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: 41
13
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
Regarding the poster who questioned about why then the F4 in the video does not break apart the concrete barrier, please read the following enclosed pdf concerning the technical review of impacting an F4 vs a large airliner into the concrete.


But you also did not figure in that the F-4 was made with a good percentage of steel, where the alirliners are almost all aluminum.

The video does debate the poeple who posted about it did not matter what the objects were made of that it was all force. It does matter what the objects in question are made of.




posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by b309302
It looks like pages 2 through 4 mentions the use of concrete filled steel tubes (CFST) in the WTC outer wall (with pictures)... not sure if this is what Orion is talking about... or even if it is relevant, but here you go...

Link:www.tamu.edu...


Did you read this properly?

It does not say concrete filled columns were used in the WTC.

It refers to the WTC as a building of complexity.

It also says (emphasis mine)



in the development of such structures it will be useful to adopt high strength concrete for some of the building components


It also quotes the WTC architect but at no point does it suggest that such construction was used at the WTC.

It was also written in 2003, two years after the towers fell.

I suggest you read it again.

[edit on 18/1207/07 by neformore]

[edit on 18/1207/07 by neformore]



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by robertfenix
Regarding the poster who questioned about why then the F4 in the video does not break apart the concrete barrier, please read the following enclosed pdf concerning the technical review of impacting an F4 vs a large airliner into the concrete.


But you also did not figure in that the F-4 was made with a good percentage of steel, where the alirliners are almost all aluminum.

The video does debate the poeple who posted about it did not matter what the objects were made of that it was all force. It does matter what the objects in question are made of.


I don't think anyone ever posted that it didn't matter in any way what the objects were made of. This is where some confusion starts. The point that was trying to be made was that a stronger object can be damaged by a weaker object if there was enough force behind the weaker object.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by b309302
It looks like pages 2 through 4 mentions the use of concrete filled steel tubes (CFST) in the WTC outer wall (with pictures)... not sure if this is what Orion is talking about... or even if it is relevant, but here you go...

Link:www.tamu.edu...


Did you read this properly?

It does not say concrete filled columns were used in the WTC.


The person, to whom you are posting, did not say it did. I did not say it was describing WTC either. I said it was what I was describing in relation to WTC.

I thought it interesting that what was pictured, in relation to the topic of the article, was the facade of WTC to which I was referring in earlier posts - tube-in-a-tube design.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by OrionStars]


six

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I have had more real world experience with engineering and metals


From this quote from you. I ment no disrespect



What is so hard to understand here?


Simply a question for my own knowledge. Nothing else.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But you also did not figure in that the F-4 was made with a good percentage of steel, where the alirliners are almost all aluminum.

The video does debate the poeple who posted about it did not matter what the objects were made of that it was all force. It does matter what the objects in question are made of.


Uh... what?

As an expert in the aviation field, I have to say this is.... well.... wrong.

The F-4 was made of Aluminum, primarily. Fiberglass made up some of the control surfaces and the radome. I do believe magnesium was in the landing gear, as well. Titanium is rather common in the engine components because, most importantly, it is light and temperature resistant (helps to counter the gyroscopic effect - which is not only limiting to an aircraft's maneuverability, but also can cause damage to the engine as it torques it during maneuvers). Steel is a no-no on an airplane, unless you're talking a steel-cased bomb like an MK84 - which was used extensively in Vietnam to destroy subterranean facilities, ammo/fuel dumps, etc - because they would punch through the ground a few meters and blast a nice, big crater.

I don't know where you got this... but wrong, wrong, wrong. We've been using aluminum in aircraft since World War II and the primary structure of all aircraft we made. The B-17, P-51, P-38, F-4U, P-47, etc - all were pretty much a purely aluminum airframe.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
As an expert in the aviation field, I have to say this is.... well.... wrong.
Steel is a no-no on an airplane


Well i do not know what field you are an expert in but its not aviation. You might want to go back and rethink your expertise in this field because you are very wrong.

I was a crew chief on the RF-4C. The F-4 has a lot of steel and titanium sections .

The MIG-25 is 80% steel and 20% titanium.

F-4 Structure, please see the lines with the words STEEL and TITANIUM.

