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: 18
13
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants
Please link to photos/videos which prove the existence of molten STEEL in the basements of the WTC, as you claim.


The witnesses were domolition crews, excavation crews, firemen and first responders.

Photos of molten steel in the debris pile.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

There is also NASA data bout the how hot the debris fields were.




posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
2,400 lbs of TNT required to do the damage caused by a loaded 767 traeling at 500 mph.
(This excludes the potential energy contained within the fuel)


But are you considering the wind load the builidng can withstand?

Are you considering the fuel was mostly burned up outside the building and caused little or no structural damge?



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Are you considering the fact that you have derailed this thread?

Why not get back to the subject of this thread. Remember that?

I'm sure your education, background and experience can answer that question.




posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


But are you considering the wind load the builidng can withstand?


No, but I also don't understand the connection you're making?


Are you considering the fuel was mostly burned up outside the building and caused little or no structural damge?


No. As I stated, the calculation excluded the energy in the fuel.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
No, but I also don't understand the connection you're making?

No. As I stated, the calculation excluded the energy in the fuel.



I am stating that the buildings withstood the planes impacts.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by nicepants
 


And ultima should also keep in mind there is a difference between pliable steel and molten steel



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Are you considering the fact that you have derailed this thread?


Not really, is all goes to posting facts and evindece of what really happened to the buildings.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I explained the concept of the even distribution of wind loading earlier.

I'll do it again, as Ultima didn't seem to grasp it the first time.

Take two pieces of wood and put a standard 5mm thick piece of glass across them

Take a ball bearing and place it on the glass. Roll it around. The glass will take the weight. This is equivalent to wind loading.

Lift the ball bearing up one metre and let it drop.

The glass will break. This is equivalent to a 767 hitting a building at 466mph.

Now, tell me, which part of that analogy is so difficult to understand, because I'd wager most ten year olds can get the concept, and if you can't, then you are either spectacularly obtuse, or stupid.



[edit on 29/1107/07 by neformore]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by buddhasystem
you don't know how steel behaves at high temperatures? Did you take any metallurgy classes? Does your experience include calculations in the field of damage mechanics? Didn't think so.


What do you know about jet fuel?



Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Hopefully this information will help regarding temp and what STARTED the burning process which caused columns to weaken.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


Dear Dark Blue Sky, you hit the right ballpark even though there were a few assumptions slightly out of the range (one is the speed of the craft at the time of impact).

To summarize for everybody else: depending on the various assumptions about the speed and weight of the planes that hit the WTC, the sheer amount of kinetic energy dissipated in each impact was roughly equivalent to 1 to 2 cruise missiles.

Please don't tell me this is something to shrug at. These babies are used to destroy bunkers, for God's sake.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by darkbluesky
No, but I also don't understand the connection you're making?

No. As I stated, the calculation excluded the energy in the fuel.



I am stating that the buildings withstood the planes impacts.


wow this is one big pointless circle. This is the worst kind of circular logic.

One last pointless time...
The planes hit the buildings which damaged them + fires started in the buildings which damaged them = collapsed buildings. This is what the NIST says. You refuse to believe it so this will never go anywhere. Your refusal to believe reality does not change reality.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


jfj, thanks for the quote about the temperatures. I took a metallurgy class a long, long time ago and my memory was rusty.

Indeed, metals will lose a large amount of their mechanical strength when subjected to elevated tempteratures. It's a well known fact. Unfortunately, we didn't have temperature sensors attached to each column in the WTC, but from what we know, the temps may have been anough (plus each tower was blown with an equivalent of a cruise missile just by the force of impact).



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
To summarize for everybody else: depending on the various assumptions about the speed and weight of the planes that hit the WTC, the sheer amount of kinetic energy dissipated in each impact was roughly equivalent to 1 to 2 cruise missiles.


Are you even looking at what the builidngs could withstand. A surviver on the 78th floor of the North tower stated the tower moved about 20 feet when the plane hit and then moved back,, it was desighned to take a masive wind load.


www.nist.gov...

Post-impact capabilities of the WTC towers assessed. Demand to capacity ratios—the calculations indicating whether or not structures can support the loads put on them—showed that for the floors affected by the aircraft impacts, the majority of the core and perimeter columns in both towers continued to carry their loads after the impact. The loads from damaged or severed columns were carried by nearby undamaged columns. Although the additional loads strained the load-bearing capabilities of the affected columns, the results show that the columns could have carried them. This shows that the towers withstood the initial aircraft impacts and that they would have remained standing indefinitely if not for another significant event such as the subsequent fires. NIST previously reported that the towers had significant reserve capacity after aircraft impact based on analysis of post-impact vibration data obtained from video evidence on WTC 2, the more severely damaged tower.


NIST did checks on wind loads.

www.nist.gov...

Sunder also announced that the NIST investigation team has completed an independent analysis to determine the wind loads that would be appropriate for use in designing the towers in accordance with the current state of the art—rather than the building codes in effect in the 1960s. This is being done to better understand and assess the effects of successive changes in standards, codes and practices. These NIST “best estimate” wind load values—based on two sets of wind tunnel test data collected by independent laboratories in 2002 as part of industry studies (unrelated to the NIST investigation) and refined by NIST experts in wind science and engineering—are within 10 percent to 15 percent of the “most unfavorable” (maximum) wind load estimates used in the design of the WTC towers.

Wind load capacity is a key factor in determining the overall strength of a tall building and is important in determining not only its ability to withstand winds but also its reserve capacity to withstand unanticipated events such as a major fire or impact damage.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
(plus each tower was blown with an equivalent of a cruise missile just by the force of impact).



So now you know about cruise missiles too? What classes did you take for them?



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Sheesh, you repeatedly accused me of trying to switch the topic (which I didn't) and now look who is talking abour wind sheer factor. Sure, the towers fell due to a wind. Duh.

Where in the documents you quoted does it say that the towers were built to withstand a blast of two cruise missiles each? Huh?



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So now you know about cruise missiles too? What classes did you take for them?


I am nuclear physisist by profession. I know much that is way beyond your imagination.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Where in the documents you quoted does it say that the towers were built to withstand a blast of two cruise missiles each? Huh?



Wind load capacity is a key factor in determining the overall strength of a tall building and is important in determining not only its ability to withstand winds but also its reserve capacity to withstand unanticipated events such as a major fire or impact damage.


Whers is your information that stated the blast was the same as 2 cruise missiles?

What classes have you had in cruise missiles?



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

I am nuclear physisist by profession. I know much that is way beyond your imagination.



I did not now nuclear physisist had classes on non-nuclear crusie missiles. What missile classes have you had ?

[edit on 29-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Whers is your information that stated the blast was the same as 2 cruise missiles?


I hoped that you were capable of using the Internet and basic high school physics, but I did so in vain.

OK, here's the recipe:

you take the estimated weight of the craft at the time of impact. You also take the estimated velocity (700-770 ft/sec or something like that). You use the m*V^2/2 formula for the kinetic energy. You divide by the energy density of the popular explosives such as TNT or C4. You divide by the typical mass of the warhead on a US cruise missile.

You see how much can be done with little effort? The effort that you elected not to afford.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
you take the estimated weight of the craft at the time of impact. You also take the estimated velocity (700-770 ft/sec or something like that).


So then you should be able to show me a side by side comparrison of a Boeing 767 and normal cruise missile. Please compare,

Size, weight, max speeds and structural material used.

You still did not tell me what missile classes you have had.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join