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: 36
13
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   

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


I stated the Pentagon. How can an aluminum airframe cut through the steel of the WTC and penatrate the reinforced walls of the Penatgon but a airframe with steel can not penatrate a concrete wall?

I mean evryone on here kept preaching about how aluminum can cut steel but then how does a aluminum/steel airframe no able to cut concrete?




posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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?



What does any of that have to do with my questions? Can you answer the questions? YES or NO? If you can, I would appreciate it if you would. If you can't, just let me know and I'll stop asking. Thanks in advance.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
What does any of that have to do with my questions? Can you answer the questions? YES or NO? If you can, I would appreciate it if you would. If you can't, just let me know and I'll stop asking. Thanks in advance.


But i thought your math and physics could figure it out since you could figure that aliminum can cut steel. Do you mean your math and physics cannot figure this out?

I thought everyone here could have this figured out, whats wrong. Everyone kept talking about force and kenetic energy making comparisons like boards going through walls and bullets,WWII planes pentatrating ship hulls, but now none of you can figure out this out or come up with an analogy,,

OH NO SAY IT AINT SO !!!!!



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   
did the video not specify that the wall they ran that f4 into was specifically designed to sheild nuclear reactors? so its not like its a stack of cinder blocks...as part of one of my training ex's once, we toured a nuke plant and they told us that the reactor dome could withstand a 747 crashing into it.

BUT, in that video with the f4, yeah, had they sped it up to Xmph it would have penetrated. thats the nature of physics. if it wont punch through at one speed it sure will in another.

is there ANY indication that the "reinforced walls" of the pentagon were built to the same specs as a reactor dome sheild?

if not its not a real fair comparison is it?

ultima, you are a sharp guy, are you really of the opinion that a 767 couldnt penetrate the hollow box columns of the WTC perimeter walls or a 757 couldnt penetrate the pentagon?

see, i think you know this is possible but i think you also like to debate and just want people to be able to back statements up rather than have anyone else just take them at face value...but thats my opinion and its worth jackall in this discussion



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   




My apologies. I thought I was speaking to an adult. Obviously you have no intention on discussing and more importantly LEARNING. I could give you quite a few analogies as I am very familiar with concrete as I am a licensed builder. Lets be honest, there is no point as you're not interested in anything except spewing your fact free rhetoric.

I tried but I'm out. Good luck everyone !!!



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
ultima, you are a sharp guy, are you really of the opinion that a 767 couldnt penetrate the hollow box columns of the WTC perimeter walls or a 757 couldnt penetrate the pentagon?

see, i think you know this is possible but i think you also like to debate and just want people to be able to back statements up rather than have anyone else just take them at face value...but thats my opinion and its worth jackall in this discussion


It is my opinion from education and common sense that a 767 would have barely made it into the buildings due to the steel shredding the aluminum airframe and wings, as the animation and photos show.

As far as the Pentagon, with the reinfored concrete walls and collums, a 757 should not have made it past the first wall. Not all the way though all the interior walls and all the reinforced collums.

I only want people to do some research to find out what really happened and not just go by what we have been told.




Originally posted by jfj123
My apologies. I thought I was speaking to an adult. Obviously you have no intention on discussing and more importantly LEARNING.


Oh but i thought you were an adult that had all the answers with math and physics. Since you could figure out that aluminum can cut steel i thought you should be able to figure out about aluminum and steel cutting concrete.

Don't tell your math and physics are not as good as you made them out to be?



[edit on 14-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Nothing Personal

For anyone who missed it:

Dealing with 9/11 Madness (argumentum ad hominem veritas)

Disagreement is fine, but let's refrain from the personal commentary.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I think you are putting to much onto this video IMHO.

While the speed was the same, nothing else about this test is.

THe concrete wall in question simulated a standard nuclear reactor contaiment dome. Most domes are from 3.5-4.5 feet of high pressure concrete reinforced with steel rebar. It also was not anchored thus some of the energy was converted into moving the structure back a bit which can be seen on the video.


To my limited knowledge the construction of the WTC was not of this material Nor the Pentagon

The Phantom weighed in at about 42000 pounds, the 767 was 3-4 times that.

Its all about Mass and velocity

[edit on 12/14/07 by FredT]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Its all about Mass and velocity


But the mass and velocity failed, the plane did not penatrate the concrete.