STRUCTURE: Centre-section and centre wings form one-piece structure from wing fold to wing fold. Portion that passes through fuselage comprises a torsion box between the front and main spars (at 15 per cent and 40 per cent chord) and is sealed to form two integral fuel tanks. Spars are machined from large forgings. Centre wings also have forged rear spar. Centreline rib, wing-fold ribs, two intermediate ribs forward of main spar and two aft of main spar are also made from forgings. Wing skins machined from aluminium panels 0.635 m (2[1/2] in) thick, with
integral stiffening. The fuselage is an all-metal semi-monocoque structure. Forward fuselage built in port and starboard halves, so that most internal wiring and finishing can be done before assembly.

Keel and rear sections make use of steel and titanium.

Double-wall construction under fuel tanks and for lower section of rear fuselage, with ram-air cooling.The tail unit is a cantilever all-metal structure, with 23 of anhedral on one-piece all-moving tailplane which has slottedleading-edges.

Ribs and stringers of tailplane are of steel, skin titanium and trailing-edge of steel honeycomb.




[edit on 19-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
I thought it interesting that what was pictured, in relation to the topic of the article, was the facade of WTC to which I was referring in earlier posts - tube-in-a-tube design.


The photo is there because the WTC is mentioned in the document as an example of complex high-rise construction.

Its not there because a particular type of construction was used at the WTC.

I challenged you earlier to back up your claim on the construction of the outer walls of the WTC. As you haven't, I assume you have conceded the issue?

[edit on 19/1207/07 by neformore]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes, but you have to remember the plane that hit the South tower went in at an angle through the side of the building, so it did not cause much if any damage to the core.


ultima, ive really gotta call you on this one. theres no way, whatsoever to tell how much damage was done to the core of either building. particularly when so many will say that the plane was shredded by the outter walls. once it hit it most likely did get tore up and turned into a mass of scrapmetal moving at what would still be a decent speed (though most likely significantly lower than impact speed of course)

but, theres jsut no way to tell if all of the pieces, the heavier ones in particular, kept moving in a straight line. once the plane was no longer one solid mass, things could have deflected and gone god knows where. if one of the engines for example had deflected either as a result of ricochetting off something or whatever, it could easily have taken a tangental trajectory through any part of the core.

how can i say this as, if not fact then at least some certainty? because we dont have ANY first hand damage assessments from any structural engineers. no one was able to gain access to the building and examine the cores to determine what was damaged and what was sound.

i dont care waht theories anyone puts forth. i dont care what any "expert" says. i dont care what any animation says. bottom line is that no one got eyes on to tell us what really was going on in there from a structural point of view.

NOW, having said all that, and in the interest of fair discussion, integrity, honesty and denying ignorance, let me also say this: that goes both ways.

just as i sit here saying that no one claiming the building was structurally sound so it couldnt have been what nist says, i must also say that no one from the OCT side of the debate can sit here and say just how much damage was done so the buildings obviously had to fall.

nists whole "report" is based on a little examination of the steel, a few "tests" (and i use that term loosely) but beyond that, all they did is what we are doing and watching every video we can find and looking at all the pictures we can find and in the end, even their report is going to be largely speculative. i think posts by griff offering his opinion are just about every bit as valid as the whole nist report becuase he's doing almost as much as they did. and he and others like him are doing it for free.

hell, even my own calculations for the demo requirements are pretty speculative as i based them off of the "leaked" schematics which are...well...subject to some skepticism as we just dont know if they are real or not. and ive always said i could be wrong, i just dont think i am hehe.

so, in the end, i guess my only point is that stating something as fact when there is nothing concrete to back it up is kind of a difficult thing to do. if you have access to a report of an engineer who was able to go up the stairs past all of the people running down them and get a look see around then i think we'd all love to read it. but if you dont then maybe saying something thats not been proven is a fact may not be a real fair discussion method no? (of course, i do mean that both ways) i mean you COULD have said

originally posted by ultima1 and edited by damo to make a point:so it PROBABLY did not cause much if any damage to the core.

because then it goes from stating what seems to be an opinion as fact to stating something that is most likely very true AS an opinion

in the end there are only 2 things i myself feel confident about.
1) the us govt isnt giving us all the information about 911
2) it wasnt a cd.

but, i digress. this is all just my $.02 (not necessarily even in us currency)



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
bottom line is that no one got eyes on to tell us what really was going on in there from a structural point of view.


