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: 44
13
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   
The engineering statement that the WTC towers were designed to withstand a strike by a 707 stands. In fact they did withstand the initial strike by the planes, intact, although with a large hole in them.

No where did the original engineers state the building would remain standing indefinitely. Only that it would survive the initial strike by a large aircraft. They had no computer models of the theoretical hit on the towers regarding long term impact on the structure only that the suspension and loading dynamic of its construction should provide enough structural strength to withstand x joules of kinetic energy impacting into the building. (This in fact played out to be true)

The building did not collapse immediately after it was struck, the building did stand, the top section did not fall off, the building did not bend and collapse over etc.

The engineers could not have modeled what would happen after the plane struck the building as computer simulation models were not used in civil engineering projects (I believe) at the time when the original plans for the WTC towers were drafted. They had only ASTM guides and the past 100 years or so of commercial building experience, success and failures to draw on in its design.

As for ULTIMA your banter is meaningless it is obvious that you lack certain skills to communicate with people in a productive manner so I will simply ignore you and your comments on the grounds they are nothing more then airy babble from a lower IQ persona.



[edit on 20-12-2007 by robertfenix]




posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 09:18 AM
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.



Of course, lets really talk apples to apples, a soda can, filled with fluid, water, soda, or how about jet fuel.

The aircraft was not an empty aluminum can, it was filled with contents, people, cargo, wiring, jet fuel, hydraulic fluid etc.

So in the above lets shoot a full soda can at, some 1/8" iron rod spread 2" apart and 24" wide. we will shoot our can out of an "air cannon" to the scale speed of 500mph.

Would you like to wager a bet what happens to the iron rod's ???

Or how about lets say 3/4" of plywood or 1" thick drywall.

You can only compact fluid so much, that is what makes Hydraulics work so wonderfully in moving lots of weight.

Ever impact the water at over 100mph ? how about at 40mph ? like falling into the water at speed water skiing. Is the water cushy or is it almost rock hard....




[edit on 20-12-2007 by robertfenix]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


No, the author is not wrong. The twin towers were indeed built to withstand the impact of a 707. They got hit with 100 mph winds and higher, everytime a severe storm blew in. That was approximately 30 years of being hit with that type wind quite often. Plus, they sat on a fault with the center at the harbor area of NYC.

The designers did indeed account for a cruise speed of any potential 707s, when calculating the kinetic energy impact of a 707 into either twin tower. That speed was higher than the cruise speed of the 767, and could reach it faster. When something is heavier, it takes more energy to build momentum to increase velocity, than it does if an object is lighter. The 707 was lighter. The 767 is going to use more energy to build and maintain momentum than the 707. What the speedometer may read does not determine the kinetic energy any object has left for velocity force at impact. Etc.

Since you made the definitive statement the author is wrong, if you have different calculations based on physics, please present them and explain how you arrived at your conclusion,. That would include explaining how the WTC was constructed as you understand it was constructed. I know how it was constructed, which is why I know the author is not wrong.

If the buildings were going to fall from being compromised, the top would have fallen in the direction of the impact, and that means toppling if remaining core supports cannot hold the weight when the top drops to the side of impact.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

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 bridge failed because of neglect and shoddy repair, not because it was strucurally unsound because of wear. I don't see relevant analogy of that bridge to a building's structure, which was not neglected or in a state of disrepair.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
No, the author is not wrong. The twin towers were indeed built to withstand the impact of a 707. They got hit with 100 mph winds and higher, everytime a severe storm blew in. That was approximately 30 years of being hit with that type wind quite often. Plus, they sat on a fault with the center at the harbor area of NYC.


And thats irrelevant because an evenly distributed wind loading is not the same as a point impact load from a plane crashing into the building.



The designers did indeed account for a cruise speed of any potential 707s, when calculating the kinetic energy impact of a 707 into either twin tower.


A link from the designer that actually says that please?



That speed was higher than the cruise speed of the 767, and could reach it faster. When something is heavier, it takes more energy to build momentum to increase velocity, than it does if an object is lighter. The 707 was lighter. The 767 is going to use more energy to build and maintain momentum than the 707. What the speedometer may read does not determine the kinetic energy any object has left for velocity force at impact. Etc.


The force of an impact of a 218,000lb weight at 466mph is going to be the same, regardless of whether it was a 707 or a 767. Your statement there is irrelevant.



Since you made the definitive statement the author is wrong, if you have different calculations based on physics, please present them and explain how you arrived at your conclusion,.


I said



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.


I did not say the author of the statement was wrong. What I did was question the context and extent of his actual words.



That would include explaining how the WTC was constructed as you understand it was constructed.


Which would be pointless as you have failed to listen to anything I've written so far, or the work of at least six other individuals who have tried to explain the construction of the building to you, repeatedly.



I know how it was constructed, which is why I know the author is not wrong.


You plainly don't, as has been proven by your claims in the past 5/6 pages.


