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.

 

How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

page: 10
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   
[edit on 11/24/2007 by Zaphod58]




posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But the 767 is not a small surface area. And if you add the wings you have a very large surface area.

Sort of like your comparison of pushing your fist through a piece of paper.


I should have added that it is proportional to its mass. Even though the wing is thin, it also happens to be the fuel tank, which can hold thousands of gallons of liquid weighing about 7 lbs/gallon. So when you add up a lot of mass directing energy to a small area of the leading wing edge, it exerts a lot of pressure on the object it strikes.

Regarding the pencil and fist through paper, it should be obvious that which one is easier, yet all things being equal you would be applying the same amount of force with your fist or with your hand holding a pencil. One will penetrate more easily because you are concentrating the pressure over the area of a pencil point and the other is spreading out the same pressure over the area of your fist.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ben91069
I should have added that it is proportional to its mass.


So your saying that even though a airframe can be torn apart just hitting some small trees and a wing can have a large section sheared off by hitting a light pole it is going to make it through all those steel beams?



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 04:26 AM
link   
OK. Am calling this.

Ultima selectively edited one of his posts earlier. - this one.

Edited post

The post contained a video of a Boeing 707 being deliberately crashed into a runway.

The video clearly showed that a large portion of the fuselage, and large sections of the wing survived the impact. That despite the fact that it hit a considerably more massive object, that is particularly stronger and solid than the WTC ever was - the ground.

In essence he completely proved himself wrong.

When I pointed this out, he went back into the post and removed the video.

You will see the trail from subsequent posts that refer to the video.

Thats not the way ATS should work. Its just plain wrong. In debating sense its fraud.

Editing for spelling or to add stuff you may have forgotten is one thing.

Removing something that clearly shows what you are arguing about is wrong is another, and if pointing that out gets me a warn or a ban then so be it.

I did use the proper channels to try and bring this to attention before I posted here and its been a couple of days now.

You are completely wasting your time trying to discuss this issue with Ultima.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
The metal stayed molten because there was an outside heat source (possibly smoldering material, leaking gas line, etc.. ) combined with the insulative properties of the debris.


So where is the evidence of this outside heat source?

Do you have a report of a leaking gas line?

One very good and simple explination for the steel to stay molten for several weeks is thermite.



My evidence is the molten metal. Something had to keep it hot which means insulation to keep the material from cooling and a heat source to keep it hot. Simple as that.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
The molten metals confirmed there were caused by a very intense heat..there is no doubt about that. WHAT can cause that kind of heat? Fire from some floors far above? No. Gravity? No. The ONLY things that can generate that much heat are thermate type products or some type of fission or nuke weapon. The temps must have been in the tens of thousands of degrees intially to melt enough of the core steel to make the kinds of flowing pools that were seen.

Actually a fanned fire could be hot enough to make metal glow.
There is no evidence of a nuke. The whole nuke thing has been debunked to death. No radiation and no EMP. You must have both if it was a nuclear reaction. If you don't have both, you don't have a nuclear reaction.


The steel at the bedrock area was severed in order to finish the job and make the steel framework lose its strength. Recall the ' Spire ' turing to dust on film; that means that the core was exposed to heat so massive that it rendered the steel unable to retain its form..it lost its cohesion, and turned to dust. The steel at the lower levels was the only source of the molten mass seen, and the only way to corrupt the core entirely was to burn it out from the bottom . The reports by Rodriguez and others confirms that major blasts were felt and experienced at the very lower levels, originating from BELOW.

Thats weird because it fell top first.


What more proof is needed?

How about any proof? That would be a good place to start.


Major explosions that cause a 50 ton press to DISAPPEAR from the shop area, cause terrible burns on people in the area and pools of molten steel in the bottom of the rubble. Those are cluies that lead to a conclusion: The bottom of the Towers were blown out by a force so robust that it created heat sufficient to melt steel in large qualtities and keep it molten for weeks. And with NO source feeding it.

Without a source everything will cool.


There has NEVER EVER been any reliable report of any large amounts of combustibles stored in the lower Towers and never has there been any reports of any gas lines feeding the underground area: On the contrary: All utilities were cut immediately after the strikes for just that reason.

