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: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86


" 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.

How can fires burn underground? Well here's an example:


The ruins of Centralia Pennsylvania no longer exists on some maps. The story began sometime in 1962 along the outskirts of town when trash was burned in the pit of an abandoned strip mine, which connected to a coal vein running near the surface. The burning trash caught the exposed vein of coal on fire. The fire was thought to be extinguished but it apparently wasn't when it erupted in the pit a few days later. Again the fire was doused with water for hours and thought to be out. But it wasn't. The coal then began to burn underground. That was in 1962. For the next two decades, workers battled the fire, flushing the mines with water and fly ash, excavated the burning material and dug trenches, backfilled, drilling again and again in an attempt to find the boundaries of the fire and plan to put the fire out or at least contain it. All efforts failed to do either as government officials delayed to take any real action to save the village. By the early 1980s the fire had affected approximately 200 acres and homes had to be abandoned as carbon monoxide levels reached life threatening levels. An engineering study concluded in 1983 that the fire could burn for another century or even more and "could conceivably spread over an area of approximately 3,700 acres."


" 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.

Fire retardant items can be very good insulators along with concrete, insulation, etc..

"...an oven like environment . " An oven is an enclosed box that has heat continuously applied to it in order to maintain a temperature, correct?

Applied to it or is already inside it.


Ovens have oxygen easily available, which you do NOT get under a massive pile of rubble, especially with tons of concrete dust everywhere.

See the coal mine info as example
Concrete dust is also an insulator.


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.

Once something starts burning, and is insulated from heat loss, it will continue to smolder for a very long time. If you have air flow through even a small area, the flames, coals, etc. can be fanned to stay hot or even get hotter. Take a piece of smoldering charcoal, put a piece of paper on it, now blow on the charcoal, it will heat up and burn the paper.


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.

Once again, see coal mine example.


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.

So you claim an external source was artificially applied to the rubble to keep the steel molten? Assuming hte steel was molten and not just red hot.


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.

Was there actually liquid steel or was it very hot and flexible?
Also, you just wrote that it couldn't happen that way because everything in the rubble was oxygen starved so if you are right, it doesn't matter what the original heat source was, there would not have been any molten metal. So it was either oxygen starved down there or not, which is it?


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.

Problem solved. There was no molten metal then. Nothing to see, move along, move along.


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 nuke idea makes as much sense as the hologram idea. No radiation and no EMP evidence, no nuke. extra DIV




posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   

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


Yes, that is the main problem with the Pentagon. You should have some more debris, since the airframe would have been damaged by hitting the poles and generator. You should also have a tail section.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
How can fires burn underground? Well here's an example:


Oh so now your saying there was coal at ground zero?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:05 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.
...
What you are, in effect saying, is that reality does not fit your argument so you are dismissing it.


No, what I am saying is ballistic projectile physics is not a good model to compare the WTC impacts to. If you think it is, then perhaps you should study some armour penetration books, there's some good ones around, you will see how shells/arrows/bullets penetrate thick armour plating, it isn't by brute force like you seem to think.

The laws of physics never change, ever, perhaps you'd like to take a stab at explaining how Newton's 2nd and 3rd Laws made a hasty exit that day? Or does it not fit your argument to talk about these?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
No, what I am saying is ballistic projectile physics is not a good model to compare the WTC impacts to. If you think it is, then perhaps you should study some armour penetration books, there's some good ones around, you will see how shells/arrows/bullets penetrate thick armour plating, it isn't by brute force like you seem to think.


I don't need to look it up. Its to do with pressure over surface area causing - oddly - a point load where its applied (sound familiar?), because at impact the bullet tip transfers the kinetic energy of the projectile through the material which then ruptures as it is unable to withstand the shearing forces put on it across such a small section.

You know, kind of like when the 30ft diameter nose section of an aircraft travelling at 466mph hits a 208ft wide building....



