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: 35
13
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
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.


But the wings of an airliner have been known to have large sections sheared off hitting a single light pole at takeoff speeds. So a wing hitting poles at 500 mph should have sections sheared off.

I mean if small birds can put holes in wings what do you think a light poles would do to them?



six

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


So what your saying is is that the light poles should have just sheared the wings off and would still be standing??? YES or NO.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


For starters Im not an aviation engineer etc. But: Punching a hole in a wing structure versus slicing right through one seems bit different to me. The wing does contain an entire substructure that is both flexible and strong. And I no nothing about the structures of the light poles the aircraft hit, but I do know they very in construction and density as well. So its possible that these were light weight ones that sheared off from thier mounts before they had the oppurtunity to cut off a portion of the wing.

I came across this study from MIT



Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column. It was also found that the energy absorbed by plastic deformation and fracture of the ill-fated column is only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing.

www.sciencedirect.com... 1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ed1905c9e5437398151c45b35347c04e


It deals with the physics of the wing structure and unless im wrong, it states that only 6.7% of the wings inital impact was required to shear the outer column

[edit on 12/14/07 by FredT]

THis link may work better
Study

[edit on 12/14/07 by FredT]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
So what your saying is is that the light poles should have just sheared the wings off and would still be standing??? YES or NO.


NO, thats not what i stated. Let me try it agian and make it simple.

The airframe would have been damaged and wings probably sheared off by the impact and the light poles would have broken away. If the plane actually hit the poles since the FDR shows a different flightpath to the Pentagon.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
It deals with the physics of the wing structure and unless im wrong, it states that only 6.7% of the wings inital impact was required to shear the outer column

[


Could not open your site, but i beleive if you look they are considering the wings as a box type not an actaul wing design.

And for 1 thats is for the outter framework that was box collums not the solid steel beams like the inner beams, and the plane still barley made it into the building due to the thin aluminum being shredded according to the photos and the animation.



[edit on 14-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
lets also not forget that ok, plane hits pole, sheet aluminum on the wing rips...that doesnt mean that any of it is automatically going to come OFF. it could have just peeled back or caved into the internal structure of the wing...no?



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
lets also not forget that ok, plane hits pole, sheet aluminum on the wing rips...that doesnt mean that any of it is automatically going to come OFF. it could have just peeled back or caved into the internal structure of the wing...no?


But we still have no evidence of wing parts or wing debris anywhere around the poles or the building.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Follow the link posted below the article. that should take you to the abstract



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


i understand that, what im saying is that when the plane hit the pole, the aluminum may have ripped but it MAY have just peeled back and NOT disconnected from the wing.

its like when you hit something with your car and the fender (assuming you ahve a car made of metal anymore) rips back, it may not tear a chunk off totally.

but this is all speculation anyway. there could be any number of scenarios and jsut becuase there wasnt any wing parts by the poles doesnt mean a jet didnt hit them.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Follow the link posted below the article. that should take you to the abstract


Please read this line about the way they lumped the wing together with airframe. It is not a normal wing structure.


The complex structure of the airplane is lumped into another box.



Originally posted by Damocles
i understand that, what im saying is that when the plane hit the pole, the aluminum may have ripped but it MAY have just peeled back and NOT disconnected from the wing.


But if there was no wing debris at the poles then there certainly should be at the building.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But if there was no wing debris at the poles then there certainly should be at the building.


i cannot and will not even try to disagree with that. but thats a WHOLE other topic of discussion thats pretty outside my area.

wow ultima, we agree on something
must be friday lol
ill have a beer in celebration later



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I can not believe this thread has gone on for some 33 pages or more.

Regardless of the tensile strength, shear or other mechanical properties of the aircraft vs building the basic fact is,

Pressure per square inch plus total kinetic energy = really crazy stuff.

Have you seen pictures of sections of wood fencing and other materials puncturing right through car doors, frames etc and other seemingly fragile materials penetrating seemingly denser/ harder materials ?

A steel beam (lets assume 80lbs per linear foot of beam) at rest vs a chunk of aluminum whose density lets say is 4lbs per linear foot but traveling at a velocity of 500mph and even though this is not the formula lets just say for every 1 mph of motion equals 1 x the object weight in force (so 1mph motion of a 4lb "object" would impart 4lbs of force per square inch of contact) at 2mph the same object impacts with double the force per square inch of contact space or equal to 8lbs of force.

At 500 mph the 4lb "object" impact with the force equal to 2,000 lbs per square inch of contact.

Now your 80lbs of carbon steel beam section gets hit with 2,000 lbs of force from the impacting aluminum wing spare etc more then 25 times mass of the steel beam in energy is being transfered to the beam, this instantly breaks the atomic bonding of the steel atoms and thus the impacting object virtually slices through the steel beam like butter.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
Now your 80lbs of carbon steel beam section gets hit with 2,000 lbs of force from the impacting aluminum wing spare etc more then 25 times mass of the steel beam in energy is being transfered to the beam, this instantly breaks the atomic bonding of the steel atoms and thus the impacting object virtually slices through the steel beam like butter.



This video destroys your theory.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


id seen that video before, but what i find amusing about it is that so much dust was created from the concrete and yet no one claims there were space lasers or mininukes there....hmmm

im just being facetious lol



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
id seen that video before, but what i find amusing about it is that so much dust was created from the concrete and yet no one claims there were space lasers or mininukes there....hmmm


Yes it is kind of an old video.

The question i have is that since the old F-4 is made with steel and could not penatrate the concrete wall, how does and airliner with an aluminum airframe make it so far into the Pentagon?



[edit on 14-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by robertfenix
This video destroys your theory.

www.youtube.com...


Interesting video. Just a few things of note.
1. Only the wing tips avoided total destruction. Like the wings that went through the WTC?
2. The F-4 hit a wall that would be the equivalent of an exterior concrete wall of a nuclear power station. What exactly was the wall made of? How thick was the wall? How was the wall built? Thanks in advance for answering these questions.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by jfj123]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Thanks in advance for answering these questions.


But didn't you tell me it did not matter what the wall or aircraft was made of, it was the math and physics ?

Let me go back and see if i can find your quote again.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Thanks in advance for answering these questions.


But didn't you tell me it did not matter what the wall or aircraft was made of, it was the math and physics ?

Let me go back and see if i can find your quote again.


Well to start, that's not what I said.
Now after getting that out of the way, can you answer my questions about the wall? YES or NO?
Thanks.


six

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Which still hold true. Sure you can build a wall that a aircraft cannot penetrate, but the WTC was not built to those specs.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Well to start, that's not what I said.
Thanks.


Can't you use your math and physics to figure it out.

Didn't you keep posting about force of the plane could cut through steel.

Why can't it cut through the concrete?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join