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: 29
13
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No, not true. We have seen photos of the outer panels, NOT the inner beams.


Maybe splitting hairs here.
In response to the OPs question though, the aluminum (& other) alloy object did penetrate the steel columns on the outside of the building with apparent ease.

The degree of damage done inside is an unknown and all we do know for certain is that building did ultimately collapse so the damage, however arguable in nature, was sufficient.




posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Right there he asks if the planes could have hit with more force than you are saying, and you say "no". How is that misunderstanding you????


Well please show me where i stated there was little force.

I stated the aluminum wings and airframe would do that much damage to the steel beams. I never stated anything about there being little force.
[edit on 8-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


So, in other words, you agree that aluminum could cut or damage the steel beams, correct? This is what you are stating now?



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Now how about this test.

Make an aluminum bullet(same alloy as planes are made of) 50 calibre and shoot it at best speed range at a steel beam the same thickness as the beams at the WTC.

What happens to this bullet, what happens the steel?

This might be a good way to test kinatic energy against steel.


Not even close.

Kinetic energy involves mass and speed, proportionately.

In order to retain ratio, you'd have to damn near compare a BB and flypaper.

Honestly, while it's a poor comparison, so is that which you're purporting a similarity to...

$.02

 



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
, however arguable in nature, was sufficient.


Not according to most reports. Most reports state the builidngs weithstood the planes impacts.


Originally posted by Disclosed
So, in other words, you agree that aluminum could cut or damage the steel beams, correct? This is what you are stating now?


No, i stated the harder parts of the plane could cut or damage the steel beams but not the fragile aluminum of the wings and airframes.

Please read my post.




[edit on 9-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Not according to most reports. Most reports state the builidngs weithstood the planes impacts.


We're in danger of reaching agreement


Most reports are correct in that regard IE the buildings did indeed survive the initial impacts but not without suffering severe damage. Subsequent factors resulted ultimately in total failure so the reports will be pushed and pulled to try and achieve an explanation for the global failure because, if they fail to do so, they themselves are a failure.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 04:10 AM
link   
ALL of the points in the past three pages have already been covered and explained, extensively.

Numerous examples of weaker objects damaging stronger ones have been cited.

The force of impact acting as a point load has been explained.

The fact that the wind loadings on the tower were evenly distributed across the structure and at no point ever would reach the same force as an approximately 218,000lb 466mph projectile hitting at one spot has been explained.

The fact that a building is designed to evenly transfer loads across the structure down to the foundations has been explained, and discussed.

The fact that the damage caused by the 767 impact meant that the weight was no longer being distributed evenly through the structure has been discussed.

The fact that a combination of factors, including, but not exclusive to the initial impact contributed to the collapse has been discussed.

The fact that the lower floors were designed to hold the weight of the upper floors providing the structure was complete and that no structural elements were moving freely about their own axis of rotation has been explained, and discussed.

Its all been done.

In the case of a large body, moving at considerable speed, it has been shown that the kinetic energy means the aluminium cut steel.

Short of a structural engineer sitting down and actually doing the full maths of the impact, taking into accound the tensile strengths of the materials involved and writing it out here (something I might add that 95-99% of ATS readers would quite simply not understand anyway because its a damn complex calulation) - and something Ultima would never understand as the simpler concepts of kinetic energy transfer seem to have eluded him/her - I fail to see what else needs to be, or can be said on the matter.

Now you are dealing, in Ultima, with someone who selectively edits their posts - and by that I mean that they will go back and alter the substance of their post afterwards to suit their argument. This person cherry picks sections of reports without including the context of the text. This person is being deliberatly obtuse. I have no idea why, but its taken this thread to a point where the only conclusion I can draw is that its being drawn out for sport or some sick sense of trying to win an argument that, quite simply, has been lost.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Most reports are correct in that regard IE the buildings did indeed survive the initial impacts but not without suffering severe damage.


But most of the reports also go on to state the buildings would have kept standing if not for other factors. So other factors caused the collapse, not the planes impacts.

The planes impacts had nothing to do with the collapse of the towers


Originally posted by neformore
ALL of the points in the past three pages have already been covered and explained, extensively.

The fact that the damage caused by the 767 impact meant that the weight was no longer being distributed evenly through the structure has been discussed.






wtc.nist.gov...

The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.



[edit on 9-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 07:44 AM
link   
I’d still like to know if there were boilers in the basement which added to the explosion, and about the “blast furnace effect” that the wind had on stoking the fire to a level high enough to turn the steel to putty?



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But most of the reports also go on to state the buildings would have kept standing if not for other factors. So other factors caused the collapse, not the planes impacts.

The planes impacts had nothing to do with the collapse of the towers

Getting off topic again but:

Got me somewhat puzzled now
You're saying that the buildings would have collapsed if the planes hadn't hit them?

Can you provide some clues as to what those 'other factors' might be?



