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: 43
13
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Why make it so hard? Take a soda can and propel it at a cast iron fence. No matter how fast the can goes, it will do nothing more to the fence than scratch it or at the very worst bend the bars slightly if the velocity was tremendous. But no way will it break the bars: the material is just too light.

If in fact airliners did hit the towers that day, they did not cause the right kind of damage, the kind one would expect to see: Debris of a major nature on the strike side of the impact..the street should have been littered with airline parts;only the engines and major heavy parts would have penetrated very far or existed the other side. A fast fireball is a given, and then the fires cooled. Both towers were turned to dust by energy of massive and unknown means. This operation was so complex, so advanced, so devious and encompassing, that it took a genius to pull off: Not the scum Bush and Cheney,,the real geniuses that planned and executed it are experts in many ways.

It was a show worth an Acadamy award, except for the fact that real people died. The director will be honored some day, we hope, perhaps in the Hague. Until then all we know that 9-11 was an inside job and that the people are still mostly asleep.




posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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 attacks so what post it?

[edit on 19-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


ULTIMA1,

This post is discussing aluminum cutting thru steel. The picture I posted showed the damage done by an aluminum plane slamming into the side of the ship, causing extensive damage. True, the section with the engine put the hole in the plane, but there was other damage, as shown and as described in the links provided.

However, once again you still have not answered the question why you are talking abou the F4, which was not used in ANY of the 9/11 attacks. And why you keep mentioning you being a crew chief when you have not worked on the 757/767 aircraft?

What does your crew chief experience have to do with aluminum cutting thru steel?



[edit on 19-12-2007 by Disclosed]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
The picture I posted showed the damage done by an aluminum plane slamming into the side of the ship, causing extensive damage.


But the aluminum part of the plane did not cause the hole,, only the engine. Again, the engine is not aluminum. The photo does not show any aluminum part of the plane made penatration.

Also my experience as a crew chief gives me the knowledge of what planes are made of and what they can do.

What experience do you have about planes that would help you know what they are capable of doing?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Why make it so hard? Take a soda can and propel it at a cast iron fence. No matter how fast the can goes, it will do nothing more to the fence than scratch it or at the very worst bend the bars slightly if the velocity was tremendous. But no way will it break the bars: the material is just too light.

or we could try a more realistic comparison and fire one of these at the same fence. its made of aircraft aluminum. wouldnt that be a closer test? build the barrel of your test cannon big enough, encase that 8 in a sabot and fire away. i bet theres a different outcome. and i bet that there are parts of a plane made of aluminum that are much closer (likely stronger) to that object then to a soda can.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



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.


Just to restate for the 2nd time, as far as I have read, nobody has made a blanket statement that "it has nothing to do with material it's all force". This statement is simply wrong. Please stop making this statement unless you can back it up as it takes away from the discussion.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   

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.


This is of course you were in the air force. If you would like to be considered an expert, please post your credentials so they can be verified. Failing that, as stated by another person, you are just another poster. I am not trying to be rude but please put your money where your mouth is. Thank you.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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]


What were the engines made of?
What were the ships made of?
Thanks for responding to my questions.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Why make it so hard? Take a soda can and propel it at a cast iron fence. No matter how fast the can goes, it will do nothing more to the fence than scratch it or at the very worst bend the bars slightly if the velocity was tremendous. But no way will it break the bars: the material is just too light.

Please show how these two items are of comparable mass and density as the planes and WTC's.


If in fact airliners did hit the towers that day, they did not cause the right kind of damage, the kind one would expect to see:

Please explain what we should have seen based on your expert opinion. just to prevent nay sayers from contradicting you, please also post factual data to back up your expert opinion along with your credentials.


Debris of a major nature on the strike side of the impact..the street should have been littered with airline parts;

Please provide information to substantiate this claim.


