through a piece of film. The fact that the subject appears to float in mid air is a nice illusion. Sometimes they have you look into a mirror, which directs your eyesight down through the film. Sometimes the film goes floor to ceiling and you're not supposed to notice it.

There are corporate meetings which use live holograms now. Instead of actually exposing a piece of film, the information is captured digitally, and transmitted over phone or internet. At the receiving end, there is a transparent screen between the audience and where the hologram appears. Always. Every time. Promise. There must be.

In order for you to see anything, photons must go into your eyeballs. To project a hologram into thin air, and have people see it, would require the photons to change direction in mid air for no reason. As far as we know, it's physically impossible.

There are no thin-air holograms. John Lear claims that thin-air holograms are top-secret military stuff. Even Lear admits they are not common knowledge.

[graflok]

Holograms are not the only 3D image technology. The general public tends to
label all such technologies holograms when they are not:

Due to ever-increasing misinformation on the Internet, 9 out of 10 people visiting this web site have been misled into thinking that ALL forms of 3-D technologies are holograms. They're not . . . and knowing the difference is essential. The TRUTH is that the ONLY way to make a hologram is through the method of holography, and holography alone. If a 3-D image is not made using holography, then it is not a hologram, and should not be called a hologram. Many photos of "holograms" on the Internet are NOT of holograms. Many of the videos of "holograms" on YouTube are NOT of holograms. Many of the "holograms" for sale on Ebay are NOT holograms. People being "holographically projected" onto a stage or into a meeting are NOT holograms (this is the most common, and worst, offender). Due to all this, students now turn in reports that are incorrect. Publications now print stories that are incorrect. Even "experts" now give lectures and interviews that are incorrect. This is truly an epidemic of misinformation that MUST be corrected through education. You owe it to yourself to know the facts. Don't allow yourself to be misled any longer. Have a question? Email. -- Frank DeFreitas, HoloWorld

Source (http://www.holoworld.com/)

[drael]

I thought holograms were created either by intersecting lasers hitting glass, or in some cases a gas in a chamber. I dont think those little thinks on paper are real holograms at all.

Either way, still discussing whether 9/11 was real or faked now, is like still discussing whether jesus was really born. Fun if ur into it, but kinda pointless. Hardly matters either way in this case, we all know the us govt is bent.

[abaddon]

EDIT: for the record, I don't believe in 911 holograms, but do believe there were multiple events that took place that day. Merely wanted to share this info I was reading earlier ;)

was organising material for a different thread, but this should fit nicely here, seeing as I took the time to hunt it out ;) Old as boots, but worth the read... I think so anyways :p
This material was found linked to Lears website of interesting stuff.


LASERS IN SPACE : TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIONS FOR ENHANCING US MILITARY
CAPABILITIES by Mark E. Rogers, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF
November 1997
Occasional Paper No. 2
Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama

"Without question, space-based lasers could be fielded in 10 to 20 years that can destroy targets in space as well as on or near the earth’s surface. The challenges involve engineering and cost, rather than the fundamental laws of physics."

Spacecast 2020 includes holographic projection from space, planetary defense weapons, and weather modification systems that would involve lasers in space in ways or at power levels that stagger the imagination.

Holographic Projector
Operational Concept. This concept, which would fall into the force enhancement mission area, was considered in the Spacecast 2020 study, and as a truly novel idea provides evidence that the strategic studies did consider “out of the box” ideas. However, the concept ignores the fundamental physics of generating holograms.

The concept is a “system that could project holograms from space onto the ground, in the sky, or on the ocean anywhere in the theater of conflict for special operations deception missions. This system would be composed of either orbiting holographic projectors or relay satellites that would pass data and instructions to a remotely piloted vehicle or aircraft that would then generate and project the holographic image.” The apparent intention is to generate three-dimensional images of sufficient quality to make the observer believe an actual object is being seen.

There have even been suggestions by anonymous sources that these holographic images could be made to produce speech as well, which is theoretically possible using the photo-acoustic effect in air. This effect has been proposed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for a laser-based emergency broadcast system.

Challenges. The ability to create holographic images is well established, but creating them in an uncontrolled environment like the open air is almost inconceivable. Making images that are realistic enough to confuse an enemy is highly unlikely in the next 30 years. The ancillary concept of auditory project, however, is feasible and demonstrated, but probably would not be done from a space-based platform given the difficulty of controlling the region of air that is modulated.
Scoring. Even the Spacecast 2020 study ranked this idea as “so far in the future” that it is not worth further consideration.


http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/occppr02.htm


Note the 'imagination-staggering' concepts of weather wodification included in the sentance containing holographic projection :p


LASERS AND MISSILE DEFENSE:
NEW CONCEPTS FOR SPACE-BASED AND GROUND-BASED LASER WEAPONS
by William H. Possel, Lt Col, USAF
July 1998
Occasional Paper No. 5
Center for Strategy and Technology
Air War College
Air University
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama


Adaptive Optics. The reason stars twinkle in the night sky is due to atmospheric turbulence, which also will distort and degrade any laser. This effect has especially severe effects for the shorter wavelength lasers, such as COIL.59 These systems require sophisticated optics in order to “pre-compensate” the laser beam for atmospheric turbulence.60 To pre-shape the laser beam, an adaptive optics technique is used. Over the past several years, the Air Force Research Laboratory, Phillips Research Site, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory have made significant strides in adaptive optics.



