How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

page: 89
13
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
You mean this one? LOL First law: The velocity of a body remains constant First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Bilk22
Try Newton's 3rd law.

Something ironic in your alleged experience in flying and the idea that a few untrained people could navigate commercial airliners in the manner we're expected to believe they did. Guess you have no real skills to speak of.




Actually I teach people to fly as part of my job. And I have found that you don't have to teach people how to hit things they already know how to do that. I have to teach people how not to hit things, I say things like " if you don't stop looking at that plane parked on the side of the run way you are going to hit it. Take your eyes off of the plane and put them back on the center line of the runway."

Its called target fixation. You can google it if you want.

What about newtons third law ?

Have you heard about newtons first law ?




posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 

In case you missed my reply, it's here.

But one thing I forgot to mention: In regards to the Purdue animation, you mentioned Ace Baker. If you want to maintain credibility, I wouldn't mention him. Ace is not only a lunatic, but a liar and a fraud.

I think the best expose I've seen on this guy is here: Post From: A Physicist's Take on the WTC Plane Crash at pumpitout.com.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by Bilk22
 

In case you missed my reply, it's here.

But one thing I forgot to mention: In regards to the Purdue animation, you mentioned Ace Baker. If you want to maintain credibility, I wouldn't mention him. Ace is not only a lunatic, but a liar and a fraud.

I think the best expose I've seen on this guy is here: Post From: A Physicist's Take on the WTC Plane Crash at pumpitout.com.


If you want to maintain credibility, don't mention Purdue, NIST or MIT.

Lunatic, liar and a fraud. Wow, so you've met the man?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

I did go through many of the replies, one of which gave me a possible insight. Clearly the kerosene in the wings was the cutting agent. Remember, liquid DOES cut steel, as mentioned by a thoughtful proponent of the official story, in this same thread. So, since the kerosene in the wing fuel tanks didn't explode, or show any trace at all where it ought to have splattered, just where the wings crashed into the steel, exoskeletal building frame, instead, the liquid became an actual cutting agent, just like in factories that cut steel with water, everywhere. That would explain why there was no fuel seen exploding near the fuel tanks. The energy was all used to remove the steel of the building instead. And the fuel, once past the building, sloshed forward and regained volatility, and blew out more obstacles so the plane could come out the other side. That explains it.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by Bilk22
 

In case you missed my reply, it's here.

But one thing I forgot to mention: In regards to the Purdue animation, you mentioned Ace Baker. If you want to maintain credibility, I wouldn't mention him. Ace is not only a lunatic, but a liar and a fraud.

I think the best expose I've seen on this guy is here: Post From: A Physicist's Take on the WTC Plane Crash at pumpitout.com.


I never claimed something didn't hit the buildings. I just don't buy the idea it was commercial civilian aircraft and I don't buy the manner in which it was claimed to have happened. I don't buy that untrained people could hijack aircraft with razor blades, navigate them to definitive targets at a high rate of speed with pinpoint accuracy and I don't buy the physics either. I don't have the type of training or tools that would enable me to perform the necessary analysis, but I understand impact resistance and strength in materials. I understand the laws of nature and of physics. All of this defies that understanding.

You ask why no peer journals or academia has not published anything to contradict the findings. The answer is funding and fear. No one wants to lose grants and funding for their work. No academic institution wants to allow their faculty to engage in dissension that would bring a negative focus upon it. No one wants to be ridiculed as is and has been the case for the last decade, to those who are rowing against the currents that have deeper pockets and more influence in their world. It's why these types of events can happen. It's the same reason Iraq happened. They created the ultimate boogeyman. Something I too bought into as a result of this event.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Liquid cuts steel when focused to a point. That's not what was claimed. What was claimed is the mass of the wings loaded with fuel, enabled the leading edge of the wings to cut the steel. That mas was concentrated in certain sections of the wings. It's not in the ends of the wings for a pretty good length.

Do you ever wonder, when looking at the video of the impact, why the ends or the tail section, which do not have the same critical mass, cut through the same steel in the same manner, instead of being rejected after impact? I'm sure someone here has a good answer. I'm sure it was addressed in the extensive peer reviewed papers presented hereto with. There's no logic to it. Not in physics and not in reality.