A fast fireball is a given, and then the fires cooled. Both towers were turned to dust by energy of massive and unknown means. This operation was so complex, so advanced, so devious and encompassing, that it took a genius to pull off: Not the scum Bush and Cheney,,the real geniuses that planned and executed it are experts in many ways.

And if this is true, only a genius would know this. May I respectfully ask your IQ?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Structural steel Ultimate strength = 400 MPa = 8.35 million pounds/foot^2
Aluminum alloy Ultimate strength = 455 MPa = 9.50 million pounds/foot^2

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

I can see how an airplane could do it.

[edit on 12/19/2007 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Also my experience as a crew chief gives me the knowledge of what planes are made of and what they can do.


Have you worked with a 757 / 767 as a supposed crew chief in the Air Force?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Why make it so hard? Take a soda can and propel it at a cast iron fence. No matter how fast the can goes, it will do nothing more to the fence than scratch it or at the very worst bend the bars slightly if the velocity was tremendous. But no way will it break the bars: the material is just too light.
.


Sorry if I missed it but you kind of pointed out the flaw in your own analogy eh? The can is too light. But the airliner was not so light and it was moving at almost 500 mph



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I have to agree with Robert here. Yes some titanum was used however, the bulk of the airframe was aluminum:



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.faqs.org...


Your quoted article shows very little titanium used.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
This is of course you were in the air force. If you would like to be considered an expert, please post your credentials so they can be verified.


I have posted my creds before, but sadly some people on here like Disclosed are too immature to admit to them.

Here is my Military transcript.

i114.photobucket.com...

quote]Originally posted by Disclosed
Have you worked with a 757 / 767 as a supposed crew chief in the Air Force?

As stated i have had training on most types of aircraft and i know what aircraft are made of and what they can do.

Do you have any aircraft knowledge at all?

[edit on 20-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 03:01 AM
link   
with respect to everyone, is it really reasonable to just about require someone on an internet forum to post personal information about themselves that one could jsut claim "photoshop" or whatever?

i mean, im certainly not posting my credentials online for just anyone who wants to try identity theft for fun.

IF it came down to it, and i simply HAD to be vetted then i would consent to a mod contacting me for some information but sorry guys, you jokers arent getting my stuff posted only for someone to say "oh sure, he made that stuff in MS Word and Photoshop"

see, heres the thing...wanna know the thing? ill tell u the thing...

ive said many times i have worked extensivly with high explosives. ive also said i was part of a Chem/bio terrorism response team. somewhere else i said i went to paramedic school nights and worked in an ER. im 35 ina couple weeks so yeah i had time to do all this. and more.

but does it matter 2 squirts of rat urin if any of that is true IF what i post about the topics i claim an expertise in is true? not sure ive ever posted anythign as "fact" that ya'll couldnt look up on yer own if you were so inclined and if i was posting something that couldnt be sourced, i said so or said it was my opinion.

now, i realize that therin lies the rub as it were...lot of posts claiming this or that from a lot of people and someone else comes along and claims something totally opposite and it gets into a "mines bigger" type flame war.


i think that along with all the new graphics they should have a "put your money where your mouth is" pic that can be put in the bottom of a post in which somoene posts something as irrefutable fact, and doesnt back it up. if they cant source the claim then they have to publicly admit that its an opinion not fact, and if they are proven wrong they have to admit that as well or get post banned.

but thats just me. i know none of this was about me, its just easier to use myself as an example than to use anyone else as someone else may get offended. only one im gonig to offend using myself is the voices



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


My neigbour just retired as a pilot in an commercial airline company here in Norway. His share of flighthours after 25 years in the business are to me qualified for the OP question. His answer was.

"Don't ask me, you have to ask an expert about that!"

In other words, i don't care if you have filled up thousands of planes with fuel or changed the landing gear bolts in an military course. This topic still has to do with Kinetic energy. Your fathers military papers doesn't give you any credits in this thread. A 48 year old man would have been more enlightened after so much feedback in this post. We are not making kinetic energy upm its a well documented field.

