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: 24
13
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
No offense but buddhasystem is right. You haven't posted anything of substance stating that aluminum would not do that much damage.


Well i beg to differ, i posted lots of information and even posted photos showing how weak the aluminum airframe of a 767 is.

So can you debate the information and photos i have shown?




posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Well to get back to the original topic....

I work on aircraft structure for a living, my title is an aircraft structure technician
and for the last year I have been doing B757 blended winglet mods. My job is to beef up the internal and external structure of the wing.

now aluminum in a wing.. yes
titanium in a wing.. yes
steel in a wing.. yes
different aluminum alloys in a wing yes...

wings are made to flex and not to crack!
the external structure of the WTC towers were made of steel, which was not cut through by the wings but actually cracked due to the force.

I have cut through steel before which was easier to cut then some aluminum alloys...
just because a metal is light does not mean it is not strong...

the wings on an aircraft go through some serious stresses, from take off to landings all types of forces are at work..
think about how they are made to withstand these forces..

now tell me once that a B767 wings were ripped of the aircraft from flying into a building.
I dont recall a time they have been, and I work in the aviation industry.

A wing is very strong and I do not see any problem for the damge the aircraft did to the WTC.....

now the collapse, of the buildings, who knows I am not a fuel specialist, so that is a different post.

Just think about a bullet penetrating armor... led vs. steel... soft vs. hard.... soft wins in some applcations..



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ncbrian211
wings are made to flex and not to crack!

the wings on an aircraft go through some serious stresses, from take off to landings all types of forces are at work..
think about how they are made to withstand these forces..



Yes wings are designed to handle lateral (up and down forces) They are not designed to take impact.

A lot of aircraft crash photos show wings sheared off when hitting an object.

Birds have put holes through wings and airframe.

Large sections of wings have been sheared off by a single light pole.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Birds have put holes through wings and airframe.


Well, ULTIMA1, you have done it. You proved yourself way wrong. Birds are very, very soft objects compared to anything metal. You can try using the palm of your hand as a model of a bird and drive various objects (kitchen knives, nails, needles) through it without much force. When you are done with this test and come back from the emergency room, and can hopefully type, let me know how a soft furry ball can make a hole in a metal object. Then maybe you'll have an epiphany about kinetic energy and it's role in damage mechanics.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well, ULTIMA1, you have done it.


Yes, i have proven the aluminum aiframe is fragile and would not have done a lot of damage to the steel beams of the buildings as agreed with in every report.

More photos that show wings shearing off when hitting an obstical and not going through it.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...




[edit on 4-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Birds have put holes through wings and airframe.


Well, ULTIMA1, you have done it. You proved yourself way wrong. Birds are very, very soft objects compared to anything metal. You can try using the palm of your hand as a model of a bird and drive various objects (kitchen knives, nails, needles) through it without much force. When you are done with this test and come back from the emergency room, and can hopefully type, let me know how a soft furry ball can make a hole in a metal object. Then maybe you'll have an epiphany about kinetic energy and it's role in damage mechanics.


Unfortunately for our young friend ultima, he simply does not get it. I've explained the whole bird thing to him ad nauseam and nothing. He just doesn't get the concept or even the fact that his own argument has proven him wrong, time and time again. We've tried analogy after analogy and NADA, ZIP, ZILTCH.

Unfortunately, I don't see this going anywhere
I thought at first maybe I was just explaining it wrong but I noticed MANY other posters trying to explain it in very clear, logical ways. I think the problem is simply a knowledge gap. Passing a few physics classes would clear this right up I'm sure.

Ultima, please don't take this personally. I'm sure you're a nice person with some intriguing ideas but I simply don't see a way to get through.

The fact that aluminum can cut through steel has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and physics backs it up quite well. Unless you can prove what we're saying is incorrect using physics/mathematics, I really don't see a point on continuing with the endless loop.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Unfortunately for our young friend ultima,

We've tried analogy after analogy and NADA, ZIP, ZILTCH.


1. I am not young. I have over 25 years combined military and government service.

2. Analogies are not facts or evidence. I have posted facts and evdience, you have not.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Unfortunately for our young friend ultima,

We've tried analogy after analogy and NADA, ZIP, ZILTCH.


1. I am not young. I have over 25 years combined military and government service.

Hey, if you say so.


2. Analogies are not facts or evidence. I have posted facts and evdience, you have not.

Yes but the evidence doesn't support YOU ! Again, if you would like to prove everyone else here wrong, all you need to do is prove it using physics/mathematics. We can all agree that physics and math are a constant and are not open to opinion.

So once again, if you can disprove everyone else with physics/math, please do so. If you can't then you have no argument.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So once again, if you can disprove everyone else with physics/math, please do so. If you can't then you have no argument.


I have already proven my point many times here with facts and evidence..

If you are not mature enough to accept the evidence that is not my fault.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
So once again, if you can disprove everyone else with physics/math, please do so. If you can't then you have no argument.


I have already proven my point many times here with facts and evidence..

If you are not mature enough to accept the evidence that is not my fault.


Hey ULTIMA1, you couldn't even compute the kinetic energy of a plane and you didn't know the muzzle velocity of a revolver. You can call yourself "mature" all you want, but in reality your opinion just isnt worth much. Sorry but you didn't show any insights above the middle school level.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
So once again, if you can disprove everyone else with physics/math, please do so. If you can't then you have no argument.


I have already proven my point many times here with facts and evidence..

If you are not mature enough to accept the evidence that is not my fault.


You understand that your pictures are open to interpretation but MATH and PHYSICS PRINCIPLES are not. YES or NO?

