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: 79
13
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


It had titanium in it.

But it was mostly made of steel.







posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So you do agree then the there were only a few beams broken on impact and that the towers did withstand the impacts of the planes?


The question wasn't addressed to me but the suggestion of 'only a few beams broken on impact' is a bit of an understatement and I count at least 27 adjacent columns as being broken and that's just on the entry side of WTC2.



Yes the towers didn't immediately fail - the additional effect of the fires took them past the point of no return.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I count at least 27 adjacent columns as being broken and that's just on the entry side of WTC2.


You mean of the outter beams not inner? And as you can cleasry see in the photo you posted the wings barely made it into the building.


Yes the towers didn't immediately fail - the additional effect of the fires took them past the point of no return.


So you agree the buildings did withstand the plane impacts?

Also the fire in 1975 burned for 3 hours and caused no damge to the steel how could a fire buring less then an hour cause so much damge to the steel?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You mean of the outter beams not inner? And as you can cleasry see in the photo you posted the wings barely made it into the building.


Yes, the outer beams that the plane seemed to glide through unimpeded indicating very little loss of momentum in doing so. Leaving the majority of the momentum to be expended on the building's interior structure. The wing tips did very little damage apart from dislodging the aluminium facade but the rest of the plane obviously penetrated the wall completely.



So you agree the buildings did withstand the plane impacts?

Also the fire in 1975 burned for 3 hours and caused no damge to the steel how could a fire buring less then an hour cause so much damge to the steel?


Yes, the buildings did withstand the initial impact but obviously not by much leaving the additional weakening caused by the fires to do the rest. Statements from people inside the building give a clue as to how bad the initial damage was but unfortunately, theres no way to quantify it so you can argue forever about it but it seems the impacts plus the fires brought them down in the absence of any other obvious factors.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Sorry for getting back late. I've been at a supplier for the last 2 days doing on-site assistance.

Anyway, I for that the 767 was the first to use titanium 3AL 2.5V and depending on which engines it had, it required anywhere from 25,800 lbs to 38,700 lbs of titanium to be purchased. Titanium accounted for roughly had over 1% of its empty weight (about 1 ton). This is in accordance to ASM Internation's Technical Guide to Titanium.

Off the top of my head, I know some of the beams around the main and nose gears are made of forged titanium (for obvious reasons).

Just FYI, the 757 with Rolls Royce engines also has forged titanium beams around the landing gear areas. It required about 28,600 lbs buy weight of titanium. Its airframe had over 5% of its dry weight in titanium (about 6,391 lbs).

I have a coworker who was an ex-employee of Boeing that worked on the 727 up to the 777 and has the reference manuals for each of the airplanes. I will see if he's willing to let me look it over during a lunch break and see if there are specifics in there.

Also for your consideration, the 757 and 767 did use composites in graphite or fiberglass for various skin fairings and the control surfaces.

The thing I find odd is that if you can check my answers, then why do you need me to answer? Why don't you just go to your source and get the titanium parts directly?

[edit on 20-6-2008 by HLR53K]

[edit on 20-6-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Statements from people inside the building give a clue as to how bad the initial damage was but unfortunately, theres no way to quantify it so you can argue forever about it but it seems the impacts plus the fires brought them down in the absence of any other obvious factors.


But the plane that hit the South tower went in at an angle through the side of the building not causing as much damge to the interior walls according to reports and statements from the people inside.

NIST is the only agency to state the impacts and fires was the casue of the collaspe other agencies reports DO NOT AGREE and state that that it was the FIRE ALONE that casued the collapse.



[edit on 20-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Titanium accounted for roughly had over 1% of its empty weight (about 1 ton). This is in accordance to ASM Internation's Technical Guide to Titanium.


So you wouild agree then that 1 ton of titanium out of an 80 ton plane is not a lot and would not make a lot of difference when the majority of the plane is made of aluminum and was shredded by the steel beams as it hit the buildings.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So you wouild agree then that 1 ton of titanium out of an 80 ton plane is not a lot and would not make a lot of difference when the majority of the plane is made of aluminum and was shredded by the steel beams as it hit the buildings.



I will agree that 1% of the empty weight is not a lot since at that time, the "titanium revolution" was just getting started.

But if any of those pieces have a decent amount of thickness to them, they would still cause considerable damage to a steel beam of lesser thickness.

The airplanes would most definitely end up getting destroyed inside the building, but not before its total mass causing considerable damage to whatever steel beams were in the way.

Which has more mass? The beams that the 757 impacted or the 757 itself? Like you said, it's an 80 ton mass that flying into these beams.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by open mind
It's a good question however the simple answer is:
when it's going 600 mph


a commercial airline can't fly that low at that speed...air too dense for structural integrity...in other words...the wings would rip off



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
a commercial airline can't fly that low at that speed...air too dense for structural integrity...in other words...the wings would rip off


ok but how long does it take flying that fast that low for the wings to rip off? surely its not instantly is it? i mean you cant expect any of us to believe that if a jet goes below a certain altitude at a certain speed that the wings will just rip off right away...can you?

so, then how long were the jets that hit the towers flying that fast that low? was it within the time limit that a jet could do it and not have its wings rip off?

why does no one ask these, what i feel are obvious, questions?



