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: 85
13
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 





Really? How does he know this? He doesn't. He's using his no-planer "common sense"and nothing that actually involves real physics.

I'm still wondering why, if the aircraft damage to the WTC was so obviously impossible, there are no credible experts disputing it. It's not even debated among professionals in the field.



Seems like he's offering to replace the steel plow used in the Mythbusters vid with a section of wing, and replace the car with a section of steel boxes and spandrel plate built to the specifications of the WTC.

And as far as credible experts, my money's on Newton.




posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 





Really? How does he know this? He doesn't. He's using his no-planer "common sense"and nothing that actually involves real physics.

I'm still wondering why, if the aircraft damage to the WTC was so obviously impossible, there are no credible experts disputing it. It's not even debated among professionals in the field.



Seems like he's offering to replace the steel plow used in the Mythbusters vid with a section of wing, and replace the car with a section of steel boxes and spandrel plate built to the specifications of the WTC.

And as far as credible experts, my money's on Newton.

I understand what is being proposed, but did you notice where the author states:

According to 9/11 a jet wing traveling at 500 MPH sliced through multiple steel box columns without even slowing down, you’d think they’d know that. They went way overboard with this plow.

The implication is that if a jet wing can slice through steel box columns, the Mythbusters crew didn't need to bother with a steel wedge, they could have just used some aircraft aluminum to slice through the car.

As for Newton, he's a good bet. The authors of the research articles I presented demonstrated mathematically using classical Newtonian physics that the wings could have easily sliced through the perimeter columns of the WTC.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 





The implication is that if a jet wing can slice through steel box columns, the Mythbusters crew didn't need to bother with a steel wedge, they could have just used some aircraft aluminum to slice through the car.

As for Newton, he's a good bet. The authors of the research articles I presented demonstrated mathematically using classical Newtonian physics that the wings could have easily sliced through the perimeter columns of the WTC.



The implications are that the wing won't be able to cut the steel, regardless what math theory says. The test would be about as accurate as can be.

Just imagining the relatively hollow aluminum gas tank colliding with three 1/4 inch thick steel boxes bound with a four and a half foot spandrel plate at 550 MPH should be enough for most folks, but the test should remove all doubt.
edit on 15-6-2012 by Yankenstein because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 





The implication is that if a jet wing can slice through steel box columns, the Mythbusters crew didn't need to bother with a steel wedge, they could have just used some aircraft aluminum to slice through the car.

As for Newton, he's a good bet. The authors of the research articles I presented demonstrated mathematically using classical Newtonian physics that the wings could have easily sliced through the perimeter columns of the WTC.



The implications are that the wing won't be able to cut the steel, regardless what math theory says. The test would be about as accurate as can be.

Just imagining the relatively holly aluminum gas tank colliding with three 1/4 inch thick steel boxes bound with a four and a half foot spandrel plate at 550 MPH should be enough for most folks, but the test should remove all doubt.
edit on 15-6-2012 by Yankenstein because: (no reason given)

I'm not against physical experiments, if these no-planers want to come up with the resources for experimental replication of the event in question, then why not?

But for most people, such an elaborate experiment is unnecessary. Close to 60 different video cameras recorded the event from unique angles. It was witnessed by hundreds of people and broadcast on live television. Photos of the impact holes tell the story from a forensic perspective. Additionally, when research physicists run the numbers, the math pans out. When computer simulations are employed, they show the same result, i.e., the wings cut the outer columns.

Physical experiments were done by researchers at both MIT and Purdue, but with other purposes in mind. Most researchers would rather not waste time and resources on experiments which will merely verify the obvious. There are bigger questions to be dealt with such as how and to what extent were the core columns damaged, what caused the collapses, and could it have been prevented, etc.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
How does a playing card embed itself into human skin or a tree trunk?

That's a crazier question.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by lunarasparagus
 






But for most people, such an elaborate experiment is unnecessary. Close to 60 different video cameras recorded the event from unique angles. It was witnessed by hundreds of people and broadcast on live television. Photos of the impact holes tell the story from a forensic perspective. Additionally, when research physicists run the numbers, the math pans out. When computer simulations are employed, they show the same result, i.e., the wings cut the outer columns.



Physics doesn't lie, but people do and photos can be altered. What is physically possible is what this test is about.



Physical experiments were done by researchers at both MIT and Purdue, but with other purposes in mind. Most researchers would rather not waste time and resources on experiments which will merely verify the obvious. There are bigger questions to be dealt with such as how and to what extent were the core columns damaged, what caused the collapses, and could it have been prevented, etc.



Please link the results of the physical experiments, I am aware of the mathematical models created by MIT and Purdue.

Here is a video wherein the Purdue engineers were put on the spot.


Here is a link where the construction of the wings and walls are discussed, as well as the basic physics, as well as the usual arguments of the true believers. MIT's paper is included with comments.

yankee451.com...

edit on 15-6-2012 by Yankenstein because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein

yankee451.com...


Hey yankee, glad to see you back. Like the name. Did you bring your tap shoes ?

Did you find any proof that the tiny little fiberglass nose of a JASM can penetrate steel, yet ?





edit on 15-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Yankenstein

yankee451.com...


Hey yankee, glad to see you back. Like the name. Did you bring your tap shoes ?

Did you find any proof that the tiny little fiberglass nose of a JASM can penetrate steel, yet ?


edit on 15-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)


The Jassm's nose would have shattered, along with the wings. It is the JASSMs 12 inch by 60 inch 900 lb dense metal penetrating warhead that penetrated some of the steel, but was deflected by others.

I've moved on, you should try it.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein
It is the JASSMs 12 inch by 60 inch 900 lb dense metal penetrating warhead that penetrated some of the steel,


Gee, I wonder how much this thing weighs ?