Just like an aluminum airframe is not going to cause major damage to the steel beams of the WTC or to penatrate the walls and collumns of the Pentagon.







[edit on 14-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Just like an aluminum airframe is not going to cause major damage to the steel beams of the WTC or to penatrate the walls and collumns of the Pentagon.


I'm confused, ULTIMA1. You just said the airframe did not cause major damage....but earlier on 12/8/2007 you stated this?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


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]


How can the airframe cause that much damage one day, and not cause that much damage a week later?



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
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]


How can the airframe cause that much damage one day, and not cause that much damage a week later?

in all fairness, we have seen him stand by his theory repeatedly, is it possible he simply typo'd and didnt put the word "not" in there so it would read "would NOT do..."?

i dont presume to speak for ultima on this or any other matter but given the number of times ive seen him stand by his statement that he doesnt believe the aircraft would do much damage i think its a safe bet its a typo



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
in all fairness, we have seen him stand by his theory repeatedly, is it possible he simply typo'd and didnt put the word "not" in there so it would read "would NOT do..."?


Thanks dam, but disclosed likes to pick on things like that because he cannot debate with facts and evidence he has to resort to misquoting or twisting what i post.



[edit on 15-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
in all fairness, we have seen him stand by his theory repeatedly, is it possible he simply typo'd and didnt put the word "not" in there so it would read "would NOT do..."?



Damocles,

I'd agree with you if it was done once....but it was actually done twice by ULTIMA1:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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.



www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Do you have any idea how little sense that makes? "The plane hit with very little force, but since it has expansion joints it moved 20 feet."


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.



Anyone joining these forums, and seeing both of those responses back to back, would be under the impression that ULTIMA1's stance was the airframes wee capable of that much damage.

Just asking for clarification, in case his stance has now changed....since he is just looking for information. It almost seemed as if his views had now changed.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by Disclosed]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
[ Just asking for clarification, in case his stance has now changed....since he is just looking for information. It almost seemed as his views had now changed.


So do you have any real information to add or just trolling?



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I am just trying to clarify your position, so that others may properly debate. You have posts that say the aluminum airframe CAN cause that much damage, and posts saying it CANNOT cause that much damage. It seems you are arguing both sides at the same time...and can be quite confusing to new viewers of this forum.

Could you please clarify your position, ULTIMA1?

Thank you.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Thanks dam, but disclosed likes to pick on things like that because he cannot debate with facts and evidence he has to resort to misquoting or twisting what i post.


Every quote I have is a direct quote that you have stated. I even link those quotes, so other can view the original posts by you.

I have not misquoted you, or twisted what you have posted. They are word for word your posts. Please refrain from personal attacks and stating I am somehow changing your posts.

Thank you.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
I am just trying to clarify your position, so that others may properly debate.
Thank you.


I have posted lots of facts and evidence of my position. Evidence that states that the fragile aluminum airframes and wings would not survive going through the steel lattice and beams of the WTC. Nor would they survive long enough to get inside the Pentagons interior walls and collumns.

www.tms.org...

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Or a 2 pound piece of foam do damage to the shuttle eh?

Once again you are comparing apples to (pick your fruit of choice). Both are tasty and may even have the same appearance, are entirely different animals

You are comparing a smaller item (In this case the F-4) Hitting a a far stronger and thicker object 3-4 foot high pressure reinforced concrete wall which was not anchored versus a larger object 3-4 times the weight hitting a lighter (In terms of point of contact and tensise strength etc) object at about the same speed.

Please explain then how a 1.67 pound piece of foam can hit with one ton of force?

www.floridatoday.com...

I have already shown an article from MIT that shows how the force exerted by the a/c was more than enough to cause the outer structure to fail by a huge amount. You raised some ubjection to the study from MIT and I fail to see your comments about boxes.

You also should explain why a 1.6 pount piece of foam can hit with one ton of force. If a piece of foam can hit with that much force how about a 300000 pound object?

a 179000 kg object travaling at 500miles per hour hits with the energy of just over a ton of TNT or 2.1107e+9 foot pounds

www.1728.com...

