How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Well, to face the evidence, you simply don't.

And speaking of gun qualifications, I can strip an AK-47 in 8 seconds and put it back together in 14. Not that it's relevant... But so isn't your law enforcement background.

I am commenting on the above assertion, because the very same illogical fallacies transpire so often, from those adamantly touting the "official" reports of 9/11, without provide any valid substantiation those reports are accurate and true.

You seem to have completely misread my post where I said that my handling of AK-47 has nothing to do with the 9/11 expertise. Likewise, ULTIMA1 is touting his 12 years in law enforcement as a certificate to dismiss the kinetic energy role in the impact.

You don't seem to posess acuity in your reading skills.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
It would seem that's only true to someone who wants the fires to be oxygen starved to support some personal agenda. The reality is quite different and black smoke does not an oxygen starved fire make, the smoke colour is an indication of what's burning in the fire.

So your stating that the agencies quoted were wrong or lying ?

How many more quotes would it take for you to admit that the fires were oxygen starved ?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You seem to have completely misread my post where I said that my handling of AK-47 has nothing to do with the 9/11 expertise. Likewise, ULTIMA1 is touting his 12 years in law enforcement as a certificate to dismiss the kinetic energy role in the impact.

Then why bring up guns and bullets at all if has nothing to do with what we are talking about ?

You never did post a side by side comparision of a 767 and crusie missile with the stats asked for.


[edit on 28-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

double post


[edit on 28-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by neformore


General statements do not accuracy or truth make. Calculations need exact material specs and accurately simulated conditions per the material specs, not general material specs and guesstimated conditions.

Otherwise, the calculations are simply guesswork based on general specifics, which could apply to any aluminum, any steel, and any design of construction, not the specifics needing calculation for accuracy and truth of specifics. Specifics are what research lab work entails before releasing anything for use - specifics not generalities under the closest of variable simulated conditions.

Generalities would be this. Taking a piece of aluminum foil and some piece of steel or other. Setting any speed of human desire and sending a piece of aluminum foil to impact some piece of steel. But how does that truthfully and accurately tell anyone what a Boeing 767 impacting specific material steel spec and construction will do upon impact, considing all variables are not actually known for accuracy and truth? Answer obviously is - generalities and guesswork will not tell anyone anything with any accuracy or truth.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Wants oxygen starved fires? Fires are quite capable of becoming oxygen starved all on their own. The natural laws of chemistry are why.

reply to post by buddhasystem


You apparently misinterpreted my point. I was referring to various posters relying so much on logical fallacy. Your comment was simply a prime example of people using tangent baiting logical fallacy. You were attacking the poster not the poster's argument. You used tanget baiting for those ad hominems (personal attacks). You are not the only poster doing the same but you offered an excellent prime (exceptionally clear) example.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Then why bring up guns and bullets at all if has nothing to do with what we are talking about ?

Because you said that the 767 was traveling at speeds very much lower than that of a revolver bullet, whereas they were comparable. So I had to compensate for your apparent lack of firearm expertise.

You never did post a side by side comparision of a 767 and crusie missile with the stats asked for.

I obviously need to quote my own post:

OK, here's the recipe:

you take the estimated weight of the craft at the time of impact. You also take the estimated velocity (700-770 ft/sec or something like that). You use the m*V^2/2 formula for the kinetic energy. You divide by the energy density of the popular explosives such as TNT or C4. You divide by the typical mass of the warhead on a US cruise missile.

You see how much can be done with little effort? The effort that you elected not to afford.

With you remarkable experience in "real research", there shouldn't be troo much trouble in following this chewed-up prescription, with all the numbers from right sources.


[edit on 28-12-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by buddhasystem[/i
With you remarkable experience in "real research", there shouldn't be troo much trouble in following this chewed-up prescription, with all the numbers from right sources.

I see you cannot read. I asked for the following.

You never did post a side by side comparision of a 767 and crusie missile with the stats asked for.

So please post a sided by side comparision between a 767 and a cruise missile. With the stats for each.

Size
Speed
Structure (what they are made of)






[edit on 28-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]