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: 34
13
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I am curious as to if some people have investigated the damage small birds (feathers, cartilage, muscle, and skin) can do to commerical jetliners, particularly at high altitude cruising (top) speed. If after investigating that should people choose to do so, please return and tell us how, using valid scientific prinicples, any planes and all contents were physically able to be "swallowed up" by concrete and steel buildings ("aluminum slicing steel like butter"). Rather than leaving at least some portion of airplane debris, including some contents, on the outside of the alleged impacts with concrete and steel buildings at alleged high, but not top cruising, speed upon initial impact. Initial impact immediately begins to slow momentum/speed/velocity of any moving object.

Acceleration, particularly rapid acceleration while also considering the weight and mass of the object being accelerated, loses momentum due to resistance imposed during acceleration until desired speed (cruising speed) has been achieved.

Exactly what were wind conditions on 9/11, including which direction it was blowing? Yes, it is material when assessing actual vs speedometer reading. For example, just because a speedometer may read 70 mph doesn't mean an object is actually traveling at 70 mph going into a strong head wind.

Air speed is actually reduced the lower a plane's altitude, particularly the closer a plane is to sea level.




posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to Please explain in detail how these are not good analogies with regard to what happened with the planes and WTC. Thanks.


1. None of them are planes.

2. None of them were traveling the speed of the planes.

3. None of them have the same structure as the planes.

ETZ....

Can we please stick to facts and evidence about the actual planes instead of analogies ? Or else i have to bring up the F-4 analogy that totally destroys all your analogies.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
I am curious as to if some people have investigated the damage small birds (feathers, cartilage, muscle, and skin) can do to commerical jetliners, particularly at high altitude cruising (top) speed.

Exactly what were wind conditions on 9/11, including which direction it was blowing?


I have posted information and photos of bird damage to a 767 at takeoff speed. If birds could damage the planes at slow speed the steel in the buildings would have shredded it to piecies. Photos show the ends of the wings barely made it into the buildings.


As far as wind i do not think there was much wind, according to the reports i have seen.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 I have posted information and photos of bird damage to a 767 at takeoff speed. If birds could damage the planes at slow speed the steel in the buildings would have shredded it to piecies. Photos show the ends of the wings barely made it into the buildings.

The problem with your post is that bird can damage aircraft windows and skin, but not the harder reinforced parts such as the frame. I have seen some bird strikes in person, and man, are they messy.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to Please explain in detail how these are not good analogies with regard to what happened with the planes and WTC. Thanks.


1. None of them are planes.

2. None of them were traveling the speed of the planes.

3. None of them have the same structure as the planes.

ETZ....

Can we please stick to facts and evidence about the actual planes instead of analogies ? Or else i have to bring up the F-4 analogy that totally destroys all your analogies.


OK so you simply don't understand physics or the word analogy. OK I get it. I'll stop trying to explain how the planes damaged the buildings as there is an obvious gap in base knowledge. I am sorry I have obviously wasted your time trying to explain how aluminum can damage steel. My apologies. I wish you luck in your future investigations.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The problem with your post is that bird can damage aircraft windows and skin, but not the harder reinforced parts such as the frame. I have seen some bird strikes in person, and man, are they messy.



Yes, i know. I have photos of the holes in the wings and airframe.

Yes i have seen birdstrikes too in the Air Force.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Well I guess that the point is that some parts are going to penetrate more readily then others. So even if the skin fails to punch through the structure, right behind that skin is going to be the section of frame that it’s attached to, which will most assuredly push it through. The reason that bird strikes make such deep looking holes is because they normally seem to hit between the frame sections, or in the leading edges where the structure is further back. If a bird hit right on a frame spar it would leave a hole on either side of the spar, but the spar would remain intact. To be honest though the areas most commonly hit are the raydome, which has no frame, and the leading edges of wings and engines where the frame is sitting further back.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Comparing the specially constructed mass concrete completely solid block in the F-4 video, and the Hollow steel outer construction of the towers is a fallacy I'm afraid.

The outer facade of the towers were not made from mass concrete, they were made, as I have already shown, of hollow square steel columns, made out of welded plate. They were also not a completely solid mass, as there were gaps in the outer facade for glazing.

Why - someone please tell me - is the stuff I'm posting here being ignored? People are trying to argue black is white and it clearly isn't. I keep coming back to this thread and the same thing is being regurgitated page after page after page.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
To be honest though the areas most commonly hit are the raydome, which has no frame, and the leading edges of wings and engines where the frame is sitting further back.


Yes, i have seen around the cockpit but it happned on an old F-4 and they are a little tougher then an airliner.

Worse 1 we had was a plane flying into a flock of wild geese at about 600mph. Those were some big birds and hitting them at that speed casued some major damage.

I also have a report of a large section of wing sheared off from hitting a single light pole at takeoff speed. Yet the plane at the Pentagon was supposed to have hit 5 light poles.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I also have a report of a large section of wing sheared off from hitting a single light pole at takeoff speed. Yet the plane at the Pentagon was supposed to have hit 5 light poles.

It depends on the part of the wing which was struck, as the tips are more fragile then the core, and on the light. There was the NW flight in DTW that caught a light pole, but that was a stadium style light pole that was more securely attached. The light poles in this instance were the hollow aluminum tubes that we see on typical expressways, which are attached to their base by four shear-bolts that allow the pole to break away easily if hit by a car.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I am curious as to if some people have investigated the damage small birds (feathers, cartilage, muscle, and skin) can do to commerical jetliners, particularly at high altitude cruising (top) speed.


As weird as it sounds, this is proof that the airplanes could damage the steel columns.

