How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

Originally posted by robertfenix
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,

Thank you for agreeing there is steel in the F-4 as i have stated and have proven that the F-4 was made with steel and titanium. How much more facts and evidence do i have to post?

www.boeing.com...

This illustration from a 1971 manual shows how titanium was used in the F-4 Phantom II.
www.boeing.com...

Also the MIG-25 was made mostly of steel.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

All told, about 80% of the plane's structure was composed of tempered steel.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

There is no agreement ULTIMA, the steel content of the F4 is very limited, compared to the Aluminum Alloy, I would guess less then 1 part per 5000 is made of steel. So for every 5,000 lbs on aluminum there "might be" 1 lb of carbon steel.

Your argument regarding the F4 is made of steel is very weak as the total percentage of steel used anywhere on it compared to Aluminum is so small that would be like saying my roast beef sandwich is made of corn.

Originally posted by robertfenix
I would guess less then 1 part per 5000 is made of steel.

So you can only guess, you have no facts to support your theory? Funny, i can post facts to support what i post.

I notice you did not comment on the titanium since i posted facts on it.


[edit on 19-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I think we're all aware that the planes that hit the WTC were Boeing 767 variants, and not McDonnel Douglas F-4 Phantoms II's

Therefore I can't figure out why the construction of the aforementioned Phantom is being debated. Isn't it kind of irrelevant?

Originally posted by neformore
Therefore I can't figure out why the construction of the aforementioned Phantom is being debated. Isn't it kind of irrelevant?

Becasue it debates some things stated about planes causing damage to the builidngs.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by neformore
Therefore I can't figure out why the construction of the aforementioned Phantom is being debated. Isn't it kind of irrelevant?

Becasue it debates some things stated about planes causing damage to the builidngs.

The Wright brothers plane was constructed of wood and had an aluminum engine.
en.wikipedia.org...

What does that have to do with the planes that hit the WTC? Nothing, just as the F-4 information doesnt answer any questions about WTC either.

Originally posted by Disclosed
What does that have to do with the planes that hit the WTC?

Because it debates what poeple like you have stated about force and materials cutting through other materials. But then again you would not know much about aviation not having experience in the field.

Like posting about a zero hitting a ship hull (and only the engine pentatrating)


[edit on 19-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
What does that have to do with the planes that hit the WTC?

Becasue it debates what poeple like you have stated about force and materials cutting through other materials.

What does a video showing an F-4 slamming into a reinforced concrete wall (to be used in a nuclear power plant) have to do with Aluminum cutting thru steel?

Originally posted by Disclosed
What does a video showing an F-4 slamming into a reinforced concrete wall (to be used in a nuclear power plant) have to do with Aluminum cutting thru steel?

It has to do with what what materials can and cannot be cut through even though people have stated it has nothing to do with material its all force.

But as stated you would not know much about it since you do not have experience in the field.



[edit on 19-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But then again you would not know much about aviation not having experience in the field.

Just because you were a crew chief in the air force (or so you claim) does not make you an expert on any of the aircraft used on 9/11. The only person here qualified in that aspect could be John Lear, who was a pilot. Otherwise, you are just another forum poster...nobody special.

And as stated, the F-4 video is irrelevant since 1) that plane wasnt in any WTC attacks, and 2) it was hitting a reinforced concrete wall...also not at the WTC.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by Disclosed
The only person here qualified in that aspect could be John Lear, who was a pilot.

Actually you are wrong again. A crew chief usually knows more about a plane because they have to know all systems on the aircraft not just how to fly it.

A crew chief usually knows more about the planes since they have to inspect, troubleshoot, and work on it.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
The only person here qualified in that aspect could be John Lear, who was a pilot.

Actually you are wrong again. A crew chief usually knows more about a plane because they have to know all systems on the aircraft not just how to fly it.

A crew chief usually knows more about the planes since they have to inspect, troubleshoot, and work on it.

That would be a crew chief that worked on the 757 / 767. That would not be yourself. So your supposed crew chief information is not relevant here at all. Why even mention it?

Originally posted by Disclosed
That would be a crew chief that worked on the 757 / 767.

Well your wrong again.

I was a crew chief on a RF-4C, the last few post were about the F-4.

Also a crew chief gets basic maintenance training on all types of aircraft.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
That would be a crew chief that worked on the 757 / 767.

Well your wrong again.

I was a crew chief on a RF-4C, the last few post were about the F-4.

Also a crew chief gets basic maintenance training on all types of aircraft.

....and still, that has nothing to do with the aircraft used in the 9/11 attacks. It might be relevant to the video...but that entire video isnt relevant since it also involved aircraft not used in 9/11 and it hit a reinforced concrete wall to be used in a nuclear power plant...also not at WTC.

So, it is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Disclosed
....and still, that has nothing to do with the aircraft used in the 9/11 attacks.

Well the photo of Japanese zero having hit a ship had nothing to do with the aircraft used on 9/11 so why did you post that?

I can post information on an F-4 as long as it has some fact or evdience to add to the thread.

Also in case you did not know the Pentagon did have a reinforced concrete wall. I believe a 757 was supposed to have penatrated that.




[edit on 19-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I can post information on an F-4 as long as it has some fact or evdience to add to the thread.

.... which it does not, since that aircraft was not used in the WTC attacks. That is unless it shows aluminum from that aircraft cutting thru steel. Isnt that what this thread is about? Aluminum cutting thru steel?

Originally posted by Disclosed
... which it does not, since that aircraft was not used in the WTC attacks. That is unless it shows aluminum from that aircraft cutting thru steel.

Then why did you post the photo of the ship with the hole from a WWII zero engine?

That was not aluminum cutting steel.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Also in case you did not know the Pentagon did have a reinforced concrete wall. I believe a 757 was supposed to have penatrated that.

so the question ct'r, skeptic and oct'r should be asking is, were the walls of the pentagon reinforced to the same standard as the one in the video or in otherwords, was the outter wall of the pentagon reinforced to the same standard as a nuke plant. that one is yes, no, or i dont know. if yes or no, then i think facts should be provided to support the assertation.

so ANYONE who says anything other than "i dont know" needs to back it up.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Then why did you post the photo of the ship with the hole from a WWII zero engine?

That was not aluminum cutting steel.

The mostly aluminum plane hitting the steel ship? I'm sure you arent seriously asking that. If you have to ask, perhaps you should re-read the threads preceding and after that thread...they do explain everything.

Please do some research.

Plus that still doesnt answer why you keep talking about the F4, when it wasnt used in the WTC attacks. ANd why you mention you are a crew chief, when you have not worked the 757/767 aircraft.

Originally posted by Disclosed
The mostly aluminum plane hitting the steel ship?

Are you really going to stand by that post?

The photo you posted shows a hole in the ship caused by the engine. You do know the engine was not made of aluminum correct?

No other part of the plane penatrated the ship.

Also a Japanese Zero was not used in the WTC attacks so why use it?


[edit on 19-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]