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: 45
13
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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.


I guess "no" if you chose to post it. So what. I told you that a lead bullet penetrates human skull (made of a harder material) but you chose to ignore that. You are cherry picking.


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


I'm not going to do this for a person who's too lazy to apply a basic physics formula and divide the number by the energy density of high explosives which can be easily found on the internet.




posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I guess "no" if you chose to post it. So what. I told you that a lead bullet penetrates human skull (made of a harder material) but you chose to ignore that. You are cherry picking.


But we are not talking about bullets and human skulls are we, you cannot even come up with a good analogy. We are talking about a planes aluminum and steel or reinforced concrete. Since this is a 9/11 thread.

So why can't you post a comparision between a 767 and a cruise missile, are you afraid it would show what a really bad comparision it would be?



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 



Originally posted by neformore


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.



My point was the towers showed no structural damage in the face of 100 mph winds battering them, on a consistent basis, for over 30 years.

Would you care to explain the difference since it was you who brought up the term “evenly divided wind loading”?




A link from the designer that actually says that please?


I can provide at least one link to an article with a comment by one of the WTC’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson. However, before I provide the link, exactly how much do you know of the construction of the WTC? I have asked the question several times without receiving an explicit answer. When I receive an answer, I will provide a link. If people are not going to study the construction themselves, why should anyone else keep doing the research? When all they get for their time and effort, is opponents giving nothing but opinion and little to no validation? Proving one’s points of argument is always a two way street. Opinion only is not proof.


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.


Can you prove that? If not, how do we know it is true?



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.




Actually, when I responded I was referring to these words:

neformore

posted on 20-12-2007 @ 07:05 AM

“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 “

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Whenever someone asserts another person is using false logic, that means the same as saying a person is wrong. So, yes, you did say the author was wrong. Exactly how is the author wrong? Math calculation? If so, exactly where? And/or his conclusion from his calculations?





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.


It is not that I have not read what you and others write. The problem with what I read is various writings do not concur with actual architectural and structural information professionally described and recorded. If people are going to tell others about the construction and design of the WTC, don’t they think it wise to present correct information, that actually does agree with the records available on design and construction of the WTC?




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


Au contraire to your broad brush blanket statement. Just because you do not agree with what I present, which may conflict with what you opine, does not equate to I have not validated points of argument, regarding design and construction of WTC towers. You accused the author of using false logic, and, yet, there you are clearly using logical fallacy ad hominmen sprinkled throughout your post.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Right. Basic Construction 101.

Concrete, especially mass reinforced concrete has much much more density than hollow steel tubing.

The concrete is therefore capable of taking a much harder impact and surviving it intact.

The concrete shown in the F-4 video was specially prepared as a mass concrete block on a shock dampener in order to mimic the outer walls of a nuclear reactor. Walls which are specially constructed to take the impact of such an event. The video is a test to prove that the construction can take the hit. It wasn't done on a whim for a laugh.

The WTC was - suprisingly - not a nuclear reactor. Its outside walls were made up of hollow steel columns that were not designed to take the impact force of a 218,000lb Boeing 767 flying at between 420-533mph.

There is a fundamental difference between Mass reinforced concrete and hollow steel columns and, to be frank, anyone who can't see that and claims to be intelligent needs to carefully examine their perception of reality.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
The WTC was - suprisingly - not a nuclear reactor. Its outside walls were made up of hollow steel columns that were not designed to take the impact force of a 218,000lb Boeing 767 flying at between 420-533mph.

to be frank, anyone who can't see that and claims to be intelligent needs to carefully examine their perception of reality.



Please show me any real evidence or photos that the thin aluminum wing and airframe of the 767s that hit the towers casued any real damage to the steel core when they photos show they barely made it into the building.

But you, like others keep avoiding the fact that the Pentagon was reinforced concrete. Maybe beacuse some people need to examine thier perception of reallty.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But you, like others keep avoiding the fact that the Pentagon was reinforced concrete. Maybe beacuse some people need to examine thier perception of reallty.


No ones mentioned the Pentagon. The Pentagon has nothing to do with this thread.

If this thread had been entitled "How does Aluminium cut through a mass reinforced concrete and steel wall containing bomb proof glass and lined with kevlar mesh" the answers would, I'm sure have been different.

But its not called that. And therefore the Pentagon has NOTHING to do with this thread. You are deliberatly muddying the waters again, by throwing in another unrelated element, because you have realised that your previous argument was pointless.

And - how the hell can anyone show you photos of the inside of the WTC immediately after the planes hit and before collapse. There are no such photo's in existence.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
If this thread had been entitled "How does Aluminium cut through a mass reinforced concrete and steel wall containing bomb proof glass and lined with kevlar mesh" the answers would, I'm sure have been different.


But the people that keep posting about kinetic energy would have us beleive that aluminum could go through the inner beams of the WTC and the concrete of the Pentagon.

Just too bad they have not actual evideince just some off the wall analogies.



[edit on 20-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

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]


Thank you. I was able to find this link and abstract:

scitation.aip.org...