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


About 127 tons, whereas just the steel in the WTC was 250,000 tons.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
You never responded to a post I made listing thousands of experts that don't agree. They're all professional engineers and architects.

How about the pilots that say a commercial jet couldn't do the speeds that were reportedly attained? You do know the guys that were supposed to have flown those jets weren't capable of flying their training craft very well don't you? You think it was a simple matter of sitting in the cockpit and turning the craft and heading to the towers? For a raw novice? That would seem to be a very naive assessment. Your posts sound intelligent, but your assessment is not.


Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by Yankenstein
How about we do a test, like that done by Mythbusters?:


I have written to the New Mexico Tech Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center, inquiring as to the cost of a simple test. I don’t know whether or not they allow me to conduct my own Mythbuster’s investigation, but judging by the flurry of search engine activity they’ve already been very keen to investigate me. This video was filmed at their facility.




youtu.be...

If Mythbusters can do it, why can't we?

That's a pretty cool vid. Not sure how it applies to 9/11 though. A car is not a box column. I read the article which, typically, makes some authoritative sounding assertions but with no attempt at backing-up any of them with reference data.


"Regardless what we saw on the 9/11 T.V. planes cannot slice through steel buildings like that in the real world. That sort of thing only happens in the Movies, but still the vast majority of the country believes it was real."

Really? How does he know this? He doesn't. He's using his no-planer "common sense"and nothing that actually involves real physics.

I'm still wondering why, if the aircraft damage to the WTC was so obviously impossible, there are no credible experts disputing it. It's not even debated among professionals in the field.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein
reply to post by waypastvne
 


About 127 tons, whereas just the steel in the WTC was 250,000 tons.


And how much does a tomahawk or JASSM weigh ?



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Yankenstein
reply to post by waypastvne
 


About 127 tons, whereas just the steel in the WTC was 250,000 tons.


And how much does a tomahawk or JASSM weigh ?


Well, as stated earlier, the penetrating warhead of a JASSM is 900 lbs. Tomahawks don't use kinetic penetrators.

Unlike the plane, the JASSM's mass is focused on the point of the 12 inch warhead, whereas the plane's mass was distributed how exacly?



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein


Well, as stated earlier, the penetrating warhead of a JASSM is 900 lbs. Tomahawks don't use kinetic penetrators.

Unlike the plane, the JASSM's mass is focused on the point of the 12 inch warhead, whereas the plane's mass was distributed how exacly?


Over a much larger area with much greater mass and velocity.

I liked the water balloon analogy in your article. Do you think a water balloon traveling at 500 mph would be fatal if it hit you ?



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Over a much larger area with much greater mass and velocity.


Greater mass, yes, but the mass is spread out over a muich larger area, right? The wing tips weren't 127 tons, were they? The velocity is the same, the missiles were capable of the same speeds, whereas unlike planes which distribute their mass over a wide area, missiles, like bullets and other kinetic penetrators, focus their energy on a small area.

If you go yammering on about a singls mass of 127 tons to make it easier to calculate, then by all means calculate 250,000 tons into the equation.





I liked the water balloon analogy in your article. Do you think a water balloon traveling at 500 mph would be fatal if it hit you ?


Probably, but if you liked the water balloon analogy, you must have loved the head-butt analogy. If one head hit another head at 500 MPH, which head would be hurt worse?



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein



If one head hit another head at 500 MPH, which head would be hurt worse?



They would both be destroyed. Same as the jet and the section of building that it impacted were both destroyed.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Yankenstein



If one head hit another head at 500 MPH, which head would be hurt worse?



They would both be destroyed. Same as the jet and the section of building that it impacted were both destroyed.


I see.

So in the case of the 9/11 Crash Test, you're saying the wing section will slice the steel columns in half. If Newton was right, it should work both ways. So if I am able to procure the funding, and I think I will be able to, I should be able to cut the steel in half whether columns are on the rocket sled, or the wing section is on the sled, right? Equal and opposite means that damage will be the same no matter which direction the bodies collide. So I'm shooting for two tests ,just to be sure.

It shoudl be fun to watch.
edit on 15-6-2012 by Yankenstein because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


You have no idea what you are talking about. Not in the least bit.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein




Probably, but if you liked the water balloon analogy, you must have loved the head-butt analogy.


Just for fun lets take a look at the forces a 500 mph water balloon would impart on a plate of steel.

Water balloon: diameter 6" weight 4 lbs. velocity 500 mph or 733 fps.

Steel: 1 sq ft 1/4 thick braced so it won't move. velocity 0. (Impact area 28 sq in.)

Next you need an acceleration calculator like the one linked below.

www.smartconversion.com...



Step 1: enter 733 fps in the initial speed field.

Step 2: enter 0 in the final speed field.

Step 3: enter .00068 seconds in the time field. Thats the time it takes for the water balloon to travel 6". That is amount of time the plate of steel has to stop the balloon.

Step 4: enter the units you want your total in. ( I selected G's) and click calculate.

Total 33,503. G's

We have 4 pounds of water so we multiply the total by 4 for a grand total of:

134,012 pounds of force, from a 500 mph water balloon.

Do you think your steel plate will be undamaged ?



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Nah, no more guessing for me. The crash test is the way to go.

Think of it, we could put an end to all this Truther BS, we could finally pull the country together to prosecute the War on Terror properly.

Once the wing cuts the steel columns in half, it's an immediate victory for truth. I for one will hang up my Truther hat and apologize to everyone.

Of course, if the wing shatters against the steel, then all the troops need to come home and we need to start trying our military and political leaders for crimes against humanity while we begin paying reparations to the victims.

Who's with me?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 82  83  84    86  87  88 >>

log in

join