A bird which is less durable then an airplane, can damage an airplane.
An airplane, which is less durable then the steel columns, can damage the steel columns.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I have posted information and photos of bird damage to a 767 at takeoff speed. If birds could damage the planes at slow speed the steel in the buildings would have shredded it to piecies. Photos show the ends of the wings barely made it into the buildings.

As far as wind i do not think there was much wind, according to the reports i have seen.



That was my point. There has been a great deal of hypothesizing regarding the damage by aluminum to steel. What about the damage of steel to aluminum trying to cut through?

Would fuel have spilled out of the wings and down the outside walls of the buildings as steel sliced through those?

Would luggage have fallen out when jagged steel tore through the belly of the fuselage?

Why wasn't there impact plane debris on the outside of the buildings?

The planes, at any speed, were not a smooth cutting titanium blades. They were aluminum alloy skin highly subject to being ripped off in large chunks by steel and landing on the outside of the buildings.

It's odd that in all that debris no mention of plane parts or contents was ever mentitioned as evidence being found under all that rubble. As high as it was alleged those planes entered, plane evidence should have been toward the top of the pulverized debris piles not toward the bottom of either pile.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Would fuel have spilled out of the wings and down the outside walls of the buildings as steel sliced through those?

Possibly, but the tanks would have ruptured when the wing hit the building, at which point it was inches away from being inside the building already. Considering the speed of the aircraft that would have been for a fraction of a second.


Originally posted by OrionStars
Would luggage have fallen out when jagged steel tore through the belly of the fuselage?

Nope, 767’s are containerized aircraft.


Originally posted by OrionStars
Why wasn't there impact plane debris on the outside of the buildings?

Even if something did break off outside the building, its inertia would have carried it inside.


Originally posted by OrionStars
The planes, at any speed, were not a smooth cutting titanium blades. They were aluminum alloy skin highly subject to being ripped off in large chunks by steel and landing on the outside of the buildings.

Aircraft aluminum is a bit tougher then you probably give it credit for, and it is also much thicker then the stuff you see on private aircraft. It is attached to a framework which is even tougher yet, and that would drag most of the skin along with it into the building.


Originally posted by OrionStars
It's odd that in all that debris no mention of plane parts or contents was ever mentitioned as evidence being found under all that rubble. As high as it was alleged those planes entered, plane evidence should have been toward the top of the pulverized debris piles not toward the bottom of either pile.

There were a lot of debris found on the other side of the building after having traveled all the way through the structure.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
There were a lot of debris found on the other side of the building after having traveled all the way through the structure.


That would indicate exit holes in at least one other external wall. Do you have any links to evidence showing exit holes and aircraft debris exiting out another wall? Where did the debris land after exiting? How much and which aircraft debris did they find on ".........the other side of the building"? Was there at least one exit hole in WTC 1 and 2?

Since aluminum and light steel framing is stated to be far more damaging than commercial high rise concrete and steel structures on impact. I would also appreciate seeing physics evidence, regarding entire planes being completely inhaled by concrete and steel buildings. I have read other people, in various forums, also claiming the buildings pulled in entire planes leaving nothing on the outside upon impact and entry, plus the steel did not damage even the skin of either aircraft to allow external aircraft debris on the alleged impact side. Unfortunately, no one has yet provided scientific proof that would actually be the case.



[edit on 13-12-2007 by OrionStars]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 

I don’t have time to look all that stuff up right now, but there are existing pictures of wheels, engine parts, and other stuff laying in the streets around the trade centers. I assume that these parts had to exit the building through an exit hole, as I kind of doubt that they turned 180 degrees and exited back out the entrance hole.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The light poles in this instance were the hollow aluminum tubes that we see on typical expressways, which are attached to their base by four shear-bolts that allow the pole to break away easily if hit by a car.


Yes but you have to remember the plane it still hitting them at 500 mph, even if they are meant to break away their would still be damage from hitting them at that speed.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes but you have to remember the plane it still hitting them at 500 mph, even if they are meant to break away their would still be damage from hitting them at that speed.


to the pole or the plane? if you mean the plane im thinking that close to its target, who cares if the plane got damaged. not like its going to hit a lightpole and crash in the lawn that fast.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by OrionStars
 

I don’t have time to look all that stuff up right now, but there are existing pictures of wheels, engine parts, and other stuff laying in the streets around the trade centers. I assume that these parts had to exit the building through an exit hole, as I kind of doubt that they turned 180 degrees and exited back out the entrance hole.



Perhaps at your convenience you could provide validation for your counterpoints? During my years of 9/11 research, primarily on the WTC, I have been unable to find validation for your counterpoints. If I had been able to validate your counterpoints, I would not have requested that you validate your own counterpoints.

Are you simply opining that plane debris only exited the top floors of two WTC buildings while not leaving any external debris upon impact entry? Or do you have access to validation plane debris exited, but was not externally lost upon impact entry, at the top floors levels of either twin tower?



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
to the pole or the plane? if you mean the plane im thinking that close to its target, who cares if the plane got damaged. not like its going to hit a lightpole and crash in the lawn that fast.


Yes, the plane. So where are the parts and debris from the plane hitting the poles?



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Regardless of anything its still a large mass moving at high speed. That is alot of energy.

Regardless of construction, we are talking about a aircraft whos weight runs from 82000 kg empty to 181000 kg MTOW so even at the low end of the spectrum and coupled with it moving fast, we are talking about alot of energy here.


I agree that light poles would have caused damage to the inbound Pentagon plane, but how much?

They are designed by nature to snap thus dissapating the energy of the collison, given thier size and design it seems unlikely that they would cut through the wing structure.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join