Rendering for an Interactive 360º Light Field Display
SIGGRAPH 2007 Papers Proceedings
SIGGRAPH 2007 Emerging Technologies

http://gl.ict.usc.edu/Research/3DDisplay/


USC Lab Creates 3-D Holographic Displays, Brings TIE Fighters to Life
http://blog.wired.com:80/gadgets/2008/06/usc-lab-creates.html

[runciter]

Holograms are not the only 3D image technology. The general public tends to
label all such technologies holograms when they are not:



Source (http://www.holoworld.com/)

i think i'll go on calling them holograms, unless we find a better word.

"hologram" to me means a projected, non-material image.

[runciter]

There is no such thing as a hologram that can be projected into thin air. Holograms require the viewer to look through a piece of film.

(...)

There are no thin-air holograms. John Lear claims that thin-air holograms are top-secret military stuff. Even Lear admits they are not common knowledge.

"there is no such thing"

or

"they are not common knowledge"

?

[salamandras]

I have difficulty believing in thin air holograms as well, especially in relation to 9/11. It could have had something to do with some visual aspects of what we were shown, but planes really did hit the towers, and they did come down. So... :confused: what is left that holograms could have been a part of? The pentagon might be a good candidate, but I admit to being terribly behind on all of the 9/11 theories even though I haven't believed for a long time it happened like we were told.

Thank you for putting up this post, it's really got me wondering and I've enjoyed it.

[runciter]

I have difficulty believing in thin air holograms as well, especially in relation to 9/11.


i agree with you on 9-11, salamandras,

but i believe that a "thin air hologram" technology exists.

[kamakazi]

I have difficulty believing in thin air holograms as well, especially in relation to 9/11. It could have had something to do with some visual aspects of what we were shown, but planes really did hit the towers, and they did come down. So... :confused: what is left that holograms could have been a part of? The pentagon might be a good candidate, but I admit to being terribly behind on all of the 9/11 theories even though I haven't believed for a long time it happened like we were told.

Thank you for putting up this post, it's really got me wondering and I've enjoyed it.

sorry but no planes were used in the making of the TV movie 9/11.

holograms can never be proven just like whatever happened at pentagon & shanksville. thus the reason why ppl should focus on the one thing that can be proven through strong video evidence, no planes at WTC 1 & 2, video fakery & the media coverup.

[mynameis]

EDIT: for the record, I don't believe in 911 holograms, but do believe there were multiple events that took place that day. Merely wanted to share this info I was reading earlier ;)

was organising material for a different thread, but this should fit nicely here, seeing as I took the time to hunt it out ;) Old as boots, but worth the read... I think so anyways :p
This material was found linked to Lears website of interesting stuff.


http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/occppr02.htm


Note the 'imagination-staggering' concepts of weather wodification included in the sentance containing holographic projection :p





Rendering for an Interactive 360º Light Field Display
SIGGRAPH 2007 Papers Proceedings
SIGGRAPH 2007 Emerging Technologies

http://gl.ict.usc.edu/Research/3DDisplay/


USC Lab Creates 3-D Holographic Displays, Brings TIE Fighters to Life
http://blog.wired.com:80/gadgets/2008/06/usc-lab-creates.html


LULZ! Poor Lear! :D

Child Rowland to the dark tower came,
His word was still, Fie, foh, and fum,
I smell the blood of a British man.

[graflok]

The WTC towers were known to sway in the wind.

A Boeing 767 flying at 500+ mph would produce a impact force of over 1 billion
foot pounds of energy.

Hold your mouse pointer on the edge of the South Tower as the "plane" hits.
Do you see any perceivable movement of the building as it hits?

Even a little tiny bit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_jIFN3jkJc

[abaddon]

LULZ! Poor Lear! :D

I don't get it, but I'll laugh anyways :p

[ukor]

The WTC towers were known to sway in the wind.

A Boeing 767 flying at 500+ mph would produce a impact force of over 1 billion
foot pounds of energy.

Hold your mouse pointer on the edge of the South Tower as the "plane" hits.
Do you see any perceivable movement of the building as it hits?

Even a little tiny bit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_jIFN3jkJc

Were the Towers gray?
I don't believe they were.
But if you know the outer column dimensions and spacing, it should give you some idea of the size of details not being recorded by the camera. Such as 3ft deflections for instance.

Incidentally I calculated the impact force as 3.4MJ, which converts to approx two and a half million ft/lbs

[lightgiver]

free floaty:D
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=-k5nt541SE0
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=-k5nt541SE0

this vid may go missing?

[graflok]

But if you know the outer column dimensions and spacing, it should give you some idea of the size of details not being recorded by the camera. Such as 3ft deflections for instance.

There are a number of videos taken from various positions and distances. I see
no evidence of sway in any of them.


Incidentally I calculated the impact force as 3.4MJ, which converts to approx two and a half million ft/lbs

Show us the figures you used please.

[supertzar]

http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/08/japans-real-3d-image-projector/

[supertzar]

http://gizmodo.com/370426/apple-files-patent-for-crazy-3d-projector-setup-for-some-reason
http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2008/03/apple3d-lg.jpg

[ukor]

There are a number of videos taken from various positions and distances. I see no evidence of sway in any of them.

