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: 70
13
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   
six, i agree with you, if O2 is dangerous, then my EMT-P instructors lied to me as well, and the ACLS should probably be rewritten lol.

[edit on 31-12-2007 by Damocles]




posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   
So some people think O2 is always beneficial or always in O2 bonding, particularly when ingested? How about CO2? Is that beneficial to breathe in? How about H2O2? Beneficial to drink?

My point was that once O2 from the atmosphere or a tank enters the body, in order for the bloodstream to properly utilize the oxygen, it has to be in a form that the blood can pass through to properly oxygenate.

If people think they do not breath in single molecules of Ofrom the atmosphere. Try standing where a mist was, as H20 has evaporated back into two unbound molecules of H and one unbound molecule of O.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
Like he says, you fail to admit the difference. You just don't make the connection there and you never will.


You mean like you failed to admit about the windows and fires in the builidngs, SO VERY SAD.

Here is some more evidence about the windows.

911research.wtc7.net...

Section 2.2.1.2 Fire Development
Although dramatic, these fireballs did not explode or generate a shock wave. If an explosion or detonation had occurred, the expansion of the burning gasses would have taken place in microseconds, not the 2 seconds observed. Therefore, although there were some overpressures, it is unlikely that the fireballs, being external to the buildings, would have resulted in significant structural damage.

It is not known whether the windows that were broken shortly after impact were broken by these external overpressures, overpressures internal to the building, the heat of the fire, or flying debris.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I'm going to be short:

aluminum cuts steel.

I going to go right out on a limb and second that suggestion, outrageous as it might sound to some


Ultima1 may very well join us as long as the plane & fuel doesn't make the building fall down but we're not talking about the collapse stage which happened some time after the plane met the building.

I don't know how we got sidetracked into diatomic molecular structures and covalent bonding but its role in the penetration of the wall wouldn't have needed this level of complexity would it?



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
That pale smoke in that video is indicative of explosives. Explosives emit clouds of white or greyish-white smoke.

Now there's an example of a logical fallacy

Are you suggesting that the presence of pale smoke is a positive indicator of explosives?
And colour doesn't enter into it either for that matter.

Did you ever try that experiment I suggested with hot (not red-hot) metal and kerosene?



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Ultima1 may very well join us as long as the plane & fuel doesn't make the building fall down but we're not talking about the collapse stage which happened some time after the plane met the building.


Yep.

The answer to this question isn't that complicated.

The question itself is slightly misguided. Its not a case of aluminum cutting steel per se. It is, as I've said previously, a case of a 200,000lb mass hitting the side of the WTC at 400+mph.

The answer is - therefore - that the mass in question, which comprised of number of parts, including high tensile strength aviation grade aluminium, was more than capable of punching a hole through the steel box section outer wall of the WTC.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
The answer to this question isn't that complicated.

The question itself is slightly misguided. Its not a case of aluminum cutting steel per se. It is, as I've said previously, a case of a 200,000lb mass hitting the side of the WTC at 400+mph.



But then if you do research you come across information like this.

www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
Exactly

The form of that mass only matters in terms of the surface area of initial contact which determines the pressure applied to the stationary building. If that pressure exceeds the UTS of the individual wall components they will fail and in this case it's more a matter of smash than cut.

I have no doubt the plane was reduced to confetti sized pieces except for the hardest components but 100000kg of confetti is still 100000kg.



[edit on 1/1/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I have no doubt the plane was reduced to confetti sized pieces except for the hardest components but 100000kg of confetti is still 100000kg.


The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage.


[edit on 1-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage.

So it's safe to conclude that metal component went through even easier than the rest of the plane.

I've wondered a lot about the titanium engine shafts too. The Purdue simulation indicated they could have made it right through the building but I've never seen any reports of their recovery. What would such a shaft or 2 or even 4 be worth at a scrap metal dealer?



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But then if you do research you come across information like this.

www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage.


Wind loading is very different though as it's applied to the entire side of the building facing the wind which is approx an area of 28000m^2. From the movement of the smoke above the towers I'd estimate virtually no wind loading that particular morning - well not enough to be anything like significant. How does a building dissipate wind loading anyway? The whole structure gently bends and sways but not enough to overstress the columns to the point where the bending moment on any part exceeds its bending moment (elastic limit) rating. A fast moving heavy object will exert a shearing force which is very different.

Applying the plane's momentum to the cross-sectional area of the hole it made will yield the true pressure applied to the failed beams and the figures are massive, well in excess of the UTS of the wall components. For clarity, by the 'hole' I mean the actual total cross-sectional area of breaks in the steel beams, not the larger area of missing aluminium facade. The windows themselves in this area took *some* energy to break but it's a minor amount compared to the steel so I'll allow say 2% and that's very generous indeed.


[edit on 1/1/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Really? What color is smoke coming off an explosion? The experts in demolitions say it is white and possibly grayish white, if something like concrete is pulverized as part of dust debris. What say you? Are they wrong or right?



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I'm going to be short:

aluminum cuts steel.