[edit on 20/1207/07 by neformore]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
What the speedometer may read does ot determine the kinetic energy any object has left for velocity force at impact. Etc.


Actually, it does
Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity so it's the major factor in it.

I'm trying to imagine the designer allowing for a 707 under 1000' in a fog at maximum cruise speed & looking for the airport - it just doesn't seem a credible contingency to me.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
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.


The twin towers were not built with reduced speed in mind. The designers took the top not bottom end to cover their bases.

Questions for anyone who wishes to answer. How has the asserted speed of the planes been determined? I have seen so many different figures thrown around in forums. Exactly, how does anyone know the exact speed, and which of the figures have been determined to be correct? Or are people just making their best guesstimates, and if so based on what?



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
How has the asserted speed of the planes been determined? I have seen so many different figures thrown around in forums.


You could work out a good estimate by simply timing how long it takes for the entire length of the plane to enter the building. I'd put it at about the 200m/sec mark at least and of course the deceleration is a large factor in that so initial contact was certainly faster. I'm sure there are better sources than that though.

[edit on 20/12/2007 by Pilgrum]


six

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



The bridge failed because of neglect and shoddy repair, not because it was strucurally unsound because of wear. I don't see relevant analogy of that bridge to a building's structure, which was not neglected or in a state of disrepair.


What??? You have to repair something because of wear and tear. Apparently it was structurally unsound. It collapsed.

You cant definitively say that you know what shape the building was in. It was not a pristine new building. It had alot of wear and tear. The building was 35 years old. The outside had not had any major repair done to it ever, if I am not mistaken. No one knows what shape the outside was in.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by OrionStars
What the speedometer may read does ot determine the kinetic energy any object has left for velocity force at impact. Etc.


Actually, it does
Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity so it's the major factor in it.


In my brief statement, I can see it was not explanatory enough to be clear in what I meant. When a heavier object is moved, it has to have more energy for momentum than a lighter object. That energy has to increase for momentum. Thus, causing velocity to take longer to increase. Thereby, reducing velocity force until desired speed is achieved. Then the heavier object still has to have more energy to maintain consistent momentum to maintain velocity force. The engine has to work harder to carry all that weight and mass and still increase or maintain speed.

When people are gauging the force at which a 767 impacts, are they considering the weight and mass "robbing" velocity force to maintain momentum simply to maintain velocity speed plus carry weight and mass? Is the mass and weight going to equal or exceed in force, what velocity force had to give up to maintain momentum, in order to maintain velocity.

I compare the automobile to aircraft. I know road vehicles are not going to be the same for speed as airplanes, but laws of physics apply to road vehicles as they do to airplanes or to us as they do to........

For example, would a 1960s Vet, going 100 mph, crashing into a furnished wood frame house do more, less, or equal damage to the house and contents, than the bulky heavy 1960s Chrysler Imperial going the same speed? They both hit 100 mph the same distance from the house. Which one would enter the house firs or would they enter at the same timet? Which one would travel the furthest distance through the house, internal walls, contents and fixtures before stopping? How much will resistance at impact and thereafter slow both vehicles trying to cut through the house and how swiftly? No braking before impact or after.

I am asking the questions because I am curious to know what would happen. So anyone who wishes to volunteer to respond with answers, please do.




I'm trying to imagine the designer allowing for a 707 under 1000' in a fog at maximum cruise speed & looking for the airport - it just doesn't seem a credible contingency to me.


Better for deciding design to account for higher, rather than design for high probability, lower risk for damage, while overlooking obvious potential high risk, higher damage freak occurrences. Fog is not always necessarily the case as to why a plane would impact a structure. It just happened to be the case for ESB. A freak occurrence could happen anytime in broad daylight instead.

The pilot could have a heart attack with no time for the co-pilot to avoid a structure, and do so in broad daylight. If the pilot falls forward over the controls and may even accelerate in the process, someone has to move the pilot first to gain control, and by then it can be too late to avoid impact. That was just for one example of freaky occurrences that can happen in flight or in an automobile.

What about loss of control due to equipment failure and inability to slow down or safely veer off, considering all the high rises they have in NYC?

I feel certain people can think of incidents that have happened to a driver or pilot, which inevitably led to an unavoidable impact, having nothing to do with fog.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   
From the last post, all I can assume is that you have not been reading anything else in this entire thread except for things that suited you, because the effects of inertia have been discussed several times.

Head...wall....

Head...wall....

Head...wall.....

Head...wall.....



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
reply to post by OrionStars
 


What??? You have to repair something because of wear and tear. Apparently it was structurally unsound. It collapsed.


That is what I said but perhaps it was not clear. Wear and tear alone did not make the bridge structurally unsound. Neglect and shoddy repair caused it to fall into a state of structural unsoundness. Had proper maintenance been done, the structural integrity would have stayed intact. Is it more clear stated that way?




You cant definitively say that you know what shape the building was in. It was not a pristine new building. It had alot of wear and tear. The building was 35 years old. The outside had not had any major repair done to it ever, if I am not mistaken. No one knows what shape the outside was in.