On the other hand, I see definition too poor to detect relative distances that minor in most video, and unsteady video in other cases.

Show us the figures you used please.

As you can see after all this time, my memory is faulty. The 3.6 is NIST's figure, and it's gigas not megas.

"Formula for calculating kinetic energy:
KE = (mass x velocity^2)/2 or 1/2 mv^2

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707-320B at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890) ^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5607MJ).

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^ 2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5024MJ).

We can see that the 2001 disaster actually had less impact than Skilling allowed for.

Of even more interest:
"The North Tower impact has been calculated at 2540MJ, and the South Tower at 3658MJ"
(Chapter 4 Aircraft Impact Damage p37 NIST’s Tomasz Wierzbicki , Director of the impact and crashworthiness team)
which is well below Skilling’s calculated figure".
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=34212&highlight=skilling#34212

[thematrix]

There are a number of videos taken from various positions and distances. I see
no evidence of sway in any of them.

Have you read the NIST report?

According to that the buildings *did* sway and how much they swayed was estimated from videos and from photos of the impacts.

How much they swayed matches up pretty accurately with how much they would be expected to sway given what we know about the KE involved in the impact and the construction of the buildings.

The methodology and science used to esitmte the swaying is published in the NIST report - any number of suitably qualified scientists could have made a HUGE name for themselves and got any kind of research grant they ever wanted by exposing the published science inthe report as being wrong.

That hasn't happened yet. Why do you suppose that is?

Hell any one of the advocates of NPT could likewise become a HUGE celebrity by undertaking a little study - proving NIST wrong using scientific evidence and publishing that evdence in a scientific journal. Just one person prepared to do some work that would expose the whole thing.

But no - you are all content to argue with people on message boards.

[salamandras]

How could it be a hologram with that many witnesses video-taping the same event? :confused: NYC is a tourist capitol, literally hundreds of people had cameras and took shots when it was going on.

I am enjoying this thread but still confused, thank you for your great posts it is appreciated.

[supertzar]

Really? How many videos of the first and second plane exist exactly? I don't know if there are dozens, let alone hundreds.

[graflok]

Have you read the NIST report?

According to that the buildings *did* sway and how much they swayed was estimated from videos and from photos of the impacts.

As you might imagine, I am skeptical of official reports about 9/11. :)

[graflok]

On the other hand, I see definition too poor to detect relative distances that minor in most video, and unsteady video in other cases.

I would think there would be some visible evidence somewhere amongst
all the videos of some, even slight, sway of the building. Billions of foot
pounds is a hell of huge impact and the buildings are known to sway in
the wind. It's just my thought and expectation. They'd have to rebuild
the tower and crash a plane into it to know for sure, of course.



= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5024MJ).

That is close to the figure I got based on 1/4 tank of fuel, 545 mph,
and passengers average weight of 150 lbs.

[acebaker]

Total energy is quite irrelevant. Burning a log in your fireplace releases more total energy than exploding a stick of dynamite. The reason dynamite will destroy your fireplace, and burning a log will not, is that the dynamite releases its energy in a much shorter amount of time.

Power is force over time.

The amount of power delivered by an impacting jet will depend greatly on how strongly connected together it is. Does it behave as a single rigid object? Or does it behave more like a liquid, a disconnected constellation of individual small parts?

If it is a single rigid object, you consider the entire mass, and it can deliver a great blow. But then the back part is obliged to slow down and change direction as soon as the front part hits.

If it is more like a liquid, the back part is under no obligation to slow down, but then the mass of the back part is irrelevant.

In other words, the official story is trying to have it both ways. It makes no sense at all.

[thematrix]

As you might imagine, I am skeptical of official reports about 9/11. :)

While it's perfectly reasonable to remain skeptical about such official reports it's better to do so from a position of having actually read them, than from a position of ignorance about their contents.

I note you didn't answer my question.

Does the phrase "know your enemy" have any meaning? :)

[thematrix]

If it is a single rigid object, you consider the entire mass, and it can deliver a great blow. But then the back part is obliged to slow down and change direction as soon as the front part hits.

If it is more like a liquid, the back part is under no obligation to slow down, but then the mass of the back part is irrelevant.

In other words, the official story is trying to have it both ways. It makes no sense at all.

does not compute.

So you are saying that the mass of the front of the plane is what delivers the initial impact and it's mass seperate from the rest of the mass of the plane is what needs to be calculated.

But then what hapened to the rest of the plane? - oh thats right - it smacked into the building as well. So we do have to use the wholemass of the plane at some point because it's trajectory was not deflected enough to make it miss the tower.

In fact lets say tha the front half of the plane impact is sufficient to break through the facade of the tower (and remember the facade is mostly glass, interspersed with thin hollow steel columns and lightweight aluminium clading) it clears a path after dong so to allow the rear of the plane to hit full force into the central core...

Video analysis shows the planes speed dropping by about 18% from the point of nose impact until the whole plane is inside the tower. So even at a reduced speed thats still a hell of a powerful impact.

Also an aircraft is composed of lightweight aluminium - very dense heavy steel/titanium pieces (engines, wing spars, landing gear) and not to mention that at that kind of speed the fluid in the wings will hit much more like a solid would (ever been high diving??) Any single one of those dense heavy pieces would cause a lot of damage in and of itself - and what hit the tower was a collection of those bits joined together with fuselage and filled with highly flammable jet fuel...