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
You know, kind of like when the 30ft diameter nose section of an aircraft travelling at 466mph hits a 208ft wide building....


You mean the graphite composite nose section that would have been destroyed on impact with the building.

So you are you saying the bullet has the same impact as the plane did with a 30 foot impact area?

Is the plane travelling the same spped as a bullet?

Is the plane built like a bullet?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
How can fires burn underground? Well here's an example:


Oh so now your saying there was coal at ground zero?


Are you familiar with the word EXAMPLE? Did I say there was coal under the WTC?

If you were paying attention to the thread, you would have noticed I was responding to a question as to how a fire could burn underground. The person didn't think it was possible for a fire to burn underground due to, in his opinion, lack of oxygen.

I'm sorry you chose not to read through the last few questions. Obviously if you had, you never would have taken my EXAMPLE out of context.

By the way, you know where a lot of charcoal comes from? BURNT WOOD!



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tep200377
 


yeah my thought as well Griff. Tep how bout putting some time in before you start being sarcastic with fellow members. Trolls come in all shapes and sizes huh.......

As for the OP, add speed and other varibles to the equation and it can provide some very surprising results.

Welcome BTW



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

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.

True, but you still need an abrasive to cut steel!!!
Without abrasive is more for the food industry.

"A waterjet cutter is a processing tool that uses high-pressure water, sometimes mixed with abrasive, to cut or drill nearly any material. Without the addition of an abrasive material, the waterjet is capable of cutting many soft and semi-rigid materials like paper, plastic, and foam. With the addition of an abrasive the waterjet becomes an aggressive tool that can cut through just about anything."

www.cutsmart.com... extra DIV



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Are you familiar with the word EXAMPLE? Did I say there was coal under the WTC?


Well we were talking about the molten steel in the debris stayign moltne for several weeks and what casued it.

Since there was no coal, that means it had to be something else.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   
maybe im thinking of smaller components, but according to this link it makes up about 10% of the planes mass (titanium).

www.azom.com...



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by porky1981
maybe im thinking of smaller components, but according to this link it makes up about 10% of the planes mass (titanium).


Hre is a list of some materials that are on the plane.

Aluminum
Titanium, mostly engine parts
Magnesium, wheels
Tungsten, counterweights



[edit on 23-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I would think the 5,000-10,000 gallon pod underneath the fueselage, igniting with a flash (maybe a pressure trigger) could have had something to do with it.

If that think was onlt filled 1/3 with thermite, or themate, that would explain how the plane blows it's way through the steall frameing. The frameing while formidable, was nothing compared to the core columns, to me the real question is how those came down.

In all actuallity the whole building shoulda "pancaked" (if your a pancake head, we'll call you PH's from now on, since everyone has a nickname we don't wan't the Pancake heads to feel left out), the core structure should have still stood in place at least up to the point of impact, but more likely beyong to the top of the Trade center.

I mean their own CGI recreation still shows the core colums standing, they cannot account for them coming down. We all know the only way these colums could have been destroyed were shape charges, and there is clear pictures and evidence of this.

But back to the plane cutting through the building, I thing it just more dissintegrated into the building in a massive fireball of jet fuel and thermite, nast, nasty stuff.

Wonder how those terrorist got that pod attached to an AA passenger jet. When I have to wait a half an hour because there's a little ice on the wing. How did no one notice this?



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Is the plane built like a bullet?


A plane and a bullet are similar in terms of aerodynamic requirements and a 100 ton subsonic bullet is a formidable force to be reckoned with. The composite nose area probably didn't have much affect but the huge kinetic energy applied over the fuselage diameter certainly did. The fuselage diameter of a 767 is approx 16' giving a cross-sectional area of ~200 ft^2 but the centre of that cross-section is mainly void making it act like a 16' wad punch.

Considering 1/2m.v^2, the mass and its characteristics like density and tensile strength become less significant as the velocity is increased.

