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: 11
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Between he 24+ posts, vibrational damage of the structure, fires, etc... of course that would be alot of damage to the buildings.


So tell me was the NIST model wrong then when it stated the planes and fires did not damage enough collums to casue a collapse?




posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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.

That's Not what I'm getting from NIST or FEMA


This is the final report on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers, conducted under the National Construction Safety Team Act. This report describes how the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires led to the collapse of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings;

NIST

This is a link to a FEMA pdf
Fema





[edit on 25-11-2007 by moonking]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Between he 24+ posts, vibrational damage of the structure, fires, etc... of course that would be alot of damage to the buildings.


So tell me was the NIST model wrong then when it stated the planes and fires did not damage enough collums to casue a collapse?


Look at it this way. If the planes never hit the buildings, then they would still be standing there today. Obviously, unless you're John Lear, you know, the planes hitting the buildings started a chain reaction that brought the buildings down. The NIST says this, the evidence points to this.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by moonking
 


I've read the same thing. Good post !!

It seems some people are leaving out key information to make the information look different then it is... hmmmm......



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by moonking
That's Not what I'm getting from NIST or FEMA


So is NIST contridicting their earlier report?


Originally posted by jfj123
Look at it this way. If the planes never hit the buildings, then they would still be standing there today.


No NIST along with most other reports state the buildings witstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.

The planes impacts were not a cause of the collapse.


[edit on 25-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 25-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
The mass of the aluminum grew because of the speed the aircraft was going. The faster something goes the greater the mass. It's weired but it's physics. So basically the aluminums density increased to something greater then that of the steel used in the WTC. People could not believe a piece of foam could go through the space shuttles wing but it did because of speed(velocity).



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloakndagger
The mass of the aluminum grew because of the speed the aircraft was going.


But it is still made of aluminum and steel will shred the aluiminum.

According to all reports the builidngs witstood the impacts of the planes.

[edit on 25-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloakndagger
The mass of the aluminum grew because of the speed the aircraft was going. The faster something goes the greater the mass. It's weired but it's physics. So basically the aluminums density increased to something greater then that of the steel used in the WTC. People could not believe a piece of foam could go through the space shuttles wing but it did because of speed(velocity).


I think what you mean you are referring to is momentum, because the mass of the aircraft remained constant, and we can assume its velocity was constant at the moment of impact. You can generally figure out the total force of impact using the second law of motion, then simply figure out the total square inches of the front profile of the plane. Simplify this to one square inch and it will yield a rough average of the pressure exerted by the total mass of the plane. This is the simple version but it will get you some idea of the pressure exerted at impact.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So is NIST contridicting their earlier report?

I don’t know, you’ll have to post a link to the earlier report you speak of so I can compare the two, I can't seem to find another official report from them
Now when you state that NIST said" the planes impacts were not a cause of the collapse" are you taking that out of context , as in "The planes initial impact did not cause of the collapse but the subsequential fire did"?



[edit on 25-11-2007 by moonking]



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

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

No NIST along with most other reports state the buildings witstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.

The planes impacts were not a cause of the collapse.


So are you saying the buildings would have collapsed, even if planes did not impact the buildings? It was just a coincidence? Any damage caused by the plane impact, debris, or fuel, did not contribute to the collapse?



[edit on 25-11-2007 by Disclosed]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ben91069

Originally posted by cloakndagger
The mass of the aluminum grew because of the speed the aircraft was going. The faster something goes the greater the mass. It's weired but it's physics. So basically the aluminums density increased to something greater then that of the steel used in the WTC. People could not believe a piece of foam could go through the space shuttles wing but it did because of speed(velocity).


I think what you mean you are referring to is momentum, because the mass of the aircraft remained constant, and we can assume its velocity was constant at the moment of impact. You can generally figure out the total force of impact using the second law of motion, then simply figure out the total square inches of the front profile of the plane. Simplify this to one square inch and it will yield a rough average of the pressure exerted by the total mass of the plane. This is the simple version but it will get you some idea of the pressure exerted at impact.


I've been out of school too long, but Newtons second law of motion is:
Force = Mass x Acceleration. Since Mass is always constant, the force of impact will increase only if the plane accelerates?



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by canadude

I've been out of school too long, but Newtons second law of motion is:
Force = Mass x Acceleration. Since Mass is always constant, the force of impact will increase only if the plane accelerates?