It seems to me you are trying to dismiss have the oft quoted energyimpact figures by arguing that "the energy was released slowly" - which is just plain dishonest.

[3stepsahead]

I would think there would be some visible evidence somewhere amongst
all the videos of some, even slight, sway of the building. Billions of foot
pounds is a hell of huge impact and the buildings are known to sway in
the wind. It's just my thought and expectation. They'd have to rebuild
the tower and crash a plane into it to know for sure, of course.




That is close to the figure I got based on 1/4 tank of fuel, 545 mph,
and passengers average weight of 150 lbs.

i do believe ther are physics engines that can reproduce the events..
just a different version that they used for the tv programs

[graflok]

I note you didn't answer my question.

I think I did but maybe if you ask me politely next time I will give a more verbose
response. :)


Does the phrase "know your enemy" have any meaning? :)

I do have a dictionary. Do you have a point?

[acebaker]

does not compute.

So you are saying that the mass of the front of the plane is what delivers the initial impact and it's mass seperate from the rest of the mass of the plane is what needs to be calculated.

But then what hapened to the rest of the plane? - oh thats right - it smacked into the building as well. So we do have to use the wholemass of the plane at some point because it's trajectory was not deflected enough to make it miss the tower.

In fact lets say tha the front half of the plane impact is sufficient to break through the facade of the tower (and remember the facade is mostly glass, interspersed with thin hollow steel columns and lightweight aluminium clading) it clears a path after dong so to allow the rear of the plane to hit full force into the central core...

Video analysis shows the planes speed dropping by about 18% from the point of nose impact until the whole plane is inside the tower. So even at a reduced speed thats still a hell of a powerful impact.

Also an aircraft is composed of lightweight aluminium - very dense heavy steel/titanium pieces (engines, wing spars, landing gear) and not to mention that at that kind of speed the fluid in the wings will hit much more like a solid would (ever been high diving??) Any single one of those dense heavy pieces would cause a lot of damage in and of itself - and what hit the tower was a collection of those bits joined together with fuselage and filled with highly flammable jet fuel...

It seems to me you are trying to dismiss have the oft quoted energyimpact figures by arguing that "the energy was released slowly" - which is just plain dishonest.

If the airplane is weak enough to shatter on impact, then you only consider the mass of the tiny piece that broke off. You would treat the collision as 1,000,000 separate collisions, each with 1/1,000,000 the of the mass.

If you want me to consider the airplane as a rigid structure, then indeed we can consider the entire mass of the airplane. However, this then requires that the airplane receives the same force as the building. The force would spread through the airplane at the speed of sound in aluminum, which is very fast.

The force would spread through the airplane much faster than the airplane is flying. So the fuselage, the tail, etc. would experience the same force that you say is enough to break steel box columns and spandrel plates, and blow out floors edge on.

Yet you say this force is not enough to cause ANY visible damage to the airplane at all.

This makes no sense.

We know what happens to airplanes when they hit a strong wall. The best example is Sandia. The f4 shatters, explodes radially. Wing parts break off.
The back part does not slow down, because the airplane is connected together so weakly that it behaves more as a liquid.

Observe Sandia F4. No part of the plane appears to experience any force until it hits the wall. This is clear evidence that the entire mass of the airplane is NOT acting on the wall.

Result? The airplane is completely destroyed, and the wall is unblemished.

It is the MUTUAL DESTRUCTION on 9/11 that makes no sense. The top part of a twin tower cannot crush itself and the whole rest of the building into powder. Nor can an aluminum airplane disintegrate AND bust clear through steel and concrete.

I'm not aware of any examples where colliding objects mutually disintegrate.

[graflok]

If the airplane is weak enough to shatter on impact, then you only consider the mass of the tiny piece that broke off. You would treat the collision as 1,000,000 separate collisions, each with 1/1,000,000 the of the mass.

This is an erroneous idea. Projectiles frequently shatter or break up on impact.
It doesn't change the kinetic energy figures. It might if it broke up before
impact but that doesn't apply here.

[acebaker]

If a projectile breaks up on impact, the force travels through the projectile at the speed of sound in that projectile.

If you want to treat the airplane as a rigid body, fine. I then fully accept the idea that we will apply the entire mass of the airplane to the force calculations.

But we must then apply that same force to the airplane, and it must spread throughout the entire mass of the airplane. And it must spread at the speed of sound in aluminum. Which is very fast.

So where does all that force go? What evidence do you have for this force? I see none.

Why is there enough force to break steel box columns, but not break one single part of the airplane? After initial impact the tail of the plane is still visible for at least 1/6 of a second. This is much more than the amount of time required for the force to reach it.

[supertzar]

Are you speaking of the nose of the plane appearing out of the other side of the building, undamaged? I agree that is unlikely. Planes are pretty flimsy compared to those buildings. Look at the Pentagon! How is a passenger jet going to punch a neat little hole into that three foot steel-reinforced concrete and leave barely a trace of wreckage?

[mynameis]

Are you speaking of the nose of the plane appearing out of the other side of the building, undamaged? I agree that is unlikely. Planes are pretty flimsy compared to those buildings. Look at the Pentagon! How is a passenger jet going to punch a neat little hole into that three foot steel-reinforced concrete and leave barely a trace of wreckage?