You obviously don't know anything in that area, so don't bait the thread on to completely different things. Put your stubborness behind you and read a little about how soft materials can penetrate harder materials with enough kinetic enery.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 05:43 AM
link   


Why make it so hard? Take a soda can and propel it at a cast iron fence. No matter how fast the can goes, it will do nothing more to the fence than scratch it or at the very worst bend the bars slightly if the velocity was tremendous. But no way will it break the bars: the material is just too light.


One thing is that you can't generate sufficent velocity - I doubt even
Roger Clemens juiced up on steroids could do it.

Problem is we are talking about an aircraft weighing in 350,000 lbs
traveling at over 500 mph.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 06:32 AM
link   
This is an interesting site on the 767 and gives stats:

www.serendipity.li...

"THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE
THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767

Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed and not at the break neck speed of some kamikaze. With this in mind, we can calculate the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental collision.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).

From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.

In conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.

So what can be said about the actual impacts?

The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).

This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?

The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).

This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it is also a surprise that the 767 impact caused the South tower to fall.

Overall, it comes as a great surprise that the impact of a Boeing 767 bought down either tower. Indeed, many experts are on record as saying that the towers would survive the impact of the larger and faster Boeing 747. In this regard, see professor Astaneh-Asl's simulation of the crash of the much, much larger and heavier Boeing 747 with the World Trade Center. Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.

Although the jet fuel fires have been ruled out as the cause of the collapses, it should still be pointed out that the fuel capacities of the Boeing 707 and the Boeing 767 are essentially the same. And in any case, it has been estimated that both UA Flight 175 and AA Flight 11 were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel when they impacted. This is well below the 23,000 gallon capacity of a Boeing 707 or 767. Thus the amount of fuel that exploded and burnt on September 11 was envisaged by those who designed the towers. Consequently, the towers were designed to survive such fires. It should also be mentioned that other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires than those of the twin towers on September 11, and did not collapse."



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Heres the problem with the post you've just made Orion.

It uses false logic.

Yes, the two planes are comparable in size and mass.

What is not comparable though, is the fact that the WTC 767's were deliberately flown into the towers at 466mph

Now - I'm not a pilot. I am, however, an aviation enthusiast amongst other things and I would seriously question the idea that normal air traffic, flying over over a city the size of New York, at low level, is travelling at 466mph.

So whilst the designers claimed that the WTC was capable of "taking a strike from the largest airliner (707) at the time of construction" that might be "off course and lost in the fog", I would wager that such a plane "off course and lost in the fog" isn't going to be travelling at 466mph, deliberately aimed into the centre of the structure.

In fact I'd put forward the idea to you that a sane and rational pilot would upon realising what was looming a., take some form of avoiding action to try - however much in vain - to miss the building.

So, whilst I accept that the towers may have been designed to take the impact of a 707 at a lower speed, I would suggest that they probably were not designed with the idea in mind that some maniac was going to fly one slap bang into the middle of them at near maximum speed.

Lower speed = less kinetic energy = less damage = more chance of the towers remaining standing, albeit damaged..

Admittedly "designed to take the impact of a 707" sounds good. But, its a soundbyte.

Without proper clarification from the people who designed the structure no one has any idea exactly what level of impact that was.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
"THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE
THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767


Yes, and airbags and seatbelts are designed to keep car occupants from dying in a crash. That doesn't mean that they always will. It just means that they increased the likleyhood of a favorable outcome.

I should also point out that the recent bridge that collapsed in Minnesota was designed to survive the weight of cars driving over it. It failed. Does that mean that there were thermite charges planted on the bridge to bring it down? No. Once you get out of the blueprint and into the actual physical world we found out that our plans don't always go as expected.



The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 07:36 AM
link   
We need to note that a 707 lost in the fog at low altitude and much reduced speed would hit the building with 25% or less of the kinetic energy of a 767 deliberately targeted at max speed.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join