Simply prove everything you are saying with physics principles and we'll call it good and I'll gladly say you are right
Thanks for understanding.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes, i have proven the aluminum aiframe is fragile and would not have done a lot of damage to the steel beams of the buildings as agreed with in every report.


I've seen blades of grass speared into solid timber by cyclonic winds and even a single sheet of paper (white A4 80g/m^2) cut my finger badly the other day. Add enough kinetic energy to an object and the unexpected can be expected always. Also consider the effect of pressure in terms of the kinetic energy applied per unit of leading edge surface area even allowing for deformation back to the main longitudinal spars and there's more than enough to cause the effect we've seen from numerous angles.

There has been no evidence (pictorial or otherwise) presented of a heavy aircraft striking a steel framed building at full throttle where the aircraft has failed to penetrate that structure. All the crash photos you presented indicate the pilots were trying to minimise the impact and probably hit the ground at near stall speed so they're not really applicable in this case and I'd suggest the major fracturing of the wing mounts occured on ground impact, not at the final resting place of the wreckage.

I have to admire your tenacity but:
Are you suggesting that the planes did not enter the buildings?

Which leads me to ask:
Do you believe there were no planes at all considering the scarcity of exterior aircraft wreckage?



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   
OK ultima, nice picture AA gone down one wing shears due to the earth, agian due to the EARTH!!!!

Steel beam say 12" in depth, compared to a wing on a 767 which is say 18' wide at its root, hmmm which one wins?

Next time you show a picture of a sheared wing on a commercial aircraft make sure it is that of a aircraft hitting a steel building.

And also to put something else into this, I never said that in the WTC incident that the B767 wings did not shear but they DID snap the steal structure of the buildings before failing.... again you are not showing me anything that says aluminum cannot break through steel....

And a bird going through the wing of a 767, hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
thats funny, if a bird can go through the slats, slat structure, or the wing skin, how about the fwd spar, man that bird would have to be SUPER BIRD,
up up and away......

I do repairs in this structure using rivet guns, chisels, hammers, drills...the bullnose of the slats are .071" thick 2024-t3 alum reinforced by ribs every 10", and made to dent/bend from forward forces.

Oh yeah the wing is designed for forward forces, drag forces,etc..
if it wasnt it would just snap off at 400+ knotts.

THINK about it!



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Oh yeah.... and when comparing aircraft accidents dont use a Gulfstream/ corporate aircraft vs a B767..... big difference, big, big, big, difference.....



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I know it's irrelevant, but how did that gulfstream's right wing bust a hole in that brick wall? What I'm really asking is WHY the wing isn't still in the hole?



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
This thread is kind of pointless now, people are still arguing for the sake of "being right" rather than objectively discussing the facts.

Mentioning a hurricane putting grass in tree's has been debunked already (around page 9) by a NASA site I believe, comparisons to bullets are severely lacking in credibility, and the physics anomalies I pointed out around page 10 have been ignored, for people to later ask for proof of how the physics didn't match up that day.

One thing is for sure - next time I'm driving my car, and a semi seems to be heading my way, I ain't slowing down. I'm dropping my foot to the floor, as going by how physics now work in this millenium, I should punch straight through it as my kinetic energy is increased, and I am merely like a bullet. Oh, and water cuts steel.

God bless all of you unfortunate souls that brake!



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
My hypothesis is that most of the aluminium, fibreglass and other lightweight materials would be "blown away" by the impact, and the heavy parts like gear, struts, engines would cause some damage to the structure, but never enough to initiate a collapse.


Adjay, since you referred to you post, I dug it out just to see what physics inconsistencies you had found. I don't think you found anything at all. Others have told you multiple times that the kinetic energy matters, and to me that's a valid physics argument. You somehow do not take it. Calculate the kinetic energy of the WTC planes and compare it to the energy contained in a warhead of an average cruise missile. You'd be surprised.

Second... You deviated from the topic when saying "never enough to initiate a collapse". Nobody said the towers came down like cut grass after the impact, so your statement is pointless.


PS. If you feel so inclined, read about the dangers of wax bullets and how they, even in vaporized form, can break glass:
www.foreworks.com...

Surely wax is not as hard as glass. And...

Inside of ten feet, a wax round or an ordinary blank round will turn flesh into hamburger and bone into tooth picks.


[edit on 5-12-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ncbrian211
Oh yeah.... and when comparing aircraft accidents dont use a Gulfstream/ corporate aircraft vs a B767..... big difference, big, big, big, difference.....


Hey, if people can compare a bullet to a 767 or a WWII fighter to a 767 then i can compare things too.

Besides i was just posting about wings being sheard off when hitting an obsticle. I was not comparing the planes.



Originally posted by buddhasystem
Hey ULTIMA1, you couldn't even compute the kinetic energy of a plane


And you cannot come with any facts and evidence that the planes casued enough damage to the building to cause them to collapse.


Originally posted by StudioGuy
I know it's irrelevant, but how did that gulfstream's right wing bust a hole in that brick wall? What I'm really asking is WHY the wing isn't still in the hole?


Maybe because it just had enough force to cause the hole but was sheard off in the process came to rest outside the wall.

It was just a single row of brick, not a lot of force needed to knock a hole.



[edit on 5-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


And this has to with with aluminum cutting thru steel how?

Please don't derail this topic again...



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
And this has to with with aluminum cutting thru steel how?


Well your the one who came up with the comparision of the WWII fighter to a 767.

And ask buddhasystem what comparing a bullet to 767 has to do with aluminum cutting steel.





[edit on 5-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join