Originally posted by davidmann
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

I did go through many of the replies, one of which gave me a possible insight. Clearly the kerosene in the wings was the cutting agent. Remember, liquid DOES cut steel, as mentioned by a thoughtful proponent of the official story, in this same thread. So, since the kerosene in the wing fuel tanks didn't explode, or show any trace at all where it ought to have splattered, just where the wings crashed into the steel, exoskeletal building frame, instead, the liquid became an actual cutting agent, just like in factories that cut steel with water, everywhere. That would explain why there was no fuel seen exploding near the fuel tanks. The energy was all used to remove the steel of the building instead. And the fuel, once past the building, sloshed forward and regained volatility, and blew out more obstacles so the plane could come out the other side. That explains it.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by davidmann
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

I did go through many of the replies, one of which gave me a possible insight. Clearly the kerosene in the wings was the cutting agent. Remember, liquid DOES cut steel, as mentioned by a thoughtful proponent of the official story, in this same thread. So, since the kerosene in the wing fuel tanks didn't explode, or show any trace at all where it ought to have splattered, just where the wings crashed into the steel, exoskeletal building frame, instead, the liquid became an actual cutting agent, just like in factories that cut steel with water, everywhere. That would explain why there was no fuel seen exploding near the fuel tanks. The energy was all used to remove the steel of the building instead. And the fuel, once past the building, sloshed forward and regained volatility, and blew out more obstacles so the plane could come out the other side. That explains it.


Without very high pressure, and often without an added abrasive, liquid cannot cut steel. The kerosene in the wings was not under that kind of pressure, plus for a column of liquid to be able to cut steel, it must be very close to the steel so the column of liquid doesn't lose pressure. This is an apples to avocados comparison.


A waterjet is a tool used in machine shops to cut metal parts with a (very) high-pressure stream of water. As amazing as it sounds, if you get water flowing fast enough it can actually cut metal.

Think of a waterjet as something with about 30 times the pressure of the power washer wand at your local car wash. Power washing at car washes is an everyday example of a dirt film being "cut" off the body, wheels and tires of an automobile.

The key to cutting metal with water is to keep the spray coherent. Waterjets are able to cut because the spray is channeled through a very narrow jeweled nozzle at a very high pressure to keep the spray coherent. Unlike metal cutters, a waterjet never gets dull and it cannot overheat.

Low pressure waterjets were first used for mining gold in California in 1852. Steam and hot water jets were used in the early 1900s for cleaning. High pressure waterjets were used for mining in the 1960s, and about 10 years ago industry began using waterjets for cutting. Abrasive water jets (abrasivejets) were first used in industry in about 1980.

In the past, only one piece of metal could be cut at a time with a saw or other metal cutting mechanical process. It was time intensive and expensive. Computer-controlled waterjet and abrasivejet cutting are used today in industry to cut many soft and hard materials. The plain water-abrasive mixture leaves the nozzle at more than 900 mph. The latest machines can cut to within two thousandths of an inch, and have jet speeds around Mach 3.

science.howstuffworks.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22
You mean this one? LOL First law: The velocity of a body remains constant First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.


Yup, thats the one.

The velocity of a body ( Boeing 767 / 800 fps ) remained constant until It was acted upon by an external force (WTC / 0 fps) That's what caused most of the plane to decelerated to 0 fps in less than 208'.

The parts that did not stop in less than 208' consisted of: a portion of the jet fuel, High mass items like the landing gear and engine core, and also the air contained in the fuselage. The air is what carried most of the lighter items found on the street through the building. The lighter items included, life vest, seat cushions, sections of the aircraft fuselage and at least one passport.
edit on 16-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Bilk22
You mean this one? LOL First law: The velocity of a body remains constant First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.


Yup, thats the one.

The velocity of a body ( Boeing 767 / 800 fps ) remained constant until It was acted upon by an external force (WTC / 0 fps) That's what caused most of the plane to decelerated to 0 fps in less than 208'.