The F-4 at 42000 pounds and the same speed would generate the equvilent of 0.11374 pounds of force.

and again as you seem to be ignoring we are talking about dramatically differnt impact structures as well. The last time I looked the WTC or the Pentagon were NOT made of 3-4 feet of high psi reinforced concrete



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Or a 2 pound piece of foam do damage to the shuttle eh?


Perhaps the following will help determine if using the Columbia as an analogy is relevant to what occurred at WTC.

www.space.com...


For Friday's test, a 1 1/4-pound piece of foam about the size of a briefcase shot through the 33-foot barrel of the nitrogen-pressurized gun at an aluminum sheet. The sheet was mounted on a metal frame several feet in front of the gun, and tilted at a 15-degree angle.



"Five, four, three, two, one, zero," Larry, the gunner, called out. A few more seconds passed, and then the foam whooshed with a loud crack out of the barrel and struck the lower center of the aluminum sheet, right where it was aimed.



Shredded pieces of foam fluttered into the trees behind the test stand; some were as big as a loaf of French bread. The aluminum wasn't dented, but the foam left a mark.



Officials called the test a success.


Perhaps, referring to the Columbia will give people the opportunity to determine if using the Columbia is a relevant analogy, while scientifically explaining why people think it is a relevant analogy to the events 9/11. Analogies are exceptionally useful in many cases - as long as the analogies have more similarities to compare than less or none.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


Originally posted by FredT
I have already shown an article from MIT that shows how the force exerted by the a/c was more than enough to cause the outer structure to fail by a huge amount. You raised some ubjection to the study from MIT and I fail to see your comments about boxes.


Would that be the article from "Popular Mechanics", written by a professor teaching material handling, and which became the "official" report?

Since you made the statement you did above, can you detail everything you know, regarding the structure of the twin towers? Yes, it matters in how much understanding people have of the specs and materials used, plus, the actual construction itself.

In the twin towers, it would not have mattered if one entire side of the roof to ground floor was compromised, as long as the center core beams were not. Complete collapse, and certainly not falling into footprint collapse of an entire 110 story building, would not have taken place. To understand this, one has to be familiar with the specs of materials and design of the buildings. Too much emphasis is being incorrectly placed on the external walls and trusses, and not enough where it actually matters for complete structural stability. Since the author had no revealed field expertise in structural engineering or aircraft, the PM article makes the events of 9/11 blatantly appear to be intentional distortion for disinformation purposes.

Now I am going to explain why at least part of any actual aircraft debris and contents should have ended up on the same side as the impact hole.

The twin towers were 204' x 204'. But in the center were massive center supporting beams taking up a significant amount of floor space, while serving as the elevator service. Upon impact something, should have been torn off any plane, provided that plane was able to cause an entry hole to accommodate the entry of any entire 767.

The 767 is 159' feet long. The center core beams were naturally in the center. That divides the building. Meaning that the most the plane could have traveled, after tearing out an outside wall of steel and concrete, at least one vertical story of concrete floor supported by more than a few steel joints and trusses, plus, tearing out the internal steel and concrete internal walls, before finally meeting up with the very large concrete and steel center core area, was only approximately 80'. That means, only about 80' of any plane could have possible entered the building,, but not without being drastically slowed down for momentum, when expending all that energy slicing all that concrete and steel. One thing about energy. If it is being expended doing one job, it cannot be doing another at the same time. Velocity and momentum energy is exchange for slicing energy.

Which further means, that leaves approximately 79 feet of plane outside the hole, at the moment the front of any plane came in contact with the center core. That is provided any plane came straight in on any wall. The center core was designed in rectangle, not square as the building was. Now either any plane, with heavily lost velocity and momentum, had to either fold like an accordion, slowly enough for the back half of the plane to move forward, and end up entirely in the building. Or, approximately 79', or some footage thereof, of commercial jetliner was going to be extending on the outside of the impact hole, if not folding at all or folding at some footage between 0 and 79‘.

The center cores were specifically designed to take the impact of the 707, which was the largest commercial jetliner of its day. There is little difference between 707 and 767 to quibble over minor details of comparison. In other words, no plane compromised the center core beams, due to designing and constructing it to take a 707 impact.. It was planned that way directly due to the history of the EBS and no other reason at the time.

When academics have never spent a great deal time at working in the field areas of their degrees, they become dependent on the books and articles of those who do, in order to teach what other people experienced long term in a field of employment.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join