I going to go right out on a limb and second that suggestion, outrageous as it might sound to some


What science metholodlogy did you both use to determine that, and where might your findings be located? Surely, making such positive statements, you must have recorded your findings, and had them peer reviewed and publicized. In other words, they should be written up in some professional journal for other peers to test out themselves to validate your findings. Which professional journal publicized your findings?



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Which professional journal can your peer reviewed findings be found based on that declaration?



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Here is some more evidence about the windows.

911research.wtc7.net...

Section 2.2.1.2 Fire Development
Although dramatic, these fireballs did not explode or generate a shock wave. If an explosion or detonation had occurred, the expansion of the burning gasses would have taken place in microseconds, not the 2 seconds observed. Therefore, although there were some overpressures, it is unlikely that the fireballs, being external to the buildings, would have resulted in significant structural damage.

It is not known whether the windows that were broken shortly after impact were broken by these external overpressures, overpressures internal to the building, the heat of the fire, or flying debris.



Actually, I agree totally with what that says.

Reread the last para there - it states it is unknown if the windows broken shortly after impact......... Yep, that's a true statement. Nice find.

However, during the 100 minute fire windows in 1 continued to "open" in NIST parlance. Fires did this.

Or do you have another theory why windows continued to "open" during the 100 minuts fire?



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Here is your problem with that statement. No one could see any plane impacting and penetrating, until no sign of it could be seen inside either tower, because there was massive ball of orange fire and dense black fossil fuel carbon smoke preventing visibility of any of that.

It is fallacy to assume any Boeing 767 penetrated any walls, much less took out so much from the exterior to the cores. These factors, among many others, must be considered:

1. at least 46% of kinetic energy is lost on impact,

2. at least 5 individual material part components of 767s and 757s are not intended to impact anything, much less slice through all that rundundant steel and concrete of twin towers. They are highly sensitive to impacts, and could not take the intense pressure of mass and weight pushing forward, without being pulverized themselves on impact and momentum from the rear of the plane.

Once the front impacts and loses 46% of kinetic, the weight and mass behind the impact zone, of the plane, takes over with pushing at only potential 54% meeting a great deal of horizontal resistance. Pull from the engines would be lost on impact. The travel direction is horizontally, not vertically toward gravity pull.

Pulverization of parts causes loss of momentum without something very heavy and lacking pulverizing is left intact to continue at a very decreased rate of momentum. Considering the 4 laboratory made components, highly capable of being pulverized when meeting the steel of twin towers, were placed in Boeing 757s and 767s, there is no possible way any planes brought down any twin towers. In fact, the truss stated, by the "official" report to be compromised, never had any fire or enough thermal energy heat to begin to become compromised. That was self-evident because there was no fire along that external wall of reported truss compromise.

There is not nearly enough thermal heat energy, particularly in oxygen starved fire smoke, to ever begin to compromise steel.

The above factors must be considered anytime anyone is discussing even remote possibility and probablity, of exactly what specific material components are capable of doing under observed conditions and only under observed conditions. No guesstimates allowed because people had no visibility for observation start to finish.

It is unscientific fallacy to assume because something has some weight, mass or other, and some amount of velocity or other, that it can automatically penetrate anything else.

If this has not been done, someone should be testing the radiation levels where the WTC once stood and Shanksville. When tested at the Pentagon, high levels of radiation were found extending 12 miles out over the DC area.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


What about the graphite engine housings? Did they puverize or penetrate upon impact at far less than 56% of the entire kinetic energy, of full primary mass, weight and momentum velocity force?

Each part of the mass only had so much kinetic energy belonging to individual parts. As kinetic energy is distributed between all parts of the mass, the further away from the souce of primary kinetic energy, the less kinetic energy those parts have. Wings are running to the left and right of the primary source of weight and mass on planes.

In other words, the wings are basically going along for the ride, particularly after initial impact, because they are attached to the primary momentum kinetic energy momentum velocity force.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Isn't it amazing, that since all center core beams were one continuous unit from the bedrock to the roof, all that wind over the years, many at hurricane force of 140 mph or more directly off the Atlantic, never once compromised any of those core units or other steel from all that bending and swaying? That is at least 35 years of consistent bending and swaying of those very, very tall buildings.

The North Tower withstood all that bending and swaying from high winds, a blowtorch type fire, bombs in the sub-level, and all it took to bring those towers down was two Boeing 767s. I find that surreal because it is.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Orion. This stuff has been explained over and over again. I'm not going through it with you one more time for you to ignore it AGAIN.

Read the thread again - all of it - properly - and by that I mean not just the parts that agree with what you want to hear, or the parts that you have written that seem to want to shift the laws of physics and chemistry into some parallel dimension. Its time you took a reality check. You are arguing for the sake of it and most of what you are arguing is just plain wrong. You can try and couch things in as many obtuse terms as you like, but I'm done pandering to your obtuseness, diversionary tactics and errononeous statements.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Unscientific manner is not satisfactory explanation for some of us. I need far more than unscientific assumption for explanation. I need physical proof based on science laws and principles. Do you have any explanations containing those?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join