Comparing the Pentagon to the WTC are apples and onions. The Pentagon claims it reinforced that side of the Pentagon for such an attack due to remodeling completed just prior to September the 11th. Taking foresight into consideration with the rest of the information, why did the military think it necessary to reinforce that section of the Pentagon? I disagree, the amount of force which acts as a penetrator into the side of the building does not deform unless acted upon by a force. If there is nothing to act upon the tail section or the crushed parts of the plane, then there simply isn't any resistance to being broken apart. Lest we devolve into the roundabout of circular logic, what adheres you to this feat you say is impossible physics?

After initial impact the tail of the plane is still visible for at least 1/6 of a second. This is much more than the amount of time required for the force to reach it.

[graflok]

If a projectile breaks up on impact, the force travels through the projectile at the speed of sound in that projectile.

If you want to treat the airplane as a rigid body, fine. I then fully accept the idea that we will apply the entire mass of the airplane to the force calculations.

But we must then apply that same force to the airplane, and it must spread throughout the entire mass of the airplane. And it must spread at the speed of sound in aluminum. Which is very fast.

So where does all that force go? What evidence do you have for this force? I see none.

Why is there enough force to break steel box columns, but not break one single part of the airplane? After initial impact the tail of the plane is still visible for at least 1/6 of a second. This is much more than the amount of time required for the force to reach it.

You're off on a tangent now that is not related to anything I've posted.
I don't know what you're referring to, sorry.

[acebaker]

Are you speaking of the nose of the plane appearing out of the other side of the building, undamaged?

No. I'm speaking of the alleged airplane impacts in general. Somehow we got on to this subject in this thread.

[supertzar]

the amount of force which acts as a penetrator into the side of the building does not deform unless acted upon by a force. If there is nothing to act upon the tail section or the crushed parts of the plane, then there simply isn't any resistance to being broken apart. Lest we devolve into the roundabout of circular logic, what adheres you to this feat you say is impossible physics?


The resistance of three foot steel-reinforced concrete should be plenty to totally destroy a plane. Planes are extremely lightweight. They are made of aluminum. There is basically nothing to them. My friend is a captain for a commercial airline and he says in a head-on impact like that there will be nothing left of the plane. No way would it punch a hole like you see in the Pentagon before the surrounding section collapsed.

[mynameis]

The resistance of three foot steel-reinforced concrete should be plenty to totally destroy a plane. Planes are extremely lightweight. They are made of aluminum. There is basically nothing to them. My friend is a captain for a commercial airline and he says in a head-on impact like that there will be nothing left of the plane. No way would it punch a hole like you see in the Pentagon before the surrounding section collapsed.

This is the structure as the Pentagon claims, do you know something different? As plane parts were not found on the lawn of the Pentagon, I find that the story that it was a plane has not been fully established, nor is it impossible to think a missile.

Renovation Program Had Hardened the Facade Attacked on 9/11/01
The renovation program included the following improvements to the building:

Exterior walls reinforced with steel
Exterior walls backed with Kevlar
Blast-resistant windows installed
Fire sprinklers installed
Automatic fire doors installed
Building operations and control center created
1

An article in Structure Magazine provided background on the project. It cited the April 19, 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City as the motivation for the renovation program. It noted that the original design was constrained by the material demands of World War II.

The extensive use of reinforced concrete and non-reinforced masonry was one concession. Certainly the threat of any kind of terrorist attack on the building was far from the thoughts of the original designers. As a result, the Pentagon was constructed with a thin limestone facade over a brick infill between reinforced concrete floors, structurally supported by a reinforced concrete beam and column frame. Enough to protect from the elements but not from the potential forces of significant blast events. 2
Steel Reinforcements
The steel reinforcements to the walls consisted of tubular frames surrounding the window openings and attaching to the reinforced concrete floor slabs. Each windowed wall panel (between vertical concrete columns) was retrofitted with a piece consisting of two horizontal tubes welded to two vertical tubes running from the floor to the ceiling. 3


http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/docs/pentagon_retrofit.jpg

This illustration shows reinforcements added to the Pentagon's walls as seen from the inside. Reinforced concrete columns are shown in gray, and tubular steel reinforcements are pictured in red.

The reinforcements were to be sequentially applied to the five wedges of the Pentagon over time. Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01. Wedge Two was apparently yet to be retrofitted. The plane crashed into the building's exterior entirely within Wedge One.

Kevlar cloth was stretched between the steel columns to provide blast resistance to the short spans of brick wall. 4

Windows
The original windows were replaced with blast-resistant windows nearly two inches thick.

[supertzar]

This is the structure as the Pentagon claims, do you know something different? As plane parts were not found on the lawn of the Pentagon, I find that the story that it was a plane has not been fully established, nor is it impossible to think a missile.

I am not sure what you are getting at and how it relates to what I am saying. Are you saying it's not three foot steel-reinforced concrete? You are probably correct about that.

[thematrix]

So where does all that force go? What evidence do you have for this force? I see none.


Go back and watch the F4 video again you referenced.

What we see on that video is what we see on 911 - both at the towers and at the Pentagon.

Aircraft strikes and the force of the impact shatters the plane into confetti like pieces - the tail of the F4 was undamaged until it hit something.