"A numerical simulation of the aircraft impact into the exterior columns of the World Trade Center (WTC) was done using LS-DYNA. For simplification, the fuselage was modeled as a thin-walled cylinder, the wings were modeled as box beams with a fuel pocket, and the engines were represented as rigid cylinders. The exterior columns of the WTC were represented as box beams. Actual masses, material properties and dimensions of the Boeing 767 aircraft and the exterior columns of the WTC were used in this analysis. It was found that about 46% of the initial kinetic energy of the aircraft was used to damage columns. The minimum impact velocity of the aircraft to just penetrate the exterior columns would be 130 m/s. It was also found that a Boeing 767 traveling at top speed would not penetrate exterior columns of the WTC if the columns were thicker than 20 mm."



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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?



You did not answer my question...it's a simple YES or NO. Have you worked with a 757 / 767 as a supposed crew chief in the Air Force?

[edit on 20-12-2007 by Disclosed]



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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.


Then you are disputing the Purdue University video. Please post evidence to back up your statement including refuting their physics model.



posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I guess "no" if you chose to post it. So what. I told you that a lead bullet penetrates human skull (made of a harder material) but you chose to ignore that. You are cherry picking.


But we are not talking about bullets and human skulls are we, you cannot even come up with a good analogy. We are talking about a planes aluminum and steel or reinforced concrete. Since this is a 9/11 thread.

We are also not talking about F4's and re-enforced concrete walls are we?



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
You did not answer my question...it's a simple YES or NO. Have you worked with a 757 / 767 as a supposed crew chief in the Air Force?


And a simple YES or NO from you about if you have had any aviation training at all?

Becasue if not then you do not know what you are talking about.



Originally posted by jfj123
We are also not talking about F4's and re-enforced concrete walls are we?


But we are talking about planes and what they can get through. Its a lot closer then any other analogy.

Since the Pentagon had a reinforced concrete wall.



[edit on 21-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Thank you. I was able to find this link and abstract:

scitation.aip.org...


So here we have yet another modelled analysis showing no doubt that the planes had sufficient kinetic energy with respect to contact area to create the necessary pressure in excess of the steel's UTS to penetrate the outer steel beams of the buildings just as they were seen to do. They imply that it took less than 50% of available energy to get through the outer walls while the MIT analysis suggested it could have been as low as



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Since the Pentagon had a reinforced concrete wall.


As I said above, this thread isn't about the Pentagon.

Its never been about the Pentagon.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Since the Pentagon had a reinforced concrete wall.


but that reinforced wall wasnt exactly 4' thick either unless im off base, which i could be, it happens. i thought i read 18" thick but that could be erroneous. so, what do you think the f4 would have done to an 18" thick wall? better question is what would a 757 have done to the 4' wall in the video?



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
better question is what would a 757 have done to the 4' wall in the video?


See this is where I find problems. If object 1 has the energy to pass through object 2, what happens to object 1 after it passes through object 2?

a. It continues it's fwd motion mostly still intact?
b. It then rips apart and disappears into nothing?

Answers on a postcard to...

If the 757 passed through the wall where exactly did it go? Why is there so little wreckage recognizable as a 757. The amount of wreckage we see could fit inside a large van, not quite enough to make a whole 757. The amount of destruction to the plane just doesn't fit with the amount of destruction to the building imo. If the fires were big enough to melt a 757 away into nothing before it was put out why did the building survive with so little fire damage? Most of the damage was structural...



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 




But we are talking about planes and what they can get through. Its a lot closer then any other analogy.

Since the Pentagon had a reinforced concrete wall.

The problem is that we're not talking about the pentagon either. Maybe you are mis-posting pentagon info in the wrong thread. We're discussing aluminum cutting steel. Please double check your posts. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


is a good point and had i thought about it for more than 2 seconds before i posted id have remember something i once learned (even posted it earlier in this thread as a comment about the wall the f4 hit in the video) is that the dome of a nuclear plant IS supposed to protect the reactor from the impact of a 747. (which we should all admit just a "little" bigger than a 767 by far)

and yeah, the debris field at the pentagon, from the pictures (stressing pictures here..)seems odd. but, if we start looking at it from an explosives standpoint it doesnt look right either. but thats a whole new topic.

/offtopic



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
You did not answer my question...it's a simple YES or NO. Have you worked with a 757 / 767 as a supposed crew chief in the Air Force?


And a simple YES or NO from you about if you have had any aviation training at all?

Becasue if not then you do not know what you are talking about.


SO that pretty much answers it. You never worked on the 757/767 aircraft....but for some reason are too embarrased to admit it.

Knowing about aircraft is one thing, but actually working on the aircraft in question is completely different.

Your knowledge of aircraft may give you some insight, but by no means makes you an expert on the 757 / 767. I believe John Lear had way more knowledge about those aircraft than yourself.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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.


Why isn't it? Now the term "BARELY" is gonna come into play?


This sounds like back-pedaling to me. . .

The whole jist of this thread is "how can aluminum cut steel?" I just showed you w/o one spoken word how it can.

So Ultima- Is it true that you are conceeding the fact that it can but just "barely"? Because before your arguement was that it couldn't.

2PacSade-


fixed quote & bad sentence

[edit on 21-12-2007 by 2PacSade]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join