All utilities may have been cut but there would still be gas in the lines. I also do not know that the utilities were cut immediately and if the shutoffs worked 100%.


There was no gas ( it wouldn't burn hot enough anyway)..there was no fuel of any type.

Prove it.


A massive explosion and heat that can creat molten steel come from few sources..and the desperate believers in the official lie are reaching very deep into the pit of foolishness to believe that there are any mundane explanations for the molten steel and the explosions.

There is only 2 types of explosion that generates a heat wave en mass. Thermobaric and nuclear.
And the desperate believers in the thermite/nuclear lie are reaching very deep into the pit of foolishness to believe that there are any absurd explanations for the molten steel and explosions. Wow that statement fits much better when referring to reality



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by moonking
Pound for pound, aircraft aluminum is tough as it gets, it has a high strength to weight ratio, it’s the same stuff stop signs (at least were I’m from in the U.S.) are made of, had one hanging in my jam room that my friends would mess with, if you ever have a chance to play around with one and see how strong its is you might be amazed


Gee, so strong but then a small bird can put a hole right through it.

And aiframes are destroyed by just hitting small trees

Large sections wings are sheared off from hitting light poles.

[edit on 24-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]


Wow you need to let the whole bird thing go. Your own argument keeps proving you wrong.
Lets go over this again.
A bird, which is not as strong as aluminum, can damage a plane made out of aluminum. Either this is true or it is not. You say it is true.
SO BY DEFAULT
USING YOUR OWN ARGUMENT
A plane made of aluminum, which is not as strong as steel, can damage the building.
So your argument must prove to you that the plane could damage the building.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ben91069
.The have a small surface area in section, but have a lot of momentum which produces insane pressures when they strike an object, which will cut anything like a hot knife in butter.


But the 767 is not a small surface area. And if you add the wings you have a very large surface area.

Sort of like your comparison of pushing your fist through a piece of paper.


When compared to the entire surface area of the building, the plane only does cover a small surface area.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So your argument must prove to you that the plane could damage the building.


The plane might do some damage, but the aluminum is not going to cause the damage that would casue the building to collapse.

Look at this photo and tell if you believe an aluminum airframe will go through many steel beams.

If small trees can destroy a airframe, steel will shred it to pieces.

i114.photobucket.com...

So now that you have actual proof that airframes are fragile, please explain to me how it would destroy enough steel to cause a collapse.




[edit on 25-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
So your argument must prove to you that the plane could damage the building.


The plane might do some damage, but the aluminum is not going to cause the damage that would casue the building to collapse.

Look at this photo and tell if you believe an aluminum airframe will go through many steel beams.

If small trees can destroy a airframe, steel will shred it to pieces.

i114.photobucket.com...

So now that you have actual proof that airframes are fragile, please explain to me how it would destroy enough steel to cause a collapse.

I didn't see anywhere that shows the plane being damaged by a small tree. Could you either show me the video where the plane is being sheared due to a small tree or a report stating that the massive amount of damage was done by a small tree?

Also, please review the Purdue video and you will see how the plane damaged the building. If you believe the Purdue video to be incorrect, please show me the correct physics/mathematics.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I didn't see anywhere that shows the plane being damaged by a small tree.

Also, please review the Purdue video and you will see how the plane damaged the building. If you believe the Purdue video to be incorrect, please show me the correct physics/mathematics.


Are you serious, you could not see the trees in the photo that destroyed the airframe? There is nothing but small trees in the photo.

The Purdue video supports tht fact that the aiframe was shredded by the steel as soon as it hits the building. The damge casued by the airframe is minor. NIST, FEMA and most other reports state the buildings withstood the planes impacts.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


That looks very much like a crash landing where the pilot would be trying hit the ground at minimum speed and the body of the plane is largely intact. It probably hit the ground 500m further back fracturing the wing mounts too. Had it come in at 500 knots there'd be a significant display of forest clearing and a plane in much smaller pieces as well.

The front-on surface area of a plane including wing leading edges is necessarily small for aerodynamic efficiency so given enough mass and, more importantly, speed the whole plane acts like a knife on impact.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
It probably hit the ground 500m further back fracturing the wing mounts too.