Do you have reason to believe the outside needed major repair? If so, what are your beliefs on that matter?

Of course they had wear and tear and very often high stress, what with 100 mph winds, plus, previous bombs in an underground parking garage and fire on 6 floors, and still was not showing any signs of structural weakness.

I have neither seen nor heard any reports from people, who worked in the twin towers, that any strucural defects were being felt or noticed any other way. In buildings that size, they become very obvious before worse failure takes place. The owners were not that lax they did not have maintenance people checking the structure on regular schedules, i.e. core beams, elevator cables, load bearing supports, trusses, plumbing, etc. Lawsuits can drive owners and insurance companies to near or completely into bankruptcy, with that many people occupying WTC bulldings.

The complex catered to a certain clientele. Part of that clietele were structural engineers and architects.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
quote]Originally posted by Damocles
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?

Sorry Dam, but i just wanted to prove again that even when i post my creds a lot of people on here still do not want to face the truth or reallity.



Originally posted by tep200377
This topic still has to do with Kinetic energy.


Problem is that your kinetic energy theory fails with the video of the F-4 not penatrating the block wall.

Just like my knowledge of aircraft tells me that an thin aluminum airframe and wing is not going to casue much damage to the towers or the Pentagon.

I am still waiting for any actual evidence to debate the facts and evidence i have psoted.



[edit on 20-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Problem is that your kinetic energy theory fails with the video of the F-4 not penatrating the block wall.


What does F-4 hitting a wall concrete wall have to do with a 767 hitting struts of a building?

I've given you quite a few analogies before and you rejected all as "irrelevant". However, this doesn't stop you from tossing in your own analogies.

When a WWII bomber crashed into the Empire State Building, the walls were penetrated. So there. And it was not traveling at speeds of F-4.

Kinetic energy in itself is not a "theory" but a measure of how much work (in physics sense of it, as per definition) can be done by an object. I did a calculation for you a while back (since you are obviously uncapable of doign that yourself) that shows how a 767 that hit the tower delivered the amount of energy equivalent to one or two cruise missile war.s. Somehow this doesn't sink.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Pilgrum
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.


The twin towers were not built with reduced speed in mind. The designers took the top not bottom end to cover their bases.


Again OS, I respectfully disagree with your statement;


Leslie Robinson designed his towers to withstand being hit by a 707. But the scenario of his design was very different from what happened on September 11th : He envisaged a 707 lost in fog looking for the airport, low on fuel at the end of its flight, with a pilot not daring to go faster than the stalling speed of 280 km per hour under such dangerous conditions.


They were not designed for a suicide mission at or above dive speed low altitude.

source


Questions for anyone who wishes to answer. How has the asserted speed of the planes been determined? I have seen so many different figures thrown around in forums. Exactly, how does anyone know the exact speed, and which of the figures have been determined to be correct? Or are people just making their best guesstimates, and if so based on what?


Video, radar, and even the audio recordings of the planes flying over. by an MIT professor of civil & enviromental engineering. 429MPH for AA11 & 503MPH for UA175.

source

2PacSade-



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What does F-4 hitting a wall concrete wall have to do with a 767 hitting struts of a building?


But you keep forgetting about the reinforced wall of the Pentagon.

Did the F-4 (using your kinetic energy theory) pentatrate the wall? YES or NO.

Also you have still not shown me a comparision between a 767 and an crueis missile side by side.



[edit on 20-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by tep200377
This topic still has to do with Kinetic energy.


Problem is that your kinetic energy theory fails with the video of the F-4 not penatrating the block wall.


Problem is that the F4 was not heavy enough and going fast enough to produce enough KE to breach the concrete wall. The parameters of the F4 experiment we too disparaged. If it had enough mass & velocity it would have.



I am still waiting for any actual evidence to debate the facts and evidence i have psoted.






2PacSade-



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade
I am still waiting for any actual evidence to debate the facts and evidence i have psoted.






Thanks for showing the photos that the planes, specialy the wings barely made it into the buildings. Not too good for the kinetic energy theory.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Why does anyone have problems grasping the fact that a big airliner can penetrate small girders like the ones in this picture?

And why does so many believe that the whole building was buildt on just those? The WTC builidings had an inner structure of concrete and steel, the outer part of the buildning was just small girders as shown on the picture below. The building was buildt in this way to create more officespace. Every floor could actually be one separate room with an inner core of elevators and stairs.




Edit , added this ..


[edit on 20-12-2007 by tep200377]

[edit on 20-12-2007 by tep200377]

[edit on 20-12-2007 by tep200377]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377
Why does anyone have problems grasping the fact that a big airliner can penetrate small girders like the ones in this picture?


Oh they might have penatrated but just barely, specially the thin aluminum airframe and wings. And not near enough to do any major damage to the inner core.

Specially the plane the hit that hit the South tower since it went in at an angle through the side of the building.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join