The parts that did not stop in less than 208' consisted of: a portion of the jet fuel, High mass items like the landing gear and engine core, and also the air contained in the fuselage. The air is what carried most of the lighter items found on the street through the building. The lighter items included, life vest, seat cushions, sections of the aircraft fuselage and at least one passport.
edit on 16-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)


Unless of course a wing is incapable of slicing multiple steel columns, in which case there is another explanation.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 





Do you ever wonder, when looking at the video of the impact, why the ends or the tail section, which do not have the same critical mass, cut through the same steel in the same manner, instead of being rejected after impact?



When considering the construction of the exterior columns, it only takes a little common sense to picture the interaction of the columns with the wings. The walls were not one solid piece, so the parts of the wing which impacted the columns would have reacted differently as they impacted the steel, than the parts of the wings that missed the steel. This is not visible in the videos, nor is the damage evidence (the gashes) consistent with reality. Therefore the simplest explanation is fraudulent video.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
What happened to the rest of the plane, the rest of the items such as seats, luggage, etc? How come only one engine survived or penetrated the building? Don't they have equal mass to one another? You have your beliefs. I have mine. Let's leave it at that.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Bilk22
You mean this one? LOL First law: The velocity of a body remains constant First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.


Yup, thats the one.

The velocity of a body ( Boeing 767 / 800 fps ) remained constant until It was acted upon by an external force (WTC / 0 fps) That's what caused most of the plane to decelerated to 0 fps in less than 208'.

The parts that did not stop in less than 208' consisted of: a portion of the jet fuel, High mass items like the landing gear and engine core, and also the air contained in the fuselage. The air is what carried most of the lighter items found on the street through the building. The lighter items included, life vest, seat cushions, sections of the aircraft fuselage and at least one passport.
edit on 16-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein

Unless of course a wing is incapable of slicing multiple steel columns, in which case there is another explanation.


Not one that doesn't ignore Newtons first second AND third law.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22
You have your beliefs. I have mine.


We have physics. You do not.

The items you mentioned are lying in the streets.

How many G's do you think the pilots pulled ?

And which direction is eccentric ?
edit on 16-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I never really looked at the various videos online before. I accepted what I thought I saw. I live in NYC and witnessed this event in real time in full living color. My community was greatly effected as 275 people died there on that day. Many were first responders, fire and police. I volunteered the services of a small business I owned in a building I also owned at the time, to the National Guard and any first responders. I saw funerals daily as the remains were uncovered. I was angry. I never took the time to sit and digest what the events really meant for us to accept as reality. I'm not sure what took me on this journey to go back and take another look for myself, instead of accepting what the reasonable person was expected to accept. I now see there's much more information than I ever thought existed. We can't go back in time and change it, but we can reveal it for what it was and hopefully engender enough will in the people to question their own senses of what they perceive. Orson Wells tried to teach us a lesson.

Originally posted by Yankenstein
reply to post by Bilk22
 





Do you ever wonder, when looking at the video of the impact, why the ends or the tail section, which do not have the same critical mass, cut through the same steel in the same manner, instead of being rejected after impact?



When considering the construction of the exterior columns, it only takes a little common sense to picture the interaction of the columns with the wings. The walls were not one solid piece, so the parts of the wing which impacted the columns would have reacted differently as they impacted the steel, than the parts of the wings that missed the steel. This is not visible in the videos, nor is the damage evidence (the gashes) consistent with reality. Therefore the simplest explanation is fraudulent video.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Yankenstein

Unless of course a wing is incapable of slicing multiple steel columns, in which case there is another explanation.


Not one that doesn't ignore Newtons first second AND third law.


You lost me. The videos depict a jet defying all three, but for the skeptics who still insist CNN is more reliable than Newton, lets try to cut a few columns in half with a wing section.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Maybe the test should be to hit the wings with a building. One wonders what those that choose to believe the official explanation, think would happen.

Originally posted by Yankenstein

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Bilk22
You mean this one? LOL First law: The velocity of a body remains constant First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.


Yup, thats the one.

The velocity of a body ( Boeing 767 / 800 fps ) remained constant until It was acted upon by an external force (WTC / 0 fps) That's what caused most of the plane to decelerated to 0 fps in less than 208'.