I kinda see what you are saying and it will increase when velocity increases. The long version of that formula takes a lot of other reactions into account. It basically is about the conservation of energy. It is easier to think about as an instant amount of energy that occurs at the split second the plane strikes the facade, although it tends to be less accurate and doesn't take everything into account. You have to understand that the plane is decelerating rather quickly with all that mass, which can be calculating the same way. The acceleration factor in that formula isn't necessarily going slow to fast, but is a vector quantity of change of motion over time, which can also represent slowing down real quick (impact) as well.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Any damage caused by the plane impact, debris, or fuel, did not contribute to the collapse?


Most reports state that the buildings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing. Evidence also suggest the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to cause the collapse.

The fires were not hot enough to melt steel and it was buring out before the towers collapsed, yet there was molten steel in the basements of the buildings and steel was kept molten in the debris for several weeks.

Also data from NASA showed thermal hotspots in the debris field.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by moonking
That's Not what I'm getting from NIST or FEMA


So is NIST contridicting their earlier report?


Originally posted by jfj123
Look at it this way. If the planes never hit the buildings, then they would still be standing there today.


No NIST along with most other reports state the buildings witstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing.

The planes impacts were not a cause of the collapse.
[edit on 25-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]
[edit on 25-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]


Wow, then the buildings are still there!!! Great news !!!

Once again, here's the NIST's FINAL report or WTC 7. Not just a preliminary report but a FINAL report.


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.


Everything was initiated by the plane impact.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by cloakndagger
The mass of the aluminum grew because of the speed the aircraft was going.


But it is still made of aluminum and steel will shred the aluiminum.

According to all reports the builidngs witstood the impacts of the planes.

[edit on 25-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]


Then you dispute the Purdue video. Please show me how/why they are wrong. You can see the plane (made of aluminum) shearing away columns (made of steel). Please let me know how the video creators screwed up so we can fix it.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by canadude

Originally posted by ben91069

Originally posted by cloakndagger
The mass of the aluminum grew because of the speed the aircraft was going. The faster something goes the greater the mass. It's weired but it's physics. So basically the aluminums density increased to something greater then that of the steel used in the WTC. People could not believe a piece of foam could go through the space shuttles wing but it did because of speed(velocity).


I've been out of school too long, but Newtons second law of motion is:
Force = Mass x Acceleration. Since Mass is always constant, the force of impact will increase only if the plane accelerates?

Possibly what the poster is referring to is
2
E=MC
Energy=Mass*speed of light - squared
So the mass of an object actually increases, the faster the object goes requiring an increase in energy to move the mass until at 99.99% the speed of light where the mass of the object becomes infinite.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
Any damage caused by the plane impact, debris, or fuel, did not contribute to the collapse?


Most reports state that the buildings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing. Evidence also suggest the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to cause the collapse.

So what you are saying is that based on what you have read, there is no official reason for the collapse'.

Here is a summary report from the NIST

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



The fires were not hot enough to melt steel and it was buring out before the towers collapsed, yet there was molten steel in the basements of the buildings and steel was kept molten in the debris for several weeks.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

1. Notice where you wrote "burning out" and not "burned out" which means after the collapse, underground fires could have re-ignited.

When you use the term "molten steel" are you referring to red hot steel or melted steel?


Also data from NASA showed thermal hotspots in the debris field.

OK, and?



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 08:11 AM
link   


Since Mass is always constant, the force of impact will increase only if the plane accelerates?


I thought that was a bit of confusion about negative acceleration.
A 100 000 kg object travelling at 220m/s stopping in 1/3sec (a=660m/s^2) would require a force of 66 000 000 newtons to be dissipated in the stopping system (in this case a building).



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Most reports state that the buildings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing. Evidence also suggest the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to cause the collapse.

The fires were not hot enough to melt steel and it was buring out before the towers collapsed, yet there was molten steel in the basements of the buildings and steel was kept molten in the debris for several weeks.

Also data from NASA showed thermal hotspots in the debris field.



ULTIMA1,

Thats all interesting and stuff, but you didnt answer my question at all. Are you saying that the buildings would have collapsed....even if no planes were involved.

Thank you.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Question for Ultima.

Why did you selectively edit your post and remove the video of the 707 being remotely crashed?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join