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Got me somewhat puzzled now
You're saying that the buildings would have collapsed if the planes hadn't hit them?

Can you provide some clues as to what those 'other factors' might be?


Well if the planes impacts had not effect on the buildings according to most of the reports. I am stating that other things happened to cause the collapse.

We have the evidence of the molten steel in the debris field that stayed molten for 6 weeks.

Also the molten metals reported in the basement of building 6.

[edit on 9-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well if the planes impacts had not effect on the buildings according to most of the reports. I am stating that other things happened to cause the collapse.


Then you must be at least agreeing that the plane impacts initiated those 'other factors'.

The molten steel in the rubble was obviously a symptom of processes that took place well after 9/11 (like up to 6 weeks later).



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



The planes impacts had nothing to do with the collapse of the towers


So you are claiming that the towers would have collapsed exactly the way they did if the planes never hit the buildings? Are you sure you want to stick by this claim?

In affect, what you are now claiming is that the plane impact did not start a cascade of events that lead up to the total structural failure of the 2 buildings.

All I can say is HUH?? and WOW!!



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



We have the evidence of the molten steel in the debris field that stayed molten for 6 weeks.

Also the molten metals reported in the basement of building 6.


So are you saying molten metals caused the buildings to collapse? I don't want to put words in your mouth so if that is not what you are saying, please state exactly what you are inferring.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No, i stated the harder parts of the plane could cut or damage the steel beams but not the fragile aluminum of the wings and airframes.


But remember Ultima, the beams that would have been severed were attached to the beams that would not have been. I still feel the connections are what gave from the force in those cases and since the beams were "staggered", that's why it looks like a cartoon cut out. Just my opinion of course.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Originally posted by Disclosed
So, in other words, you agree that aluminum could cut or damage the steel beams, correct? This is what you are stating now?


No, i stated the harder parts of the plane could cut or damage the steel beams but not the fragile aluminum of the wings and airframes.

Please read my post.
[edit on 9-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


ok, here is your post....lets re-read it together, shall we?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I stated the aluminum wings and airframe would do that much damage to the steel beams. I never stated anything about there being little force.


Aluminum wings doing that much damage to the steel beams.

Your words....exactly.

So, you agree that aluminum could cut or damage the steel beams, correct? This is what you are stating now?



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So are you saying molten metals caused the buildings to collapse? I don't want to put words in your mouth so if that is not what you are saying, please state exactly what you are inferring.


No, the molten metals and steel is a sign of what helped cause the buildings to collapse.


Originally posted by Disclosed
So, you agree that aluminum could cut or damage the steel beams, correct? This is what you are stating now?


No, i stated the harder parts of the plane could cut or damage the steel beams but not the fragile aluminum of the wings and airframes.


[edit on 9-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
So are you saying molten metals caused the buildings to collapse? I don't want to put words in your mouth so if that is not what you are saying, please state exactly what you are inferring.


No, the molten metals and steel is a sign of what helped cause the buildings to collapse.


OK since the planes had NOTHING to do with the collapse (your words), what was the reason for the collapse's?

Also keep in mind that since the planes were not a cause then the fires caused by the planes were also not a cause for the collapse.

So to recap, according to you:
-Planes didn't cause the collapse either directly or indirectly by starting a chain of events that lead to collapses.
-Fires as a result of the plane impacts, were not a cause for the collapses.
-Since the planes and fires had nothing to do with the collapses in any way, the buildings would have fallen even if there were no plane impacts and no fires.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
OK since the planes had NOTHING to do with the collapse (your words), what was the reason for the collapse's?

Also keep in mind that since the planes were not a cause then the fires caused by the planes were also not a cause for the collapse.


Stop twisting what i post, its not very mature.

I stated the planes impacts did not cause the collaspe i said nothing about the fires.

It was a few things along with the fires that casued the collaspe, the fires themselves did not burn long enough or get hot enough to weaken the steel so some other condition had to help raise the temps. That was thermite as FEMA test results show.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

No, i stated the harder parts of the plane could cut or damage the steel beams but not the fragile aluminum of the wings and airframes.
[edit on 9-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


No, that is not what you stated here:


Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well please show me where i stated there was little force.

I stated the aluminum wings and airframe would do that much damage to the steel beams. I never stated anything about there being little force.


Your link is here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You stated the ALUMINUM WINGS and AIRFRAME would do that much damage to the steel beams.

I'm not making it up, or putting words in your mouth, or even rewording your quote. It is exactly what you stated.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
It was a few things along with the fires that casued the collaspe, the fires themselves did not burn long enough or get hot enough to weaken the steel so some other condition had to help raise the temps. That was thermite as FEMA test results show.


Which FEMA report mentions thermite? It is not in the Metallurgical examination report here:

www.fema.gov...

No mention of thermite whatsoever..




top topics



 
13
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join