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: 46
13
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade
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.


Well if you would read my post i have stated that the planes impacts did not cause enough damage to cause the collapse.

As i have stated the thin aluminum wings and airframe would not have made it into the builidngs without being shredded (as the Purdue video shows) and not causing damage to the steel beams in the core. Specially since the plane that hit the south tower went in at an angle through the side of the building.

I am still waiting for any proof that the aluminum caused enough damage to the core to cause the collapse.




posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

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 @ 01:48 PM
link   
A 767, with a wing span of 156' flying at a vertical angle, was defintely going to encounter 4" deep reinforced concrete, plus, other steel, and a lot of it, on the horizontal floor planes of the WTC twin towers. That is a given. In fact, there was both high intensity dense adjacent and parallel supporting steel running under the floors of each story.

Therefore, comparison of reinforced concrete and steel, of the Pentagon, is definitely a relative comparsion to the WTC twin towers. Particularly, if people are concentrating on the wings without engines. Could the wings (not engines, but instead aluminum with light steel frame wings) penetrate the WTC's two steel exterior tube designed walls and then still easily slice through what I briefly, but somewhat adequately, described above?

At what speed and velocity force would it take to penetrate by just the wings (aluminum over light steel frame)? The engine is the driving force to give the wings degree of velocity force, and, thus, limited input into how capable engine velocity force, pulling and carrying weight and mass, transfers part that velocity force to the wing weight and mass, for velocity impact force of wing weight and mass. A plane has no velocity force without something with kinetic energy providing that force.

The Pentagon was indeed more rebar steel reinforced concrete than steel box columns. However, floors and support in the WTC building are still relatively comparable to what materials made up the Pentagon, particularly when a plane with a 156' wing span is on a vertical angle flying in.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by 2PacSade
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.


Well if you would read my post i have stated that the planes impacts did not cause enough damage to cause the collapse.

As i have stated the thin aluminum wings and airframe would not have made it into the builidngs without being shredded (as the Purdue video shows) and not causing damage to the steel beams in the core. Specially since the plane that hit the south tower went in at an angle through the side of the building.

I am still waiting for any proof that the aluminum caused enough damage to the core to cause the collapse.



Well since you agree the Purdue University video is accurate, then by default you must also agree it shows the plane damaging core supports as this is what the video shows. So, you are saying the plane (aluminum) can damage steel (core supports). That wasn't so hard



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

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...


I felt necessarily motivated to add the following to your relative informative post.


It is not the size of fire or temperature reading that measures heat, but the thermal energy (BTUs) of heat thermal energy of a fire, that gives true heat measurement. It takes time to build to a heat reading of 11000 degrees F (heat necessary to vaporize an entire plane, such as a 767 or 757) in a contained area. It takes far, far longer out in the open without atomic energy applied directly to an object for vaporizing purposes.

Normally, the fastest way to build thermal energy heat, from a heat source transferred to an object, is to contain the heat source and object, particularly for high temperatures, such as 11000 degrees F. If not contained, they cannot reach that level due to air and impurities burning flames cooling off the thermal energy heat outside the source (flame). The highest thermal energy will remain in the flame.

When people merely say temperature, they are not describing heat. They are describing the effects of the heat. I guarantee the heat, in the flame of a gas furnace pilot, is far hotter than the temperature reading of a room thermostat. Yet, the thermostat says only some figure of degree F or C for heating any room(s). The room heat may indeed be some degree figure of 70 degrees on the thermostat. The same cannot be said of the BTUs of the flame doing the heating.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So, you are saying the plane (aluminum) can damage steel (core supports).


No because those are probably not aluminum parts doing damage to a few of the beams.

As the Purdue video clearly shows the (aluminum) being shredded to pieces by the (steel) beams.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Well since you agree the Purdue University video is accurate, then by default you must also agree it shows the plane damaging core supports as this is what the video shows. So, you are saying the plane (aluminum) can damage steel (core supports). That wasn't so hard


One thing about simulations, people can make them read any way they wish, if they are trying to sway opinion of those who do not question them. That is why no professional scientist takes the tested hypothesis of any other scientist at face value.

Loss of 46% kinetic energy on an impact is easy to test for accurcy and get exactly the same result. Unfortunately, for your argument and Perdue, exactly what happened at the twin towers is not.

First, they cannot do it accurately on computer. Second, they would have to manually scale model replicate everything exactly as it happened and all object materials and designs involved, including adding models of people and luggage. From what I have seen on simulations related to WTC twin towers, they are highly inaccurte. They do not account for exact materials or design. They do not account for anything interior other than an inaccurate center core. They do not account for exact construction. Etc.

They literally have to make scale model replica equal to everything involved on 9/11. That means scale models of exact materials and exact design of a twin tower, 767, and every other material object in the line of impact and thereafter. I have seen no simulations doing that. That is the only way to test for accuracy of hypothesis.

Hypothesis is merely if this - then that. But then it has to be proved based on what is known of materials, design, all objects, accurate (not guesswork) speed, etc. That means exact scale model replica testing. That costs a great deal of money. Other than that, it is all quesswork by everyone without proof of accuracy.