Inthat video the planeimpacted a very thick concrete wall section - which would have been MUCH more resistant than the glass and thin steel column facde of the WTC. Simply the towers facade broke before much of the energy ofthe imapct could be absorbed/reflected back through the plane and the airframe was strong enough to hold the plane together until it hit.

[re: F4 impact]This is clear evidence that the entire mass of the airplane is NOT acting on the wall.

No it isn't. And even *if* it was - the entire mass of the airplane WILL act on the structure that it hits within a very short time frame - in less than half a second the entire plane is inside the building - we don't see it after that we have no way of knowing how it was smashed to pieces.

Why is there enough force to break steel box columns, but not break one single part of the airplane? After initial impact the tail of the plane is still visible for at least 1/6 of a second. This is much more than the amount of time required for the force to reach it.

Because those columns are designed to withstand vertical loads and for wind resistance the entire face of the tower bears the (much much lower) force of even hurricane winds as one solid piece. They were very weak structures when faced with a horizontal impact.

Also where do you get the bizarre idea that a whole aircraft is thin aluminium??

The leading edges of the wings for example are made of a "secret" alloy - noone in the public domain knows how strong that stuff is in such a collision. There are titanium engine bits - very heavy pieces of undercarriage and wing spars which are all very heavily cast components. Claiming that the plane is "aluminium" is dishonest and misleading.

[supertzar]

My pilot friend told me that the body of a plane is aluminum. Is that not true? Of course the engines are not and the leading edges of the wing tips are a very small percentage of the plane.

[3stepsahead]

if the wing hit a light pole , wich it did supposedly, it would shred the wing to pieces right? so if the wing hit a concrete slab the wing would basically stay intact. or would it now..

[mynameis]

if the wing hit a light pole , wich it did supposedly, it would shred the wing to pieces right? so if the wing hit a concrete slab the wing would basically stay intact. or would it now..

Composites and Advanced Materials

For many years, aircraft designers could propose theoretical designs that they could not build because the materials needed to construct them did not exist. (The term "unobtainium" is sometimes used to identify materials that are desired but not yet available.) For instance, large spaceplanes like the Space Shuttle would have proven extremely difficult, if not impossible, to build without heat-resistant ceramic tiles to protect them during reentry. And high-speed forward-swept-wing airplanes like Grumman's experimental X-29 or the Russian Sukhoi S-27 Berkut would not have been possible without the development of composite materials to keep their wings from bending out of shape.

Composites are the most important materials to be adapted for aviation since the use of aluminum in the 1920s. Composites are materials that are combinations of two or more organic or inorganic components. One material serves as a "matrix," which is the material that holds everything together, while the other material serves as a reinforcement, in the form of fibers embedded in the matrix. Until recently, the most common matrix materials were "thermosetting" materials such as epoxy, bismaleimide, or polyimide. The reinforcing materials can be glass fiber, boron fiber, carbon fiber, or other more exotic mixtures.

Fiberglass is the most common composite material, and consists of glass fibers embedded in a resin matrix. Fiberglass was first used widely in the 1950s for boats and automobiles, and today most cars have fiberglass bumpers covering a steel frame. Fiberglass was first used in the Boeing 707 passenger jet in the 1950s, where it comprised about two percent of the structure. By the 1960s, other composite materials became available, in particular boron fiber and graphite, embedded in epoxy resins. The U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy began research into using these materials for aircraft control surfaces like ailerons and rudders. The first major military production use of boron fiber was for the horizontal stabilizers on the Navy's F-14 Tomcat interceptor. By 1981, the British Aerospace-McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier flew with over 25 percent of its structure made of composite materials.

Making composite structures is more complex than manufacturing most metal structures. To make a composite structure, the composite material, in tape or fabric form, is laid out and put in a mold under heat and pressure. The resin matrix material flows and when the heat is removed, it solidifies. It can be formed into various shapes. In some cases, the fibers are wound tightly to increase strength. One useful feature of composites is that they can be layered, with the fibers in each layer running in a different direction. This allows materials engineers to design structures that behave in certain ways. For instance, they can design a structure that will bend in one direction, but not another. The designers of the Grumman X-29 experimental plane used this attribute of composite materials to design forward-swept wings that did not bend up at the tips like metal wings of the same shape would have bent in flight.

The greatest value of composite materials is that they can be both lightweight and strong. The heavier an aircraft weighs, the more fuel it burns, so reducing weight is important to aeronautical engineers.

Despite their strength and low weight, composites have not been a miracle solution for aircraft structures. Composites are hard to inspect for flaws. Some of them absorb moisture. Most importantly, they can be expensive, primarily because they are labor intensive and often require complex and expensive fabrication machines. Aluminum, by contrast, is easy to manufacture and repair. Anyone who has ever gotten into a minor car accident has learned that dented metal can be hammered back into shape, but a crunched fiberglass bumper has to be completely replaced. The same is true for many composite materials used in aviation.

Modern airliners use significant amounts of composites to achieve lighter weight. About ten percent of the structural weight of the Boeing 777, for instance, is composite material. Modern military aircraft, such as the F-22, use composites for at least a third of their structures, and some experts have predicted that future military aircraft will be more than two-thirds composite materials. But for now, military aircraft use substantially greater percentages of composite materials than commercial passenger aircraft primarily because of the different ways that commercial and military aircraft are maintained.