Truer words have never been spoken


Consider this.

9/11 is the first time in recorded history that two heavily fuelled wide-body airliners were flown into two structures built in the unique way that the WTC towers were.

That makes it the baseline for such incidents. People say "it can't have happened that way" but they have no experience of similar events to draw off. The WTC towers are not in any way, shape or form, comparable to other buildings. The attacks carried out are not, in any way shape or form comparable to anything else anyone has ever seen.

Oh yes, there are vague similarities to things, but 9/11 is currently the rule and not the exception. Its a unique event.

I spent 6 years in college studying for my Civil Engineering qualifications and I can tell you right now - and I am not being patronising to anyone here - that 95% of people have no idea whatsoever about actual structural dynamic prinicples, or how objects under stress work, or could understand the base principles and maths used to work such things out. Out of the 5% who do have some idea, I would submit that 1% or less are capable of designing a structure like the WTC. Of course, people think they know, but theres a big difference in thinking it and actually sorting it out.

Then theres the collapse - the science of working that out is an art in itself, again, I'd stick a 1% or less figure on the number of people capable of actually analysing it properly (and no I do not count myself in that figure). Fact is that no one knows the structural condition of the towers immediately prior to impact insofar as fatigues, microfractures, failing welds, structural distortion of the framework. We know the towers were standing and we have a fairly good idea of their construction, but thats ALL we know. So, again, to make broad sweeping statements about how things happened is fallacy.

The "explosive" theories are the same. We've all seen things go boom. We've all seen videos of controlled demolitions. What we haven't seen is the sheer amount of time, effort, planning, wiring and checking that goes into making those kind of things look easy. Again, I estimate that less that 5% of us will have had any personal experience with explosives, let alone explosive demolitions.

And, as Dam rightly pointed out, there was no first hand eye witness on the scene and in the building at the moment of collapse who could tell you "that part was damaged" or "that was still intact" or "that part failed first".

What we do have is the science. We can calcualte the impacts. We can work out the relative tensile strengths of the materials, we can prove that "aluminium does cut steel". But after that, really all bets are off.

ALL the theories about 9/11 are speculative. Alot of them are born out of ignorance and bad science. Some of them even dispense with the science, and go into the realms of fantasy.

Even NIST is a best guess when it boils down to it.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
What we do have is the science. We can calcualte the impacts. We can work out the relative tensile strengths of the materials, we can prove that "aluminium does cut steel". But after that, really all bets are off.


lol after that its all chaos theory. im not really sure how calculus or physics could even come close to figureing out what happend in the first miliseconds after the initiation of the collapse until the end. there are an unknown number of unknown variables that no amount of guesswork or praying are going to answer.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
It has always troubled me how a lighter Aluminum alloy cut the external steel grid of the WTC like a hot knife going through butter. Watching the pictures of construction in the 70's those things were large and strong, the fascade was weak yes, but the steel behind it was thick and strong.
When you watch the second plane hit and go through it so easily, it just doesn't seem possible. I know some people will say kinetic energy did it.
But shouldn't the wings have snapped off like in other plane accidents.
This part of 9/11 baffles me. Thoughts?

[edit on 20-11-2007 by Blue_Jay33]


Hi. Your galaxy is very nice.


I have some pictures about the construction of the Towers. Those steel box-blocks were put to each other in smaller pieces, then fixed to each others. At the fixing points they are much weaker. They weren't cut up, they wre just pushed inside. The fixing points didn't hold that well.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
The photo is there because the WTC is mentioned in the document as an example of complex high-rise construction.

Its not there because a particular type of construction was used at the WTC.


It was there because what the author was discussing fits the visual aid in the picture of the exterior walls (facade) of the the WTC. The WTC had two exterior walls. The steel facade gave additional strength to the exterior primary load bearing supports.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
The WTC had two exterior walls. The steel facade gave additional strength to the exterior primary load bearing supports.



i thought it was an aluminum facade put there to more or less make the buildings pretty?

ok this is ridiculous...does ANYONE have ANY ACCURATE data on just exactly WAS used to build the exterior walls of the wtc towers? i mean seriously this is getting nuts



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

i thought it was an aluminum facade put there to more or less make the buildings pretty?

ok this is ridiculous...does ANYONE have ANY ACCURATE data on just exactly WAS used to build the exterior walls of the wtc towers? i mean seriously this is getting nuts


Then you thought wrong. It was specially designed casted steel for one tube to fit into another tube. Instead of requesting anyone else do your research for you, why don't you do it yourself? If you would do your own research, it could serve to dispel those "official" version myths you currently carry in your head.

