It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

page: 6
13
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 10:07 AM

I would hypothesize that the sphere you mention would indeed do some severe damage to the structure, definitely making an entrance hole, but unlikely IMO to make an exit. I would also suggest that this sphere would suffer some extreme deformation, in a similar way to the tower. I would love to see this tested accurately somehow.

This sphere is quite a different situation to our 767. Instead of being quite solidly dense, the 767 is only dense at the engines and steel structures (sparsely spread over the "skeleton"), with the majority of its content being "soft", air, luggage, people, etc. I had another look at the MIT reports and couldn't find reference to the 1/15th you speak of - I found a reference in Chapter IV stating

"However, the problem of a hollow beam striking another hollow column at a right angle and a speed of 240 m/s has not been analyzed in the literature. Therefore it is not possible, at this point in time, to give any detailed account on this interaction, between the wings and outer column, with a higher degree of accuracy than our approximate engineering analysis."

As for the deacceleration - using NIST's figures, we have a plane impacting the building at 472mph (upper estimate). The entire plane had entered the same building within 0.25seconds. Using v=d/t we can work out how far the plane would have travelled in freespace in that 0.25s, without a collision:

472mph = 211m/s

v=d/t
211=d/0.25
d=211/0.25=52.75 metres

The length of a 767 is 48.5 metres. As NIST state the plane travelled 48.5M in this 0.25s after impact timeframe, hitting the WTC made the plane fall 4.25M short of where it would be had it carried on flying in thin air. The resulting speed after tail entry would be 433mph. With the plane smashing through steel and concrete to get here, we seem to have broken the laws of physics once again! Also, with WTC being 63.14M, with the plane travelling at this speed 48.5M inside it we would expect to see most of it emerge from the other side with quite some force.

they actually came to a standstill from 500mph in 100' or less and remained inside the buildings

Using the figures from NIST, this plane came to a standstill from 433mph in a distance of roughly 15 metres. I'd expect that sort of braking upon impact with steel and concrete, not while ripping through the internal office space and paper.

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 10:23 AM

Originally posted by jfj123

The entire building may weigh this, or more

4 block walls on a small 25 ft x 25 ft building would weigh approx 21.36 tons including mortar.

The point being, you aren't driving your car into all of it. Did you look at the picture's of the late Princess Diana's car and the damage to Pillar 13? I am going to stop discussing things such as car crashes, arrow heads, bullets, etc as they are all unrelated entirely to these massive deficits in the laws of physics, and far too easy for people to twist round to suit their own agenda.

Originally posted by jfj123

And birds can damage planes - every picture I have seen showing this kind of damage always has the bird impacting a "soft" area.

This is true. So are you saying that even the "soft" area of the plane is softer then bird flesh? So if we started making planes out of bird bits, do you think they would hold up better?

This is related to my point above, completely unrelated to the defiance of physics on 9/11, but I will point out to you there is a fair bit more to a bird than "flesh", they have skeletons with bone structure. By your logic, we should build skyscrapers from "bird bits" as these are the only things you seem to accept will damage the lightweight, fragile airframe of a plane (because there are pictures of it!).

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually if we interpret it the way you have, birds are more solid the aluminum so if you wanted to stab a bird with the piece of aluminum from the "soft" area of the plane, it would bounce off the bird.

Big birds with big bones can smash aluminium. I have multiple picture proof (as I believe someone has posted in this thread or others in 9/11 forum recently). There is no interpretation to be done, and if you want to test it, why not try flying into a few birds in a plane, trying to catch them on your wing? You'll soon find out how strong those wings are then, when they nearly shear off!

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:04 AM

Originally posted by jfj123
If that were really the case, wouldn't the buildings still be standing?

No, it just means something else happened to help bring the towers down.

Do not forget all the molten metals in the basements, and how long the steel stayed molten in the debris.

The fires in the towers were not hot enough to melt steel and they were burning out before the collapse. So what kept the steel molten hot for several weeks?