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

Originally posted by jimmyx
a commercial airline can't fly that low at that speed...air too dense for structural integrity...in other words...the wings would rip off


ok but how long does it take flying that fast that low for the wings to rip off? surely its not instantly is it? i mean you cant expect any of us to believe that if a jet goes below a certain altitude at a certain speed that the wings will just rip off right away...can you?

so, then how long were the jets that hit the towers flying that fast that low? was it within the time limit that a jet could do it and not have its wings rip off?

why does no one ask these, what i feel are obvious, questions?


I find it very hard to believe that someone has the notion that an airliner's wings would just "rip off" when it's flying fast at low altitudes. It definitely won't happen instantaneously.

It is true that the higher density air at lower altitudes would off more resistance. This will, of course, stress the airframe more than usual. What I suspect is that engineers say that just to keep the airframe under normal stressing conditions to prolong its life.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
But if any of those pieces have a decent amount of thickness to them, they would still cause considerable damage to a steel beam of lesser thickness.


Well where is the evidence that the titanium was as thick or thicker then the steel beams?

Most reports state that the buildings withstood the planes impacts, specially the South tower since the plane went in at an angle through the side of the building.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
why does no one ask these, what i feel are obvious, questions?


I will ask very obvious questions. How far away did the radar track show the speed of the aircraft? And what was the speed?

Since the believers are always bringing up the radar track these should be very simple questions to answer.



[edit on 20-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well where is the evidence that the titanium was as thick or thicker then the steel beams?

Most reports state that the buildings withstood the planes impacts, specially the South tower since the plane went in at an angle through the side of the building.



I never said they were as thick or thicker, only that if they had a good deal of thickness to them. The only thing that would show for sure the specific dimensions of the titanium parts are the CAD models or 2D drawings of the frames. Both of which are not easily accessible via the internet (for obvious reasons). Unless either one of us have a contact within Boeing that's willing to risk his job to leak proprietary information, neither one of us can say for sure.

But I'm sure that you won't argue that titanium is statically as strong or stronger than steel. And that's before taking into account the additional kinetic energy that the pieces had going into the steel beams.

It's good that they withstood the impacts. I don't see the point in that. The towers didn't need to fail right at impact to show that the planes cut through the beams within their impact areas. I don't think I see anyone here saying that the towers failed right after the airplanes impacted. The towers themselves were still standing afterwards, that's plane (no pun intended) to see. It's also evident that the numerous close-up pictures of the impacted areas show the steel beams to have been bent and broken through brute force.

What I think is going on here is that you and everyone else are misunderstanding each other. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you think we're saying that the plane would have gone through the side of the building with no damage. Is this what you think we're saying?

[edit on 20-6-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you think we're saying that the plane would have gone through the side of the building with no damage. Is this what you think we're saying?


Please do not try to put words in my mouth. Please show evidence to support your claim about the titanium. I can show evidence to support my claims, why can't you ?

If you need to i can show all the reports that states the planes WERE NOT a cause for the collapse. Most reports state the FIRE ALONE was the cause of the collapse.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Please do not try to put words in my mouth. Please show evidence to support your claim about the titanium. I can show evidence to support my claims, why can't you ?

If you need to i can show all the reports that states the planes WERE NOT a cause for the collapse. Most reports state the FIRE ALONE was the cause of the collapse.


I'm not putting words into your mouth. I asked you if that was what you were thinking. It was a question for you to answer, not a statement.

No one's saying that the impacts alone were the cause for the collapse. They were the contributing / triggering factor. They had to impact for the aviation fuel to have ended up inside the towers.

This is where I got my information about the buy weights of titanium for the 767s and 757s:

asmcommunity.asminternational.org...

I believe ASM also has a full handbook for titanium which is more or less fully available for reading through the Google books catalog.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
They had to impact for the aviation fuel to have ended up inside the towers.


A large majority of the jet fuel was burned off in the intial explosion OUTSIDE the buildings.

As far as jet fuel getting to the basement there is only 1 elevator shaft that goes from the upper floors to the sub basement.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

A large majority of the jet fuel was burned off in the intial explosion OUTSIDE the buildings.

As far as jet fuel getting to the basement there is only 1 elevator shaft that goes from the upper floors to the sub basement.



But some of it still had to have gotten inside to start the fires. I'm not debating how much got inside, just that some had to, since the airplanes impacted the buildings.

The momentum of the fuel would have had to carry it inside the building. By your words, a "large majority" doesn't equal all of the fuel.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
But some of it still had to have gotten inside to start the fires. I'm not debating how much got inside, just that some had to, since the airplanes impacted the buildings.


But what about the explosions and people burned in the sub basement that the believers say was casued by jet fuel?


Where did th jet fuel in the basement come from?



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But what about the explosions and people burned in the sub basement that the believers say was casued by jet fuel?


Where did th jet fuel in the basement come from?


You'll have to divert that question to one of those "believers". My specialty is in the analysis of aircraft and their materials and construction.

I've heard a lot of theories so far on that one.




top topics



 
13
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join