Aluminum is a very tolerant material and can take a great deal of punishment before it fails. It can be dented or punctured and still hold together. Composites are not like this. If they are damaged, they require immediate repair, which is difficult and expensive. An airplane made entirely from aluminum can be repaired almost anywhere. This is not the case for composite materials, particularly as they use different and more exotic materials. Because of this, composites will probably always be used more in military aircraft, which are constantly being maintained, than in commercial aircraft, which have to require less maintenance.

Thermoplastics are a relatively new material that is replacing thermosets as the matrix material for composites. They hold much promise for aviation applications. One of their big advantages is that they are easy to produce. They are also more durable and tougher than thermosets, particularly for light impacts, such as when a wrench dropped on a wing accidentally. The wrench could easily crack a thermoset material but would bounce off a thermoplastic composite material.

In addition to composites, other advanced materials are under development for aviation. During the 1980s, many aircraft designers became enthusiastic about ceramics, which seemed particularly promising for lightweight jet engines, because they could tolerate hotter temperatures than conventional metals. But their brittleness and difficulty to manufacture were major drawbacks, and research on ceramics for many aviation applications decreased by the 1990s.

Aluminum still remains a remarkably useful material for aircraft structures and metallurgists have worked hard to develop better aluminum alloys (a mixture of aluminum and other materials). In particular, aluminum-lithium is the most successful of these alloys. It is approximately ten percent lighter than standard aluminum. Beginning in the later 1990s it was used for the Space Shuttle's large External Tank in order to reduce weight and enable the shuttle to carry more payload. Its adoption by commercial aircraft manufacturers has been slower, however, due to the expense of lithium and the greater difficulty of using aluminum-lithium (in particular, it requires much care during welding). But it is likely that aluminum-lithium will eventually become a widely used material for both commercial and military aircraft.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/composites/Tech40.htm

[mynameis]

The 767 Freighter is a derivative of the popular 767-300ER (extended range) passenger twinjet.

All the advancements in avionics, aerodynamics, materials and propulsion that were developed for passenger versions of the 767 are incorporated in the freighter. Its design provides excellent fuel efficiency, operational flexibility, low noise levels and an all-digital flight deck. The structure employs aluminum alloys and composite materials.

The 767 Freighter is similar in external appearance to 767 passenger airplanes, except for the lack of passenger windows and doors. The interior of the main-deck fuselage has a smooth fiberglass lining. A fixed, rigid barrier installed in the front end of the main deck serves as a restraint wall between the cargo and the flight deck. A door in the barrier wall permits in-flight access from the flight deck to the cargo area.

Boeing has been the world leader in civilian air cargo since the 707 Freighter was introduced more than 30 years ago. A total of seven customers have ordered 82 767-300 Freighters.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/300f/index.html


if the wing hit a light pole , wich it did supposedly, it would shred the wing to pieces right? so if the wing hit a concrete slab the wing would basically stay intact. or would it now..


A superalloy, or high-performance alloy, is an alloy that exhibits excellent mechanical strength and creep resistance at high temperatures, good surface stability, and corrosion and oxidation resistance. Superalloys typically have an austenitic face-centered cubic crystal structure. A superalloy's base alloying element is usually nickel, cobalt, or nickel-iron. Superalloy development has relied heavily on both chemical and process innovations and has been driven primarily by the aerospace and power industries. Typical applications are in the aerospace, industrial gas turbine and marine turbine industry, e.g. for turbine blades for hot sections of jet engines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superalloy


Composites and Advanced Materials

For many years, aircraft designers could propose theoretical designs that they could not build because the materials needed to construct them did not exist. (The term "unobtainium" is sometimes used to identify materials that are desired but not yet available.) For instance, large spaceplanes like the Space Shuttle would have proven extremely difficult, if not impossible, to build without heat-resistant ceramic tiles to protect them during reentry. And high-speed forward-swept-wing airplanes like Grumman's experimental X-29 or the Russian Sukhoi S-27 Berkut would not have been possible without the development of composite materials to keep their wings from bending out of shape.

Composites are the most important materials to be adapted for aviation since the use of aluminum in the 1920s. Composites are materials that are combinations of two or more organic or inorganic components. One material serves as a "matrix," which is the material that holds everything together, while the other material serves as a reinforcement, in the form of fibers embedded in the matrix. Until recently, the most common matrix materials were "thermosetting" materials such as epoxy, bismaleimide, or polyimide. The reinforcing materials can be glass fiber, boron fiber, carbon fiber, or other more exotic mixtures.

Fiberglass is the most common composite material, and consists of glass fibers embedded in a resin matrix. Fiberglass was first used widely in the 1950s for boats and automobiles, and today most cars have fiberglass bumpers covering a steel frame. Fiberglass was first used in the Boeing 707 passenger jet in the 1950s, where it comprised about two percent of the structure. By the 1960s, other composite materials became available, in particular boron fiber and graphite, embedded in epoxy resins. The U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy began research into using these materials for aircraft control surfaces like ailerons and rudders. The first major military production use of boron fiber was for the horizontal stabilizers on the Navy's F-14 Tomcat interceptor. By 1981, the British Aerospace-McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier flew with over 25 percent of its structure made of composite materials.

