How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No, i know aircraft are made up of different materials. If you read my post i state that the harder parts of the plane damaged the beams, but not the fragile aluminum part of the airframe and wings.

You do know that behind the “fragile” leading edge there is a wing-spar, right?

Originally posted by defcon5
You do know that behind the “fragile” leading edge there is a wing-spar, right?

Yes i know how wings are designed. I have posted how wings cannot take impact. Wings are designed to take lateral stress but not impacts.

I have posted photos of birds putting holes through the wings and the airframe.

I have posted about a large section of wing being sheared off by hitting a single light pole.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Yeah, but a wing is like a car with a frame. So when you hit something at high speed, yes there is going to be damage to parts of it, but there is only going to be serious frame damage if the wing comes into contact with something quite significant.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But if the wings and airframe were being destroyed as soon as the plane entered the building (according to Purdue video) how did they have enough strength to cut the inner beams?

[edit on 8-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

The wings smashed through the outer columns and were shredded, with the bits ending up inside the building. This 400 mph shrapnel is what removed the fire proofing from the core columns. They did not have the density to seriously damage any core columns once they were shredded.

The engines, landing gear, and other similarly heavy, dense parts also smashed through the outer columns, but weren't totally destroyed by the encounter. They continued their journey to the core and these parts did the cutting/mangling of the core columns.

Oh I get it now. We have to read more than just the title of the thread, since this is the 9/11 forum and prove more than just what they're asking. Got it now. But even if they were shredded, they still had the MASS and kinetic energy behind the pieces to do significant damage to the beams as they went through the buildings.

reply to post by Haroki



There is a problem with saying 'bits' of the wings ended up inside the building. What do you mean by 'bits'? A bit of a wing is not going to be recognized by any eyewitness on the inside of the building.

Case in point.
www.truthorfiction.com...

Stanley Praimnath

he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department.

archives.cnn.com...

ll I could see was the plane wing wedged at my office door, 20 feet from where I was."

Originally posted by Haroki
The engines, landing gear, and other similarly heavy, dense parts also smashed through the outer columns, but weren't totally destroyed by the encounter. They continued their journey to the core and these parts did the cutting/mangling of the core columns.

Exactly, Thanks for agreeing with me. It was the other parts of the planes that casued some damage not the fragile aluminum wings and airframes.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
But even if they were shredded, they still had the MASS and kinetic energy behind the pieces to do significant damage to the beams as they went through the buildings.

Only the harder, heavier parts survived with enough force to do any damage, not the fragile aluminum parts of the wings and airframes.


[edit on 8-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh I get it now. We have to read more than just the title of the thread, since this is the 9/11 forum and prove more than just what they're asking. Got it now.

But even if they were shredded, they still had the MASS and kinetic energy behind the pieces to do significant damage to the beams as they went through the buildings.

I doubt they had the density to do SIGNIFICANT damage to the core columns, I think mass is a different variable. By significant, I mean complete severing of the core columns. I could be wrong though, depending on what specific wing parts, such as flap actuators, etc went through the windows and stayed relatively intact, providing they were dense enough. I could see some bending and deformation of the core columns, true, but I think it makes more sense to agree that the majority of the heavy damage would have been done by the denser engines and landing gear, yes? Also, I could see some pieces of the exterior columns being carried along with that shrapnel into the core and doing damage.

The density of the wings would have been greater at the impact with the exterior columns, due to the contianment of fuel in the wings. More weight "behind" the wing structures, so to speak. The fuel would not have been contained after the encounter with the exterior columns. Think of this as the difference of being hit with an inflated bicycle innertube, and being hit with a bicycle innertube that has been filled with water. Which is gonna have the density to deliver a bigger blow?

They wouldn't have to sever them to do significant damage though. Any major damage could have been enough to weaken the columns, then combined with the fire, cause the collapse.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
then combined with the fire, cause the collapse.

How were the undamaged lower floors not able to hold up the upper floors?

Firemen only reported isolated fires on the lower floors, no big jet fuel fires to cause any damage.






[edit on 8-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They wouldn't have to sever them to do significant damage though. Any major damage could have been enough to weaken the columns, then combined with the fire, cause the collapse.

I agree with this. But it also makes sense that the majority of the damage would have been done by the engines/landing gear.

I believe you're a pilot, correct? Or have some plane experience on some level, if I remember....

There's a couple of photos of the exterior damage,and one shows the ext columns smashed through, except for the outer 10-15 ft. They only managed to remove the exterior cladding and deform the ext columns, but didn't make it through. This is what I would expect, given the assumption that the outer parts of the wings are just skin and spars, and don't contain denser parts like hinges for the flaps, flap actuators, flap counterweights, leading edge actuators and "tracks" for them, fuel tanks, etc.

Is this what you might expect?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Do you understand the difference between static and kinetic? Once the upper floors started moving the lower floors couldn't support the kinetic energy of that much mass as it moved down the building. If it had held it probably would still be standing today, but once it got moving, even though the supports got thicker, there was more weight as each floor collapsed and was added to the falling sections.

reply to post by Haroki


They do have some of those things out on the outer edges of the wings, but not nearly as much as the inner portions of the wings. But yes, that's about what I would expect to see from the thinner portions of the wings, such as the tips.

I generally stay out of these topics for the most part now-a-days, but for some reason I find myself in a couple today. I have never really debated the Twin towers bit much but there are two things I have always wondered about in its collapse.

Did the trade center have a set of boilers in the basement which might have exploded due to the fuel that ran down the elevator shafts?

Also, I know folks always argue about the fire temperature, but with a large hole in the side of the structure, and the amount of wind that we all know blows along the sides of any large building, wouldn’t any fire in the building be stoked up in the exact same manner as a blast furnace.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Do you understand the difference between static and kinetic?

Yes i do. But tell me how did the upper floors gain wieght?

Because the floors were built to withstand more weight then the floors above actually weighed.

So even with the floors moving the floors below should have held the extra weight.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Because the floors were built to withstand more weight then the floors above actually weighed.

So even with the floors moving the floors below should have held the extra weight.

Yes, but those floors were not gently placed on top either, they were dropped and had the force of the inertia of that weight added to their weight.

The floors below were designed to support them with SMALL movements, like from them rocking in the wind. They were NOT designed to support them once they began moving like they were. They gained weight from the floor below them collapsing. As each floor collapsed it added weight to the moving mass, and added more stress on the floor below them. Eventually it reached a critical point and nothing could stop it.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The floors below were designed to support them with SMALL movements, like from them rocking in the wind.

Well actually they were designed to support rather large movements from the wind.

A surviver from the 78th floor of the North tower stated the tower moved several feet when the plane hit but came back into postion just like it does in high winds.

Either way, those were SIDE TO SIDE movements. They were NOT designed to stop the floors above them from falling straight down the way they did when the towers collapsed.

Originally posted by defcon5
Yes, but those floors were not gently placed on top either, they were dropped and had the force of the inertia of that weight added to their weight.

But the floors below still would have held for several seconds or even minutes, not just completley give way.

How could the top foors start to move to the side (oppisite the plane impact) and then collapse straight down?