However, I will provide you with information on the facade this time, simply to prevent you from going off on tangents, because someone else did not do your research for you.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Design innovations

A typical floor layout and elevator arrangement of the WTC towersTo solve the problem of wind sway or vibration in the construction of the towers, chief engineer Leslie Robertson took a then unusual approach — instead of bracing the buildings corner-to-corner or using internal walls, the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a central core and perimeter columns sharing the loads. The 208 feet (63.4 m) wide facade was, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39 inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core took the majority of the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure was built by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient area, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. The core supported the weight of the entire building and the outer shell containing 240 vertical steel columns called around the outside of the building, which were bound to each other using ordinary steel trusses. In addition, 10,000 dampers were included in the structure. With the large core and high load-bearing perimeter for structural integrity, Robertson created a tower that was extremely light for its size."



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Dam you are correct.

The WTC had one exterior wall, clad in aluminium facia. That is the box column/spandrel wall that we are all used to.

There was nothing else.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I ain't namin' names, but one of the few most recent posters to this thread is either
a) is being obstinant just for the hell of it, or
b) has a real reading comprehension problem.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Damocles

i thought it was an aluminum facade put there to more or less make the buildings pretty?

ok this is ridiculous...does ANYONE have ANY ACCURATE data on just exactly WAS used to build the exterior walls of the wtc towers? i mean seriously this is getting nuts


Then you thought wrong. It was specially designed casted steel for one tube to fit into another tube. Instead of requesting anyone else do your research for you, why don't you do it yourself? If you would do your own research, it could serve to dispel those "official" version myths you currently carry in your head.


OS-

I humbally suggest the "tube inside a tube" design you keep referring to describes the inner core, ( one tube ), surrounded by another hollow steel tube, ( the external walls/facade ). The exterior walls were boxed columns and spandrel plates placed together to construct a steel "mesh". They were then covered in a thin aluminum skin. There were no columns inside other columns with concrete, etc.. Look at the description that you supplied in your post;


the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a central core and perimeter columns sharing the loads. The 208 feet (63.4 m) wide facade was, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39 inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces;


your source

Does this look like a "tube within a tube filled with concrete" sticking out of 130 Liberty St.? It is an exterior wall portion from WTC 2 w/o the aluminum skin.



Here again is a picture I posted for you earlier showing the single boxed columns & spandrel plates. No concrete. No tube within a tube.



BTW- Damocles is a huge wealth of humble knowledge that he has researched or experienced & shared with us time after time over the years. I have NEVER found him to be someone that relies on someone else to do his thinking for him. Just thought you should know. . .

2PacSade-



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
ultima, ive really gotta call you on this one. theres no way, whatsoever to tell how much damage was done to the core of either building. particularly when so many will say that the plane was shredded by the outter walls.


Well ther are a couple good reasons i can say this.

1. Videos and photos show the plane going into the South tower went in at an angle through the side of the building.

2. The 9/11 commission report states that the stairwell in the South tower was not damaged, many survivers made it down from the upper floors.



[edit on 19-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Ultima I am sorry but the F4 is not made of Steel, the steel sections in the aircraft where used sparingly, the back keel which was the upper rib was used I believe as a structural attachment point to crane lift the F4, the rear steel section is the heat shield for the exhaust ports and under the rear tail section added with Ti for superior sustained heating, the trailing edge elevators used steel honeycomb construction again because of the higher air temps they would encounter being located just behind the exhaust outlets.

as other posters have said the F4 is primarily constructed of Aluminum as are most US aircraft produced since WWII.


* The Phantom was made mostly of aviation aluminum alloys, but about 10% of the aircraft was built of titanium, a new metals technology at the time.


www.vectorsite.net...

The above link has everything you may every want to know about the F4 its history construction and variants

[edit on 19-12-2007 by robertfenix]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join