So if the wings sheared off just from a minor impact, what would happen if the struck a obsticle at high speed?

Also the small tress ripped open the aluminum airframe like a can opener.

[edit on 25-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So if the wings sheared off just from a minor impact, what would happen if the struck a obsticle at high speed?

Also the small tress ripped open the aluminum airframe like a can opener.


In the case of hitting a building at full speed, even if the wings broke off they're still travelling at full speed forward with nothing to stop them except the building components. The engines attached to the 767 wings would give them a fair advantage in kinetic energy independently also IMHO.

The planes didn't exactly win the battle of forces, they were totally pulverised in the jungle of internal columns.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I didn't see anywhere that shows the plane being damaged by a small tree.

Also, please review the Purdue video and you will see how the plane damaged the building. If you believe the Purdue video to be incorrect, please show me the correct physics/mathematics.


Are you serious, you could not see the trees in the photo that destroyed the airframe? There is nothing but small trees in the photo.

Just because you see some small damaged trees doesn't mean that is what damaged the plane.


The Purdue video supports tht fact that the aiframe was shredded by the steel as soon as it hits the building. The damge casued by the airframe is minor. NIST, FEMA and most other reports state the buildings withstood the planes impacts.


In the Purdue video, you can actually count the number of damaged beams and you see what plane parts damages them. How do you account for that? Like I said, I counted 24 beams being damaged.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123Just because you see some small damaged trees doesn't mean that is what damaged the plane.


What else in the photos would have casued the damage.

So tell me, even if the Purdue animation does show 24 beams being destroyed, do you think that is much damage for buildings the size of the twin towers?



[edit on 25-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The plane might do some damage, but the aluminum is not going to cause the damage that would casue the building to collapse.

So now that you have actual proof that airframes are fragile, please explain to me how it would destroy enough steel to cause a collapse.

How much damage needs to be done to start the eventual collapse of the towers in your opinion?
You’re talking about hundreds of factors involved and are trying to deduce it down to a single point
You say “aluminum is not going to cause the damage that would cause the building to collapse”
You should be asking “Is a jet liner, full of fuel, slamming into the tower, going to be sufficient enough to cause a chain reaction of events that will eventually cause the building to collapse”
Just by the mere time that passed between them being struck and when they collapse is enough to tell you that in the end it was structure of the building that gave way once a sufficient part of it was compromise by the intense fire, it became cataclysmic , a sudden fundamental change in the integrity of the intended engineering of the structure



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by moonking
How much damage needs to be done to start the eventual collapse of the towers in your opinion?

You should be asking “Is a jet liner, full of fuel, slamming into the tower, going to be sufficient enough to cause a chain reaction of events that will eventually cause the building to collapse”

Just by the mere time that passed between them being struck and when they collapse is enough to tell you that in the end it was structure of the building that gave way once a sufficient part of it was compromise by the intense fire, it became cataclysmic , a sudden fundamental change in the integrity of the intended engineering of the structure


1. A lot more then what the planes did.

2. Not according to NIST, FEMA and most other reports.

3. No according to NIST. The model for the towers state that the planes impacts and the fires did not take out enough collums to cause the collaspe.


The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.


Fahim Sadek, Michael A. Riley, Emil Simiu,
William Fritz, and H.S. Lew
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
U.S. Department of Commerce
fahim.sadek@nist.gov
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft
Impact Damage Analysis
June 22, 2004



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123Just because you see some small damaged trees doesn't mean that is what damaged the plane.


What else in the photos would have casued the damage.

So tell me, even if the Purdue animation does show 24 beams being destroyed, do you think that is much damage for buildings the size of the twin towers?

[edit on 25-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]


Oh I don't know, maybe the ground?? The trees may have been damaged by the aircraft but that doesn't automatically mean that the trees caused the huge gaping rip in the side of the aircraft.
I don't see any huge trees around and only a few small ones.

Between he 24+ posts, vibrational damage of the structure, fires, etc... of course that would be alot of damage to the buildings.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


regarding WTC 7
Here is the summary reason for collapse




An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, as the large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Hopefully this helps



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join