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: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
sorry adjay could not see the last pic network wont allow a me go to it but the nose of the aircraft is one area that can get smashed up pretty good in a bird strike but it is made out of fiberglass/composite as the weather radar must xmit and recieve thru it.




posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by robert204
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?


But on the other hand, if a bird can damage an airframe then steel will tear it to pieces.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   
at the weight and the speed of 767 going into the towers there would be no winner they both would see some bad times. the building withstood the initial impact and the aircraft no longer exsited as i would guess was about right in that situation.but not before it imparted some serious damage.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by canadude
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


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)



A water jet cutter is a tool capable of slicing into metal or other materials using a jet of water at high velocity and pressure, or a mixture of water and an abrasive substance.

Not all water jets use abrasives. extra DIV



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by robert204
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?


But on the other hand, if a bird can damage an airframe then steel will tear it to pieces.



You're missing the point again.
If a bird that has less strength then an aircraft, and it can damage the stronger aircraft, then by default it would make sense that
An aircraft could damage a stronger building.
For your point to be valid, it must be valid both ways.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You're missing the point again.


No, your missing the point that yes the aluminum airframe might make it into the steel building a few feet. But the steel is going to be shredding the aluminum airframe to pieces.

The aluminum airframe is not going to make it too far into building, and then only in pieces.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
You're missing the point again.


No, your missing the point that yes the aluminum airframe might make it into the steel building a few feet. But the steel is going to be shredding the aluminum airframe to pieces.

The aluminum airframe is not going to make it too far into building, and then only in pieces.


What is your reasoning for this? Your own previous argument completely contradicts what you just wrote.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
What is your reasoning for this? Your own previous argument completely contradicts what you just wrote.


No, i have always stated that the steel beams would shred the aluminum airframe. Also the aluminum airframe is not going to cause much damage to the building.

It just follows my point that the aluminum airframe is fragile.


[edit on 23-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
What is your reasoning for this? Your own previous argument completely contradicts what you just wrote.


No, i have always stated that the steel beams would shred the aluminum airframe. Also the aluminum airframe is not going to cause much damage to the building.
It just follows my point that the aluminum airframe is fragile.
[edit on 23-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]


You have said a bird, which is more fragile then an airplane, can damage an airplane.
SO
it must also be true that
An airplane, which is more fragile then the WTC, can damage the WTC.

If one is correct, the other must be correct.

You can't have it both ways.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You have said a bird, which is more fragile then an airplane, can damage an airplane.


Yes, and as stated the plane might go into the building but the steel will be shredding the plane to pieces.

Just as in the animation from Purdue, it shows the plane being shredded as soon as it enters the building.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   
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.


" My opinion is that fires were buring underground ." How can fire burn uinderground where it is starved of oxygen? Where would the fire come from? If you watch the Towers turn to dust and explode outward on all the films, you see that there are no fires at lower levels whatsoever. Explosions reported, yes. Fires, NO. ALL fires were at the upper levels where the ' planes ' hit and above.

" The materials that made up the Towers were great insulators.." What? ALL furnishings in a building like that are FIRE RETARDANT or approved for high rise buildings. You cannot place office furniture in a Tower without certain certifications..it is NOT a building made up of ' insulators' at all.

"...an oven like environment . " An oven is an enclosed box that has heat continuously applied to it in order to maintain a temperature, correct? Ovens have oxygen easily available, which you do NOT get under a massive pile of rubble, especially with tons of concrete dust everywhere. Ovens have some source of heat being applied to them. WHERE do you claim the heat is comeing from to make the ' oven ' you envision get ' hotter and hotter "? Jet fuel fires were out after the crashes.

The big explosions seen used up almost all of the jet fuel..an hour later when the Towers were exploded the jet fuel was all gone. Only office fires were bring..black smoke showed clearly that the fires remaining far above were not hot at all; all evidence shows that the fires would have been put out within hours or less if they had not been brought down. Gravity CANNOT be used as some kind of excuse for high temps in a rubble pile. A Tower turing to dust is not creating a massive amount of heat, as dispersal insures no mass to react.

