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: 16
13
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by bsbray11
So we know this? Or is this the working assumption?


All the materal listed is material from the plane itself.

wheels are made of magnesium
engine sections are made of titanium
counterweights are tungsten


I didn't mean that the parts were there. I meant that they were there AND happened to be exposed to each other in the right amounts at the right conditions, etc. That's actually what most of the post was about, that you were responding to here. I guess you didn't read it.




posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
the thread topic was somthing to the effect how does alum cut steel? so do we all agree now that alum can cut steel under the right conditions? even the posters who do not think the aircraft was enough to bring the towers down seem to agree that the planes did do damage to the steel componets of the towers. my only thought about the rest of the posts is this:the titanic hit an iceberg, ice is softer than steel hull plates.the wtc did not fall as soon as the planes hit it,niether did the titanic sink the moment it struck the iceberg,it started a chain of events that finished in in the sinking.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Disinformation aimed at skeptics of the official story is more subtle than the simple promotion of that story to the masses. It may consist of ideas with no basis in evidence packaged as shocking new findings that supposedly prove the involvement of insiders. Its effect is to discredit the larger body of 9/11 research through guilt by association with its sensational and unscientific approach.
• Because people inclined to accept that the attack was an inside job tend to be more open-minded in general, they are more likely to entertain a range of ideas, and are somewhat handicapped in appreciating the potency of ill-founded or poorly presented theories in discrediting good research.
• Many working on social justice causes like 9/11 are reluctant to admit that there are saboteurs in their midst. The idea that the struggle to expose the crime is just a contest between the official story and alternatives is comforting in its simplicity. Recognizing that the struggle is a two-or-more-front war of ideas can be intimidating or even overwhelming.




posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I didn't mean that the parts were there. I meant that they were there AND happened to be exposed to each other in the right amounts at the right conditions, etc. .


I read it, its the point that you had materials on the scene that would have casued a thermite reactions. We have see video of what looks like motlen metals and thermite reactions comming from the South tower.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by robert204
 


I liked you Titanic comparison. I would like to add one more of my own making:

the bone in my skull is a pretty hard and strong material. With a piece of bone, it is possible to scribble on a soft metal such as lead. However, if I load a lead bullet into a gun and fire it at my cranium from a close range, I'm pretty sure that would preclude my further participation in ATS.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
[, if I load a lead bullet into a gun and fire it at my cranium from a close range, I'm pretty sure that would preclude my further participation in ATS.


But is a plane like bullet?

Was the plane travelling as fast as a bullet?

Is a plane built like a bullet?

How big was the impact area of the plane on the building?



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by buddhasystem
[, if I load a lead bullet into a gun and fire it at my cranium from a close range, I'm pretty sure that would preclude my further participation in ATS.


But is a plane like bullet?


It sure had a very long profile compared to a bullet, which bears a similarity to armor-piercing kinetic energy weapons.


Was the plane travelling as fast as a bullet?


Yes, the planes were traveling at velocities comparable to muzzle velocities of a small revolver.


How big was the impact area of the plane on the building?


It was likely comparable, relatively speaking, to the caliber of the bullet compared to my cranium. If it were smaller, then the energy concentration was even higher!



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It sure had a very long profile compared to a bullet, which bears a similarity to armor-piercing kinetic energy weapons.

Yes, the planes were traveling at velocities comparable to muzzle velocities of a small revolver.

It was likely comparable, relatively speaking, to the caliber of the bullet compared to my cranium. If it were smaller, then the energy concentration was even higher!



1. A bullet is solid, a plane is hollow.

2. 500mph is not comparable to a bullet.

3. The impact area of the 767 was around 14 feet, over 100 feet when including the wings.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
First of, I never presented my analogy as an accurate model of the WTC impact, however you are missing a few points here:


Originally posted by ULTIMA11. A bullet is solid, a plane is hollow.


Are you saying that firing a hollowpoint into my head would be less destructive ?



2. 500mph is not comparable to a bullet.


Yes it is. Look at this classic revolver:
en.wikipedia.org...

Muzzle velocity 777 ft/second.... Compare it to the 494 miles per hour hijacked plane... 725 ft/sec. How does this look to you?


[edit on 28-11-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by robert204
 


I applaud your very well put analogy. I was actually going to post the same thing. Good job robert204 !!



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Are you saying that firing a hollowpoint into my head would be less destructive ?


Oh so now you had to change the question to a hollow point. How about using the original question about a normal bullet? Why did you change the question?


A plane is still not like a bullet now matter how you change the question.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Are you saying that firing a hollowpoint into my head would be less destructive ?


Oh so now you had to change the question to a hollow point. How about using the original question about a normal bullet?


Well, you got the velocity part wrong and now you are grasping the straws. You state the obvious -- that the plane IS NOT A BULLET. I agree. What I was talking about was an object made of a softer material and yet carrying a tremendous amount of kinetic energy. That was the extent of my analogy. It may or may not matter whether such object was monilithic or had structure to it. Energy is energy.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well, you got the velocity part wrong and now you are grasping the straws. You state the obvious -- that the plane IS NOT A BULLET. I


No, you had to change the original question to try to make it seem like hollow point bullet was like a hollow plane.

Please explain why you changed the original question. Becasue you did not state hollow point in the original question.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No, you had to change the original question to try to make it seem like hollow point bullet was like a hollow plane.


OK, let's see your original point:

A bullet is solid, a plane is hollow


The example of the hollowpoint bullet that I decided to give was to illustrate that the structure of the object being fired is not always indicative of its destructive power. Do you get that?



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
The example of the hollowpoint bullet that I decided to give was to illustrate that the structure of the object being fired is not always indicative of its destructive power. Do you get that?


Then why not use the original question and not change to hollowpoint after i brought up about the planes being hollow?

Yes, exactly, a hollow aluminum airframe with a large impact area is not going to have a lot of distructive power.





[edit on 28-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Then why not use the original question and not change to hollowpoint after i brought up about the planes being hollow?


I didn't know that you were lacking in being able to abstract and generalize. I was referring to an object that's partially hollow and hoped you would comprehend the similarity, but this didn't work too well.


Yes, exactly, a hollow aluminum airframe with a large impact area is not going to have a lot of distructive power.


What was the weight again of that "lightweight" flying bomb? Moving at the speed of a revolver bullet? Can you calculate the kinetic energy involved? Can you, really?



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Ultima1, I see on another forum you claim to be in law enforcement?

“Yes, I was at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center for 8 weeks of Police Training. I was a Federal Police Officer for 12 years. I went there after getting out of the Air Force.”

forum.ebaumsworld.com...



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by moonking
 


I must admit I find it very hard to believe after reading his posts...My opinion is that mr. ultima hails from the wa-na-bee tribe.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I'm getting the feeling that ultima1 is very young



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by moonking
 


He claims to work for the NSA now as an analyst...so has access to confidential information.

He also claims to have worked as a flight chief in the AirForce, so is an expert in anything aircraft related.

He also says he worked in law enforcement, so is an expert in criminal investigation.

Personally, I'll wait to see what the mods have to say...



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join