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: 80
13
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
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.


So you do not know much about jet fuel then?




posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So you do not know much about jet fuel then?


I work on the airframe of aircraft and know a bit about aerodynamics and structural analysis.

I can look up the characteristics of different jet fuels from their Materials Safety Data Sheets, but for day-to-day work, my main concern with jet fuel is how much (volume) and how heavy (mass).

I have to facilitate the design of the airframe to allow for the required fuel volume and thus also efficiently support that weight.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
I have to facilitate the design of the airframe to allow for the required fuel volume and thus also efficiently support that weight.


Well i actually put fuel in planes and had to calculate gallons to pounds for each flight.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well i actually put fuel in planes and had to calculate gallons to pounds for each flight.


Ok, so you're the equivalent of the fuel pump guy that shows up when I park my car next to the full-service pump.

I'm the guy that pretty much designed the car that just pulled up to your full-service pump for you to fill up.

Gallons to pounds and vise versa is no hard calculation there, my friend. .8075 kg/L or 6.739 lbs/gal.

I work with the Materials & Processing guys who deal with all the materials that go into the helicopter. They are walking encyclopedias of information those things, including the jet fuel.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Ok, so you're the equivalent of the fuel pump guy that shows up when I park my car next to the full-service pump.


No i am the guy that actually kept the plane flying and was responsable for the lives of the pilots that flew in it.

Ask the guys you work with who know so much how many maintenance hours it takes for each flight hour for and RF-4C to keep it flying.

Also how many of the people you work with are directly responsable for the lives of the pilots.



[edit on 21-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

No i am the guy that actually kept the plane flying and was responsable for the lives of the pilots that flew in it.

Ask the guys you work with who know so much how many maintenance hours it takes for each flight hour for and RF-4C to keep it flying.

Also how many of the people you work with are directly responsable for the lives of the pilots.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]


And I'm one of the many guys that's responsible for the safety of the pilots, crews, and passengers, as well as the aircraft from the start. Even before you get to touch it.

I don't know about the RF-4C, since that's a Boeing product, but the current M/CH-53E is getting old (which is why there's a 53K program to replace it) and requires roughly 44 hours of service per every 1 flight-hour. Didn't think I'd know that huh? We keep in touch with our military guys. We know what's going on with our products.

I know quite a few guys that work in our Overhaul & Repair, Ground Support, Logistics, Aircraft Modification, and Field Repairs divisions that go out directly to the customer (be it commercial or military) to fix whatever's wrong and actually advise the ground crew and pilots as to what to do.

This is just what we provide the military side, the commercial side is just as large, if not larger.
www.sikorsky.com...

But I like to say that all of us on this program (and all of our company programs) are directly responsible for the lives of the pilots, crews, and passengers.

Since this is a rebuild of the M/CH-53E, any new safety devices that came out between then and now are designed into the aircraft from the start. I can't go into specifics since I do want to keep my job. Any and all problems that you (the ground crew), pilots, and passengers have mentioned are being designed out (or at least minimized) as the program goes on. We have constant NAVAIR meetings as well as bring in the Marines directly for their inputs.

Hell, we have many veterans and currently active members of all branches of the military in our program.

Also, new armor (that's general enough to say) has been designed into pretty much all the critical areas. As well as making sure that any gun system the Marines might use has the clearance to be easily attached to the ports.

If we didn't care about the safety of the pilots, crews, and passengers, we won't have a Safety group working on the program just dedicated to that.

If we didn't care about the safety of the pilots, crews, and passengers, we won't have a Human Factors group working on the program (they're the ones that make sure guys like you can actually do the repairs and operate what needs to be operated without having to twist your body out of shape).

If we didn't care about the safety of the pilots, crews, and passengers, we would have designed to the lowest weight and highest performance and not included any armor or electronic warfare systems or made provisions for weapons.

We are the ones at the very front of the whole thing bending over backwards trying to fit as many of these systems into the helicopter as we physically can to make sure that the helicopter and everyone on it makes it back each and every time. Hell, that's the company slogan.

We pioneer flight solutions that bring people home anywhere...any time

Go and take a look at the program page for yourself, Ultima:
www.sikorsky.com...

So don't go telling me we don't do anything for the safety of the pilots, crews, and passengers.

Sorry Mods and guys of this thread for going off-topic here. I just had to respond.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
I don't know about the RF-4C, since that's a Boeing product, but the current M/CH-53E is getting old (which is why there's a 53K program to replace it) and requires roughly 44 hours of service per every 1 flight-hour. Didn't think I'd know that huh? We keep in touch with our military guys. We know what's going on with our products.


Well actually the F-4 was built by McDonnell Douglas. You were very lucky if you could get 3 flights in a day without having major maintenence to do, you could go days with few or no flights for maintenence.

If the CH-53 requires 44 hours of service for every 1 hour of flight time, when does it ever fly?