So the answer to How Does Aluminum Cut Steel? is - easily if it's moving fast enough. After all, lead bullets puncture steel too but they're much softer than aluminium or steel?

I'm definitely considering building a car out of compressed bird bits too



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
When I was youth, a guy on a chopper running from the cops, a chopper mind you, T-boned a car. A big old 70's car like a lincoln or a new yorker, T-boned it at like 120 mph and cut it in half. Even though the spindly front end of the chopper would have crumpled up in even a slow speed collision , the motorcycle had enough energy to cut the much bigger and heavier car in half.
The nose of a large aircraft like that is anything but flimsy. The shell of the nose cone on a modern aircraft is an amazingly strong structure. If anybody has ever seen a F1 or Indy car crash and completly come apart. The whole car just shredding itself as it comes to a stop onlly to be just the carbon fiber composite cockpit that is left, and the driver will walk away. Protected by a splindly shell of carbon fiber composites. They are amazingly strong.
People think that when an airplane crashes into a building it like it is on a hollywood movie. The plane crashes into it and the hero jumps out of the way of the pieces of the aircraft as the crash across the floor.
We'll its not like that at all. At the instant of impact that flimsy little nose cone will disintegrate. But it will still transfer its energy to the building. Mass and energy have to be conserved.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   
And you also have to look at the fact that the 1st bulk head is much smaller than the average diameter of the aircraft, concentrating the energy of impact even more.

And even though the plane disintegrates during the course of the collision it doesnt disappear. Its mass is still there just changed shape and its mass still have velocity, therfore momentum and it will continue on its path till all of its energy is absorbed by the building.
Now take the thousands of pounds of jet fuel igniting and the the aluminum of the aircraft burning itself in an instant. That hot jet of fire and debris will pierce all the way through the building.
The WTC buildings were not some fortress like structures, the were HIGHLY engineered structures. They had to Maximize strenght while minimizing Weight. Once the integrity of the skin was compramised the whole structure was compramised.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Ok so we can agree that the Aluminum with Kinetic energy punched it's way through the external grid. It got shredded in the process and by the time it hit the core it was blowing up and that was the end of the plane.
So the internal core absorbed the kinetic energy, there would not have been much left of that energy by the time it hit the core, because it is blowing up and would have drained that energy too, or would it have accelerated it?

The point is if the plane is in shreds as it hits the core it's like a bug hitting a windshield.

[edit on 24-11-2007 by Blue_Jay33]



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Are you familiar with the word EXAMPLE? Did I say there was coal under the WTC?


Well we were talking about the molten steel in the debris stayign moltne for several weeks and what casued it.

Since there was no coal, that means it had to be something else.


My response was to another poster who didn't believe any fire could burn underground.
I never said there was coal under the WTC. Something did keep the metal hot for a long time. If there was nothing insulating the heated material it would have cooled quickly. In addition, there was a surrounding heat source needed to keep the metal hot. It is possible that the burnt items that were reduced to a charcoal/cinder material were continually fanned by ventilation and kept the metal warm.

I also assume gas was used for building heating, hot water heating, etc.
If that is the case, a leaking gas line could have continued to burn for quite a while. Just to make this clear for Ultima, I am speculating about this.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Here's a link to the Purdue University animation

www.youtube.com...

Maybe you can picture the plane impact a different way.

Imagine a logging crane swinging a huge, multi ton log, end first, into a big steel support post. Of course the log would damage the beam most likely by bending it at the point of impact or knocking it from it's points of attachments. Wood is softer then steel yet the log is able to damage the beam. I'm sure if we look around a bit, we'll be able to find many examples of a softer material damaging a harder material.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
A plane and a bullet are similar in terms of aerodynamic requirements and a 100 ton subsonic bullet is a formidable force to be reckoned with. )


But isn't a bullet solid and a plane is hollow?

And aren't you foregetting the wingspan in your calculations?



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join