So WHAT massive heat source do you think was down there in that pile unders tons of junk and bodies and dust and steel..that could have not only created enough heat to melt steel, but to keep it molten for weeks afterward? What? Where was it coming from? To make things get hotter, you do not place them in an over at a certain temp..you must
RAISE the temp somehow to get it hotter,right? With me so far? SOME heat source HAS to be present to release the energy necesary to account for the molten steel seen. It could not come from above..as any fires under rubble pile would remain hot for a while perhaps, but without some external source to creat MORE heat, sooner or later it would cool.

To create MOLTEN steel at the lower levels, there HAD to be a source of heat so intense that it melted steel and kept it molten for a long period of time. WHAT heat source could you ascribe the molten steel to? It cannot be gravity, thats impossible. It cannot be fires from far above..thats impossible too. They were too cool and too high on the rubble pile as smoking debris to be of any consequence to the lower levels where the molten steels was seen. Simple enough? There is NO known source that can account for that much heat.

Thats why many people believe that some kind of fission device, or small nuke type device, was used to sever the core supports at bedrock and turn them into dust ( see the film of the Spire ) from the sudden million degree temp shot from the bottom up, and also would explain molten steel weeks after the event as well. It would take a mountain of thermate type stuff to cause rivers of molten steel, so a nuke makes more sense.

The Rodriguez story and others makes sense under this scenario as well: The basements blown apart from the BOTTOM up, according to them..with huge machines just GONE..not mangled or torn, but GONE, from sublevels..fires and explosions coming UP the elevator shafts, NOT down from above as some weak apologists try and foist off on the unknowing as fact to try and explain the lobby level damage..almost total destruction at the lobby level and many hurt and killed..from BELOW..not above.

So, there cannot be intense heat unless some source causes that heat to come about, and the cause for that cannot be assumed or explained as easily as you would have imagined. You cannot take a 500 degree fire and increase it to 1000 degrees by simply insulating it well..it doesn't work like that..It would maintain the 500 degrees for a while depending on the level of insulation, and then would cool as air eventually found its way in. There had to be, at some point in time, a heat of many thousands of degrees, all at once, to melt steel and keep it molten. The heat needed to do this could NOT have come about from some fire underground ' getting hotter ', by means of some unknown physics...it HAD to be from a very powerful source indeed.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
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.


You are welcome.

What fires were burning underground, the fires in the towers were burning out before the towers collapsed?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
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.


The laws of physics do not change with the size of the objects. They remain the same. Only the mass is different.

No one is twisting anything here.

You are wrong in what you are saying.

It has been shown that numerous events prove that. The evidence has been presented to you on a number of occasions now.

What you are, in effect saying, is that reality does not fit your argument so you are dismissing it.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
The laws of physics do not change with the size of the objects. They remain the same. Only the mass is different.



Then please show photo or videe of a aluminum airframe surviving impact.

[edit on 23-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Thank you for that video.

You just proved both yourself and adjay wrong in the most spectacular way.

How much of that fuselage is still intact?

But wait...its a much softer object hitting something much harder than it....



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
How much of that fuselage is still intact?

....


Did you watch the video at all, Maybe that is because the test was only set up for the wings not the fuselage, the wings were shredded very quickly and easily.

Please show me photos or videos of wings and or fuselage surviving hitting an obsticle.

Becasue i can show a lot of photos that show aluminum airframes do not survive impacts even with small trees let alone steel beams.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by neformore
How much of that fuselage is still intact?

....

Did you watch the video at all, Maybe that is because the test was only set up for the wings not the fuselage, the wings were shredded very quickly and easily.


Did YOU watch the video?

I see a plane hitting a runway at speed.

Which part of plane hitting a runway at speed and large sections of it still being intact after the impact did you miss?

Hell, even sections of the wings are clearly visible as surviving.

You posted it. Care to explain how what you've been arguing against actually happens?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Back to the original question. How does aluminium cut steel?

Ask any toolmaker or workshop engineer. They use high speed water jets to cut through stainless steel like a hot knife through butter. I'm no debunker, but it was a silly question.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
I see a plane hitting a runway at speed.



Well for one, it did not hit the runway at speed, it was remotely glided into the test area.

So do you have photos of aluminum airframes surviving crashes with objects YES or NO ?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by neformore
I see a plane hitting a runway at speed.



Well for one, it did not hit the runway at speed, it was remotely glided into the test area.

So do you have photos of aluminum airframes surviving crashes with objects YES or NO ?


It's unlikely that the whole airframe would survive, but depending on various factors, large parts of it may survive.





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join