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:26 AM

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
If that were really the case, wouldn't the buildings still be standing?

No, it just means something else happened to help bring the towers down.

Do not forget all the molten metals in the basements, and how long the steel stayed molten in the debris.

The fires in the towers were not hot enough to melt steel and they were burning out before the collapse. So what kept the steel molten hot for several weeks?

Maybe not hot enough to initially melt steel but the fires were hot enough to weaken it severely.

Just curious but do you have any pictures of molten steel in the debris?

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:28 AM

Big birds with big bones can smash aluminium. I have multiple picture proof (as I believe someone has posted in this thread or others in 9/11 forum recently). There is no interpretation to be done, and if you want to test it, why not try flying into a few birds in a plane, trying to catch them on your wing? You'll soon find out how strong those wings are then, when they nearly shear off!

So what you're saying is bird bone is stronger then aluminum, so aluminum cannot cut bird bone?

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:35 AM

This is related to my point above, completely unrelated to the defiance of physics on 9/11, but I will point out to you there is a fair bit more to a bird than "flesh", they have skeletons with bone structure. By your logic, we should build skyscrapers from "bird bits" as these are the only things you seem to accept will damage the lightweight, fragile airframe of a plane (because there are pictures of it!).

Of course they have skeletons
Which are extremely light weight and many of them are hollow.
Using your logic, birds must be stronger in every way then aircraft aluminum which means a bird can damage the "soft" areas of the aircraft but the soft area's of the aircraft cannot damage a bird as much or at all.

And again if only a harder object can damage a softer object and not the other way around, how can water cut through steel?

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:41 AM

No, what I am saying is that in a collision with a bird and a plane wing, there is a large amount of force exerted upon both objects leading to the mangling of a bird (badly) and a rip in the wing. But it seems, when we replace the bird with steel, the wing punches through it effortlessly.

Here is a video of NYFD guys talking about the molten metal at ground zero:

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:43 AM

Originally posted by jfj123
Maybe not hot enough to initially melt steel but the fires were hot enough to weaken it severely.

Just curious but do you have any pictures of molten steel in the debris?

So where did the molten steel come from if the fires were not hot enough to melt steel and were burning out ?

Yes, i have photos and videos. Here is a couple photos for now.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:44 AM
I have to replay to adjays big birds smash alum.,as a aircraft mech,dc-8 dc-9 and b767-200, i have had to wipe many a bird off the aircrafts, if they hit a skin area only with no structure behind it they MAY penertrate,if they hit the wings forget about it all you have is a grease spot with feathers. 95% of the time they are just a clean the guts off the plane and carrie on no dents no damage ect., i do not know what type of aircraft you saw pictures of, but large passanger jets normally dont take much damage from birds(i have wipped trukey buzzards off the wing of a dc-9 no damage thats the biggest bird i have wipped up after).small personal aircraft ,cessnas,beechcraft ect.. they suffer much more damage as they are "pop can" planes,.just as an example i have seen a peterbilt snow removal plow , the cab hit a leading edge of a dc-9 and sheer off the cab to the dump bed and the drive of the truck says he was only going 20 mph,
we had to xray the wing due to the accident but no damage to the aircraft other than the leading edge position light cover.
to finish up until you have worked around or spent time around large aircraft you really dont understand just how well built they are, they are incredbly tough machines.

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:47 AM

So what exactly is the soft area of aircrafts made of?

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:49 AM
ok adjay i now have seen the pics you just posted on here of the bird damage,lol BIGGGG problem dude that is the elevators of an aircraft at the rear, they are not the wings. they are a control surface only not a lift producing/load carring part of the aircraft, they are not even close to strenght of the wings

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:51 AM

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Maybe not hot enough to initially melt steel but the fires were hot enough to weaken it severely.

Just curious but do you have any pictures of molten steel in the debris?

So where did the molten steel come from if the fires were not hot enough to melt steel and were burning out ?