The parts that did not stop in less than 208' consisted of: a portion of the jet fuel, High mass items like the landing gear and engine core, and also the air contained in the fuselage. The air is what carried most of the lighter items found on the street through the building. The lighter items included, life vest, seat cushions, sections of the aircraft fuselage and at least one passport.
edit on 16-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)


Unless of course a wing is incapable of slicing multiple steel columns, in which case there is another explanation.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 





Maybe the test should be to hit the wings with a building. One wonders what those that choose to believe the official explanation, think would happen.


Sure, most folks can't imagine it, that's why the test should be done both ways, once with the columns on the sled, once with the wing; it should be the same result no matter how you slice it. Envisioning it in this manner, (with the rocket sled )really helps snap people out of it. There's a lot more psychology to propaganda than most people understand. Few realize Sigmund Freud (father of modern psychology) was also the uncle to Edward Bernays (father of modern propaganda).

What is happening now is probably the same as has been happening since the dawn of the written word, they just have better media to get their message out today. It's the Emperor's New Clothes in reverse; we're the naked ones.

People follow the crowd and they trust other people before they'll trust their own common sense, so naturally untrustworthy people will take advantage of that tendency. Pity it is the untrustworthy who rise to the top of our society, by design I might add.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I worked for a very wealthy person. This person always believed someone was stealing from their vast wealth. Turns out they were the biggest crooks. I'm sure Freud could have figured this out, but it doesn't take genius. It just takes common sense and trust in your own senses.


Originally posted by Yankenstein
reply to post by Bilk22
 





Maybe the test should be to hit the wings with a building. One wonders what those that choose to believe the official explanation, think would happen.


Sure, most folks can't imagine it, that's why the test should be done both ways, once with the columns on the sled, once with the wing; it should be the same result no matter how you slice it. Envisioning it in this manner, (with the rocket sled )really helps snap people out of it. There's a lot more psychology to propaganda than most people understand. Few realize Sigmund Freud (father of modern psychology) was also the uncle to Edward Bernays (father of modern propaganda).

What is happening now is probably the same as has been happening since the dawn of the written word, they just have better media to get their message out today. It's the Emperor's New Clothes in reverse; we're the naked ones.

People follow the crowd and they trust other people before they'll trust their own common sense, so naturally untrustworthy people will take advantage of that tendency. Pity it is the untrustworthy who rise to the top of our society, by design I might add.




posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 





I just don't buy the idea it was commercial civilian aircraft and I don't buy the manner in which it was claimed to have happened. I don't buy that untrained people could hijack aircraft with razor blades, navigate them to definitive targets at a high rate of speed with pinpoint accuracy and I don't buy the physics either.


And your first major fail, is the idea that they were untrained. That ranks up there with the 19 cavemen argument. It just aint factual. Then there is the commercial civilian aircraft....you dont believe thats what they were in spite of ALL the evidence. Just what would it take for you to get it through your head, that 19 terrorists hijacked four airliners and turned them into manned cruise missiles?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankenstein

You lost me. The videos depict a jet defying all three, but for the skeptics who still insist CNN is more reliable than Newton, lets try to cut a few columns in half with a wing section.

I must say, it's very amusing that you speak for Newton, yet those who have devoted their lives to the study of physics--the professional scientists and engineers who have done research on this--ALL disagree with you.

Are they ALL dis-info agents? All liars and frauds? Worldwide there are no credible physicists willing to speak out against such obviously erroneous research that's been published on this topic? There seems to be pilots and architects and engineers willing to question other aspects of 9/11. Where are the Physicists for 9/11 Truth with the smoking gun mathematical equations proving that the WTC impact damage is impossible?

Have you ever really given some good hard thought to the idea that the subjective "common sense" you so adamantly cling to might just be wrong in this case? What does your common sense tell you regarding the possibility that EVERY single piece of video footage (50+ clips) is fake, that NO footage survived of what really happened despite the thousands of people who potentially could have been filming that day.

How is it that, employing your common sense, it's more likely that all the research is wrong, all the scientists are frauds, all the video is fake, all the witnesses are liars--than it is that your mental conception of the jet impact damage is possibly mistaken? It is more likely that ALL of that other evidence is wrong, or that you're wrong?

My common sense begs the question.






top topics



 
13
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join