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well actually the F-4 was built by McDonnell Douglas. You were very lucky if you could get 3 flights in a day without having major maintenence to do, you could go days with few or no flights for maintenence.

If the CH-53 requires 44 hours of service for every 1 hour of flight time, when does it ever fly?



True, but Boeing bought out McDonnell Douglas, so that's why I refer to Boeing.

The M/CH-53 flies a lot right now. I believe we have around 15 of them doing sorties in Iraq right now. It's called flying in shifts. Some are flying their missions while the others are being worked on. Plenty of M/CH-53s to go around out there. But it's definitely an old dog.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
The M/CH-53 flies a lot right now. I believe we have around 15 of them doing sorties in Iraq right now. It's called flying in shifts. Some are flying their missions while the others are being worked on. Plenty of M/CH-53s to go around out there. But it's definitely an old dog.


Well i woked on RF-4's in the 80's and my plane was built in 1969 (it was 1 of the newest planes we had). Several of our planes had seen service in Viet Nam.







[edit on 23-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Paul the seeker
 



Originally posted by Paul the seeker
In a doc i heard that they added sulphur to the explosion so it will basically melt the steel away.

Of course they had detonations in the building.


The "UPS" (Uninterruptible Power Supply) in all 3 WTC buildings contained hundreds of very large sulfuric acid batteries. Each of these batteries are larger than 7 car batteries. Each "UPS" room contained at least the equivalent of 1,600 car batteries full of sulfuric acid.


edit on 14-3-2011 by KissMy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
The planes should have telescoped, they didnt, the building just swallowed them up, this is not normal!
Looks like thios thread might be a good read.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
The same way that a birds flesh can go through aircraft aluminum, tempered glass, or even steel...
Speed and inertia.



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by kidtwist
 


You mean telescoped like this ......

USS Hinsdale (APA 120)



USS Sterret (DD 407)



So a Japanese kamikaze in 1945 can knock a hole in steel ship, but a 767 weighing over 300,000 lbs
going 500 mph cant smash a hole in a building

Another blast from the past

B25 impact into Empire State Building (1945)



But of course according to your paranoia these are all faked



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by kidtwist
 


You mean telescoped like this ......

USS Hinsdale (APA 120)



USS Sterret (DD 407)



So a Japanese kamikaze in 1945 can knock a hole in steel ship, but a 767 weighing over 300,000 lbs
going 500 mph cant smash a hole in a building

Another blast from the past

B25 impact into Empire State Building (1945)



But of course according to your paranoia these are all faked



We're talking about a building with a different design, you lot say the empire state building cannot be used in the argument when it suits your theory, yet you bring it into the argument when it does suit you?! Make your mind up, can we use the empire state building or not?

We are talking about different planes, different buildings, with different constructions, there are similarities, but there is no way a plane can get completely swallowed up by a building, as what happened with WTC2!

Everything to you is paranoia thedman, you're a paranoid person who thinks everyone is paranoid!
edit on 7-6-2012 by kidtwist because: spelling



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by kidtwist
 


Apples to oranges by you again Kidtwist?

Showing a picture of the hole left in the ESB by a much flimsier, slower moving airplane IS a valid comparision.......when you are discussing that planes can put holes in buildings.

Using the ESB and saying, "See, the Towers should not have collapsed" is NOT a valid comparision because the buildings were designed much differently.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596


Using the ESB and saying, "See, the Towers should not have collapsed" is NOT a valid comparision because the buildings were designed much differently.


There were huh? The ESB went up in what, 13 months?

The Twin Towers took nearly FIVE YEARS.

So what was it, crappy construction? Crummy steel? Moronic architects?

WTC under construction.... note the massive core.... these suckers were overbuilt, to say the least...

www.sharpprintinginc.com...:594

The lunacy never stops with these OS'ers....



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by kidtwist
 


Apples to oranges by you again Kidtwist?

Showing a picture of the hole left in the ESB by a much flimsier, slower moving airplane IS a valid comparision.......when you are discussing that planes can put holes in buildings.

Using the ESB and saying, "See, the Towers should not have collapsed" is NOT a valid comparision because the buildings were designed much differently.


The old apples & oranges chestnut eh, you compare apples & oranges all the time, then roll it out when you don't agree with someone or if someone's response conflicts against the OS you've been selling for years!

How come after all the money spent on the psy-ops, and after all the years you've been selling the OS no one still believes a word you say?!



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
note the massive core



Note the lightweight truss seat connections.







posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Note the lightweight truss seat connections.


Where did you get this idea?

NIST?


The truss seat connections were adequate for the way the towers were designed. And even of they weren't, they didn't all fail at once to bring these buildings down in under 10 seconds. The main load was borne by the core. Those buildings could have stood without the outside walls and the floors. If anything, even if all the trusses failed, the core would have stood on its own.

That's how they can engineer buildings like this:

Worlds First Rotating Skyscraper In Dubai

www.youtube.com...
edit on 9-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join