Yes, i have photos and videos. Here is a couple photos for now.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

Thanks for posting the pictures.
My opinion is that the fires were burning underground. The materials that made up the WTC's were all great insulators which would cause an oven like environment. With that type of environment, the fires would burn hotter and longer which could heat the steel up to the point of being red hot.

The initial fires were hot enough to weaken the steel so long burning, insulated fires could have kept it hot or even heated it more.

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:51 AM

Originally posted by robert204
I have to replay to adjays big birds smash alum.,as a aircraft mech,dc-8 dc-9 and b767-200, i have had to wipe many a bird off the aircrafts, if they hit a skin area only with no structure behind it they MAY penertrate,if they hit the wings forget about it all you have is a grease spot with feathers. 95% of the time they are just a clean the guts off the plane and carrie on no dents no damage ect., i do not know what type of aircraft you saw pictures of, but large passanger jets normally dont take much damage from birds(i have wipped trukey buzzards off the wing of a dc-9 no damage thats the biggest bird i have wipped up after).

I was a crew chief in the Air Force and have seen much damage to planes by birds.

Here are photos of a 767 with holes punched into it by some small birds, holes in the airframe and wings.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:53 AM

Hey thanks for taking the time to post!! I don't know a lot about planes so thanks for the great info !!!

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:56 AM
the skin for the most part is 1/16-1/32 sheet alum alloy they are riveted to the understructure of the aircarft .the skin and the frame work together to take and trans. stress to the wings and wing box area.the modern passanger plane is a"semi-monique"design(dont quote me on that spelling please).

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:58 AM

No, what I am saying is that in a collision with a bird and a plane wing, there is a large amount of force exerted upon both objects leading to the mangling of a bird (badly) and a rip in the wing. But it seems, when we replace the bird with steel, the wing punches through it effortlessly.

So you're saying that a bird is stronger then the soft area's of the aircraft.
I just want to make sure I'm understanding what you are saying.

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:58 AM

The external steel grid was assembled in sections vertically. The horizontal impact of the plane causes the steel grid to break apart in sections at the joints (weak points). The core columns on the other hand are all interconnected horizontally and vertically. These massive steel columns can easily shear the plane apart and only sections of the plane travelled between the columns through the building to the other side.

There are few arguments such as:

BIRD VS PLANE
The beak of a bird is hard and pointed and can do a lot of damage.

WOOD VS BRICK WALL
A brick wall is only as strong as its joints. I’ve often seen walls crack at the joints. If you throw a piece of brick and a length of lumber of a roof of a building, the brick will most lightly shatter.

WATER CUTTING STEEL
I worked in machine shops for many years and have used steel cutting machines such as laser, plasma, wire EDM and the waterjet cutting machines. Water does NOT cut steel but it carries an abrasive (sand) in order to cut steel. Tons of sand is required to operate a waterjet machine (\$1000 - \$2000 / months for sand alone)

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 12:02 PM

No, the elevator is the bit that moves, the bit the bird crashed into is the horizontal stab. The control surface is behind this.

The horizontal stab is pretty important to coordinated flight. I'd imagine it's built in a similar way to a wing, except a smaller scale, it has a fair amount of drag to stand up to.

Another bird strike, this time on the nose of a jet:

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 12:03 PM
they can do damage never said they cant, thats why we have a bird strike inspection check list we have do on a bird strike, but that kinda proves the point??? if a bird can do damage to a much stronger item I.E. large aircraft, than i would guess a large aircraft would be able to do some serious damage to a tower? and that is what we saw happen.i was in the usaf 6 years and i will say a fighter jet in this case an F-16 hitting a small bird(type unkown) with the jet at above mach speeds can leave an impressive hole clean through the jet,but it missed all the structure and two different stress panels.

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 12:06 PM
not evan close to the strenght that the wings are built to.they dont take near the stress of the wings.they stab is there to support the elevators.

13