No 767 cut through the center core supports. A drone firing missiles and symmetrically dropping core supports could cut the supports, but no 767 all by itself cut those supports. It is physically impossible based on what the plane encountered on impact and inside the building after impact. It did not have the kinetic energy it would have taken to do it. That is a fact not supposition.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
No 767 cut through the center core supports. A drone firing missiles and symmetrically dropping core supports could cut the supports, but no 767 all by itself cut those supports. It is physically impossible based on what the plane encountered on impact and inside the building after impact. It did not have the kinetic energy it would have taken to do it. That is a fact not supposition.


Well put but wasting your breath on a lot of these people.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 





And this of course is just your opinion.

Please show me the physics that prove your opinion.
Please show specifically where the physics animations were calculated incorrectly.

Thanks.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well put but wasting your breath on a lot of these people.



"These people" ?

Please tell me you aren't namecalling again...

Perhaps you need to re-review the policy statement for these forums, ULTIMA1 : Forum policy



If you disagree with another member, please feel free to explain why you disagree by outlining the facts as you or your sources see them, not by labeling - whether by direct statement or by implication - those who hold certain views as "nutcases", "sheeple", "disinfo agents", "idiots" and so forth.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


Well put but wasting your breath on a lot of these people.



Thank you. I will not argue that.

However, I do not post what I do for their benefit. I post for the benefit of those, who may not know where to find or what pertinent data to start researching. The rest of analysis and evaluation is up to them to arrive at their conclusions.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well put but wasting your breath on a lot of these people.



"These people" ?

Please tell me you aren't namecalling again...


I am not the party to whom you addressed your comments. However, how did you derive "namecalling" out of the words "these people"? I took it to mean these people using the forum as opposed to those people not using the forum. How did you interpret it differently?



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
A 757 had the ability to "cut core supports" at the Pentagon... What makes the larger 767 unable to cause damage to the core of the WTC towers?

Here is a diagram showing how much damage flight 77 caused and how many support colums were severed.




posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Thank you. I will not argue that.

However, I do not post what I do for their benefit. I post for the benefit of those, who may not know where to find or what pertinent data to start researching. The rest of analysis and evaluation is up to them to arrive at their conclusions.


Yes i have posted lots of research also to try to get people to do some instead of just going by what they have been told.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Please tell me you aren't namecalling again...


Please be courtious enough to stop the trolling. I think everone on here has had enough of it.



[edit on 21-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   




I used your entire citation because I have no idea the significance of posting my citation twice - once at the top and again at the bottom. I have no idea what all that is in the middle? Could you please explain and also explain why you twice posted my citation?

I already gave a very lengthy explanation of why no 767 cut through center core beams. Now I will give why they could not symetrically drop the core center supports.

The plane was not shaped to symetrically cut through the massive core beams (central core 135' x 87' spaced at even intervals all around the core area) from one side of a building to another. Nor did it have the material strength nor the kinetic energy left to slice through.

If you read the abstract as it was meant to be read, an entire 767 could not have even sliced, at top speed, through the exterior walls if the steel facade and primary supporting tubes were over 20 mm (78% of an inch) thick. So how do you expect a much slowed 767 to cut all strategic massive center core beams that are 54"(l) x 22"(w) x 5"(d)?

Why don't you tell us how the planes did it considering what they encounted outside the impact area and along the path we have been told to believe they took? The onus of proof also lies on you when telling people they are wrong. You have to prove them wrong, or you have no more than your opinion, don't you? I, on the other hand, have substantiated with scientific facts in more than a few of my posts.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please be courtious enough to stop the trolling. I think everone on here has had enough of it.


Trolling? How am I trolling when I'm just asking if you had any experience working the 757 / 767 aircraft in your supposed air force chief experience? If you have no experience working with those aircraft, then mentioning you were a flight chief has no relevance on this thread at all. Unless, as a flight chief on the 757 / 767, you examined the aircraft up close and personal.

Guess I dont see why it is so hard to post the truth...



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



Why don't you tell us how the planes did it considering what they encounted outside the impact area and along the path we have been told to believe they took?

Read the NIST reports.


The onus of proof also lies on you when telling people they are wrong.
No actually, the way it works is as follows. You are attempting to discredit the government reports. To do so, you must provide proof they are incorrect. It's a good system-Innocent until proven guilty.


You have to prove them wrong, or you have no more than your opinion, don't you?

NO. See above.


I, on the other hand, have substantiated with scientific facts in more than a few of my posts.

Really? OK then take your facts that absolutely proves a conspiracy and go to the authorities so we can put the perpetrators in jail.

Now to the real question of the thread, can you provide evidence showing that aluminum can not cut steel ?



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Trolling? How am I trolling when I'm just asking if you had any experience working the 757 / 767 aircraft in your supposed air force chief experience?


No your trolling was the question about name calling. Please do not try to change the subject, it does not make you look good.

I have already stated several times that i have had training on several different types of aircraft and know what they are made of, and since you have not answewred my question about your experience i am going to assume you do not have any. So you do not know what you are talking about at all.

I will not repeat the fact i have had avaition traing again. So move on.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The fact is....aviation training on any aircraft other than the 757 / 767 is irrelevant to this thread.

Did an F-4 Phantom crash into the WTC? No....

Did an ME-109 crash into the WTC? No....

What did crash into the WTC buildings were 757 / 767 aircraft. If you have no expertise on these aircraft, the fact that you mention that you "say" you were a crew chief means diddly squat.

That is a fact.

The only relevant experience in this thread should be whether aluminum can cut thru steel.



[edit on 21-12-2007 by Disclosed]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join