How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by robertfenix
Outside" was the path of least resistance for the pressure wave and in the vector of kinetic movement of the exploding volume of fuel.

Too bad most of the reports state that the large portion of the fuel was burned off in the intial fireballs OUTSIDE the buildings, and what was left burned off in a few minutes.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]

watch the WTC2 hit, plane enters from west fireball blows out the east side, OPPOSITE, side of the building. The fireball is not on the impact WEST side face of the building. The Jet fuel sprayed INTO the building combusted IN MOTION and once it exited out the windows on the OPPOSITE side of the building and had room to expand enlarged into a large fireball, where yes a majority of the jet fuel was burned off.

This does not mean there was no fire INSIDE the building, unless you are going to say there where no fires and no large amounts of smoke pouring out of the building.

Yeah too bad for you that you have no argument, the plane blew up INSIDE the building and carried with it sufficient momentum to blow the expanding "burning" jet fuel out the OPPOSITE side of the building.

Thus whether you like it or not the plane tore through and shredded the interior of the building.

Debate over you lose your argument is null and void this thread should be locked.

End of story.


[edit on 2-1-2008 by robertfenix]

Originally posted by robertfenix
Thus whether you like it or not the plane tore through and shredded the interior of the building.

WRONG, WRONG , WRONG.

www.tms.org...

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.

reply to post by neformore


The onus is on you to prove it does, in order to substantiate the "official" reports. That is your argument and your responsibility to prove your argument. If you know where that valid documentation is, please present it. The subject question is: "How does aluminum cut steel?" You adamently assert it does. It is not up to your opposition to prove it does not.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
WRONG, WRONG , WRONG.

www.tms.org...

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.

I'm trying to picture the fuel vapour cloud going around the building to avoid damaging any windows before igniting but somehow it just doesn't seem reasonable or in line with the observations.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Maybe it's just me but I'm having a hard time trying to see the significance of the windows. They weren't a structural element, they were highly vulnerable to all sorts of trauma and they all got broken in the end regardless.

Agreed, they're not structural members.

But they are used as confirmation of the heat/flames present inside the buildings, since it is an accepted fact that those windows will break at......... 600C?

So why is heat levels and where the fires were burning important to know? Because it can be used to predict the levels of heating encountered by the exterior, and more importantly, core columns.

And if you know the degree fo heating encountered by the core columns, you can predict why the global collapse happened.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
WRONG, WRONG , WRONG.

But we've agreed before that the engine cores, landing gear and attachment points, engine attachment points, nose gear, and more would have the concentrated mass to punch through.

Why are you backpedaling now?

reply to post by MikeVet


With all that massive fireball and flame on the outside, who but those on the inside could see any alleged plane entering any building?

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by neformore

 

The onus is on you to prove it does, in order to substantiate the "official" reports. That is your argument and your responsibility to prove your argument. If you know where that valid documentation is, please present it. The subject question is: "How does aluminum cut steel?" You adamently assert it does. It is not up to your opposition to prove it does not.

See my two posts on armor-piercing warheads. You and ULTIMA1 have been explained multiple times how Al can get through Fe.

And you still didn't back up youir claim of evaporation being the same as dissociation of water molecules with energy numbers, so please get busy.

reply to post by robertfenix


What makes you so positive any fire started inside a building? How did you physically observe that as absolutely occurring?

Originally posted by OrionStars
With all that massive fireball and flame on the outside, who but those on the inside could see any alleged plane entering any building?

You ARE aware that there are survivors that saw the planes approach and have testified to seeing plane parts inside the building?

I know it's painful for you to read stuff like that, but it's true.

Originally posted by MikeVet
But they are used as confirmation of the heat/flames present inside the buildings, since it is an accepted fact that those windows will break at......... 600C?

So why is heat levels and where the fires were burning important to know? Because it can be used to predict the levels of heating encountered by the exterior, and more importantly, core columns.

And if you know the degree fo heating encountered by the core columns, you can predict why the global collapse happened.

Too bad there are so many reports that disagree with the heat inside thie building.


www.nistreview.org...

NIST dismisses the possibility that jet fuel played a sustained role in the fires. “While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3)

911research.wtc7.net...

Jet fuel (kerosene) only burns at a fraction of the temperature needed to melt steel. In any case, the fuel did not last long, as much was consumed in the impact fireballs, and the rest would have evaporated and burned in under 5 minutes. Thereafter the fires were far less severe than other skyscraper fires (such as the 19-hour One Meridian Plaza blaze in 1991). Few flames were visible, and the black smoke indicated the fires were oxygen-starved. Survivors passed through the WTC 2's crash zone, and firefighters who arrived there described "two pockets of fire".

www.globalresearch.ca...

Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F” (Eagar, 2002).

www.firehouse.com...

A large quantity of the approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel in each plane was quickly consumed in massive fireballs that caused limited structural damage.

Originally posted by MikeVet
But they are used as confirmation of the heat/flames present inside the buildings, since it is an accepted fact that those windows will break at......... 600C?

So an indication of 600C+ at the outer edge of the building raises a high probability of even higher temperature near the centre of the building.

All this happened after the alleged plane hit the alleged building but I see the significance now.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by OrionStarsWhere are the validated and documented experiments that any aluminum has "cut through steel" at any velocity?

As I said earlier today, the multitude of armor-piercing devices used by the military are using soft-metal penetrators, copper or lead, with dramatic effects. I don't know what more validation you need.

Which bears exactly what relevant relationship to any Boeing commercial jetliners, twin towers or the subject of this discussion, specifically or in general?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
See my two posts on armor-piercing warheads. You and ULTIMA1 have been explained multiple times how Al can get through Fe.

I did not know that airliners have armor-piercing warheads.

Can we please stay on the subject of a 767 and 757 that were used that day, and stop going off on whild tangants ?

[edit on 2-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by OrionStarsWhere are the validated and documented experiments that any aluminum has "cut through steel" at any velocity?

As I said earlier today, the multitude of armor-piercing devices used by the military are using soft-metal penetrators, copper or lead, with dramatic effects. I don't know what more validation you need.

Which bears exactly what relevant relationship to any Boeing commercial jetliners, twin towers or the subject of this discussion, specifically or in general?

Wait, read your question again. "Any aluminum" "at any velocity". You didn't mention towers, or jetliners. This is typical. You backtrack when presented with a concrete answer not to your taste. Ultima1 does the same. Velocity of the jetliner being comparable to a revolver bullet? No way... Then when it is apparently comparable, it's all of a sudden irrelevant, because you see, the bullet is not same as a jetliner.

You asked for any aluminum at any velocity, so there.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I did not know that airliners have armor-piercing warheads.

Well that's not the most important thing you didn't know about.

Can we please stay on the subject of a 767 and 757 that were used that day, and stop going off on whild tangants ?

Well, you went on some wild stuff lately claiming that "exploding CRTs" blew out windows in the WTC. How's that?

A poster asked how a softer metal can tear through a harder metal. The example I gave is irrefutable, now you are calling it a tangent?





[edit on 2-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by buddhasystem


Are alleged Boeing 767s impacting the twin towers on 9/11, the subject of this discussion and general forum topic? Or why else ask the question worded as it was for discussion? The way the question was worded, it would be a better general question for a physics forum, when not specifically implied and designated for discussion concerning 9/11/2001.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Too bad there are so many reports that disagree with the heat inside thie building.


www.nistreview.org...

NIST dismisses the possibility that jet fuel played a sustained role in the fires. “While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3)

www.globalresearch.ca...

Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F” (Eagar, 2002).

1- so what does jet fuel fires, which admittedly burned out after a few minutes, have to do with fires 50-100 minutes later?

2- Convert 1200F to C and tell me what you get. You might not want to post this again as proof that the windows couldn't have broken.

Originally posted by OrionStars
The way the question was worded, it would be a better general question for a physics forum, when not specifically implied and designated for discussion concerning 9/11/2001.

This complaint of yours you should direct to yourself, because, to quote you,

Where are the validated and documented experiments that any aluminum has "cut through steel" at any velocity?

You asked for it, so face the music. And since when is physics beside the point, especially if it's invoked in the title of the thread? Sorry it backfired for you.

Now, are you going to finally explain what energy is needed to dissociate water molecules in a glass full of H2O, when it evaoprates (because such is your theory). You keep mum on this and I frankly start suspecting that your claims of expertise in physics both "calssic" and quantum are unfounded.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

See my two posts on armor-piercing warheads. You and ULTIMA1 have been explained multiple times how Al can get through Fe.

I noted your two cents. They are irrelevant to the subject of this discussion. Unless, you wish to contend the twins towers were impacted by cruise missiles and not commercial jetliners. Is that now your contention?

And you still didn't back up youir claim of evaporation being the same as , dissociation of water molecules with energy numbers so please get busy.

".....dissociation of water molecules with energy numbers...."? Exactly how is that relevant to this discussion?

If you are interesting in learning about evaporation of water, there are many, many Internet sites covering that topic - from remedial to advanced.

Haven't you have your fill of red herring yet?