Making composite structures is more complex than manufacturing most metal structures. To make a composite structure, the composite material, in tape or fabric form, is laid out and put in a mold under heat and pressure. The resin matrix material flows and when the heat is removed, it solidifies. It can be formed into various shapes. In some cases, the fibers are wound tightly to increase strength. One useful feature of composites is that they can be layered, with the fibers in each layer running in a different direction. This allows materials engineers to design structures that behave in certain ways. For instance, they can design a structure that will bend in one direction, but not another. The designers of the Grumman X-29 experimental plane used this attribute of composite materials to design forward-swept wings that did not bend up at the tips like metal wings of the same shape would have bent in flight.

The greatest value of composite materials is that they can be both lightweight and strong. The heavier an aircraft weighs, the more fuel it burns, so reducing weight is important to aeronautical engineers.

Despite their strength and low weight, composites have not been a miracle solution for aircraft structures. Composites are hard to inspect for flaws. Some of them absorb moisture. Most importantly, they can be expensive, primarily because they are labor intensive and often require complex and expensive fabrication machines. Aluminum, by contrast, is easy to manufacture and repair. Anyone who has ever gotten into a minor car accident has learned that dented metal can be hammered back into shape, but a crunched fiberglass bumper has to be completely replaced. The same is true for many composite materials used in aviation.

Modern airliners use significant amounts of composites to achieve lighter weight. About ten percent of the structural weight of the Boeing 777, for instance, is composite material. Modern military aircraft, such as the F-22, use composites for at least a third of their structures, and some experts have predicted that future military aircraft will be more than two-thirds composite materials. But for now, military aircraft use substantially greater percentages of composite materials than commercial passenger aircraft primarily because of the different ways that commercial and military aircraft are maintained.

Aluminum is a very tolerant material and can take a great deal of punishment before it fails. It can be dented or punctured and still hold together. Composites are not like this. If they are damaged, they require immediate repair, which is difficult and expensive. An airplane made entirely from aluminum can be repaired almost anywhere. This is not the case for composite materials, particularly as they use different and more exotic materials. Because of this, composites will probably always be used more in military aircraft, which are constantly being maintained, than in commercial aircraft, which have to require less maintenance.

Thermoplastics are a relatively new material that is replacing thermosets as the matrix material for composites. They hold much promise for aviation applications. One of their big advantages is that they are easy to produce. They are also more durable and tougher than thermosets, particularly for light impacts, such as when a wrench dropped on a wing accidentally. The wrench could easily crack a thermoset material but would bounce off a thermoplastic composite material.

In addition to composites, other advanced materials are under development for aviation. During the 1980s, many aircraft designers became enthusiastic about ceramics, which seemed particularly promising for lightweight jet engines, because they could tolerate hotter temperatures than conventional metals. But their brittleness and difficulty to manufacture were major drawbacks, and research on ceramics for many aviation applications decreased by the 1990s.

Aluminum still remains a remarkably useful material for aircraft structures and metallurgists have worked hard to develop better aluminum alloys (a mixture of aluminum and other materials). In particular, aluminum-lithium is the most successful of these alloys. It is approximately ten percent lighter than standard aluminum. Beginning in the later 1990s it was used for the Space Shuttle's large External Tank in order to reduce weight and enable the shuttle to carry more payload. Its adoption by commercial aircraft manufacturers has been slower, however, due to the expense of lithium and the greater difficulty of using aluminum-lithium (in particular, it requires much care during welding). But it is likely that aluminum-lithium will eventually become a widely used material for both commercial and military aircraft.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/composites/Tech40.htm

[banoyes]

Inthat video the planeimpacted a very thick concrete wall section - which would have been MUCH more resistant than the glass and thin steel column facde of the WTC. Simply the towers facade broke before much of the energy ofthe imapct could be absorbed/reflected back through the plane and the airframe was strong enough to hold the plane together until it hit.

WTC Structure Collapse Analysis-government video
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=86c_1190219877
(columns from 2nd tower)
14"X13" box steel girders take a look at the "thin steel columns"
The rest is pure gibberish



No it isn't. And even *if* it was - the entire mass of the airplane WILL act on the structure that it hits within a very short time frame - in less than half a second the entire plane is inside the building - we don't see it after that we have no way of knowing how it was smashed to pieces.
Not a shred of evidence indicating it "smashed to pieces"
The plane enters the building like going through a cloud. There is NO crash.smash.or wrinkling if the skin[/QUOTE]


Because those columns are designed to withstand vertical loads and for wind resistance the entire face of the tower bears the (much much lower) force of even hurricane winds as one solid piece. They were very weak structures when faced with a horizontal impact.

The WTC were acclaimed the strongest buildings in the world, there is nothing weak about them
( please note this posters use of language, as if he knows something, yet he post total BS, thats what he knows)

Also where do you get the bizarre idea that a whole aircraft is thin aluminium??
He's right here...the nose was a plastic composit..the nose..you know the part that hit first


The leading edges of the wings for example are made of a "secret" alloy - noone in the public domain knows how strong that stuff is in such a collision. There are titanium engine bits - very heavy pieces of undercarriage and wing spars which are all very heavily cast components. Claiming that the plane is "aluminium" is dishonest and misleading.

oh no the "secret" ingredient
you gotta love how that tail section just goes right through the building,heck it doesn't even slow down
Talk about "dishonest and misleading"
you are a master of that technique