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: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Here's a link to the Purdue University animation

www.youtube.com...


As you can see in the animation the airframe is being shredded as soon as it hits the steel beams.

So tell me, by looking at the video how many of the steel bemas were damaged and how many were left to support the floors?



[edit on 24-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   
double post

[edit on 24-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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?


Feel free to correct those equations if you think they're off. Please post your results. Thanks.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Here's a link to the Purdue University animation

www.youtube.com...


As you can see in the animation the airframe is being shredded as soon as it hits the steel beams.

So tell me, by looking at the video how many of the steel bemas were damaged and how many were left to support the floors?

[edit on 24-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]


In the video, I could only see 24 internal, vertical support posts being "damaged". I am pretty sure more then 24 were damaged based on the video, but I couldn't give you an accurate count as the video didn't zoom out far enough.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
In the video, I could only see 24 internal, vertical support posts being "damaged". I


Gee you really saw that many being cut. I saw about 8-10 internal beams cut, the plane was too shredded to do much more damage.





[edit on 24-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
In the video, I could only see 24 internal, vertical support posts being "damaged". I am pretty sure more then 24 were damaged based on the video, but I couldn't give you an accurate count as the video didn't zoom out far enough.


Gee you really saw that many being destryed?



Yes. I watched the video 5 times CLOSELY. Watch it and count for yourself. Like I said, I'm sure there were more damaged outside of frame but as opposed to speculating about how many others may have been damaged, I simply counted.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes. I watched the video 5 times CLOSELY. Watch it and count for yourself. Like I said, I'm sure there were more damaged outside of frame but as opposed to speculating about how many others may have been damaged, I simply counted.


Well i have watched the flim like a dozen times and i did not see or count that many.

The wings barely made it into the building. So only a part of the main airframe did any kind of damage.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes. I watched the video 5 times CLOSELY. Watch it and count for yourself. Like I said, I'm sure there were more damaged outside of frame but as opposed to speculating about how many others may have been damaged, I simply counted.


Well i have watched the flim like a dozen times and i did not see or count that many.

The wings barely made it into the building. So only a part of the main airframe did any kind of damage.



I don't know what to tell you. I saw 24 beams break as debris flew through them. Start watching at 1:33, that may help.

But keep in mind that if you were right and aluminum wouldn't have damaged steel because aluminum is so fragile, then you would not have seen ANY beams damaged.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
But keep in mind that if you were right and aluminum wouldn't have damaged steel because aluminum is so fragile, then you would not have seen ANY beams damaged.


You did not read my post. I stated that the airframe might get into the building a little but it was not going to cause much damage, the steel beams would shred it, and the video supports this.

Also the NIST model states the following,


The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.



Fahim Sadek, Michael A. Riley, Emil Simiu,
William Fritz, and H.S. Lew
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
U.S. Department of Commerce
fahim.sadek@nist.gov
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft
Impact Damage Analysis
June 22, 2004




[edit on 24-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
But keep in mind that if you were right and aluminum wouldn't have damaged steel because aluminum is so fragile, then you would not have seen ANY beams damaged.



You did not read my post. I stated that the airframe might get into the building a little but it was not going to cause much damage, the steel beams would shred it, and the video supports this.


Then how do you explain all the damaged beams/posts? The video shows 24 posts being knocked away or broken so how does that support what you are saying?



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Then how do you explain all the damaged beams/posts?


24 is your number. NIST states the planes impact was not enough to cause collapse.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Then how do you explain all the damaged beams/posts?


24 is your number. NIST states the planes impact was not enough to cause collapse.


It is not my number as I do not own it. I used addition to determine it.

What exactly does the NIST say about he impact?



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
If that were really the case, wouldn't the buildings still be standing?


No, it just means something else happened to help bring the towers down.

Do not forget all the molten metals in the basements, and how long the steel stayed molten in the debris.

The fires in the towers were not hot enough to melt steel and they were burning out before the collapse. So what kept the steel molten hot for several weeks?





Very accurate. The impact and explosion from the plane was not hot enough to melt steel. The black and grey smoke which billowed out was proof the fire was oxygen starved. Without proper oxygen- fires burn at lower temperatures and certainly not hot enough to molt metal. This is a fact which seems to escape the debunker's.

You can fire off all the mathematical equations for speed+force+mass and whatever else- the fact remains the fires were oxygen starved- that is until the controlled explosive materials were added to the mix- which is the only explanation why those building fell the way they did and 3000 people are dead.

This bullet theory I have been reading in this thread is like the magic JFK bullet theory and it is annoying to say the least.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dk3000

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
If that were really the case, wouldn't the buildings still be standing?

No, it just means something else happened to help bring the towers down.

Do not forget all the molten metals in the basements, and how long the steel stayed molten in the debris.

The fires in the towers were not hot enough to melt steel and they were burning out before the collapse. So what kept the steel molten hot for several weeks?

The metal stayed molten because there was an outside heat source (possibly smoldering material, leaking gas line, etc.. ) combined with the insulative properties of the debris. If these 2 items were not available, then the steel would have cooled a lot faster.


Very accurate. The impact and explosion from the plane was not hot enough to melt steel.

The initial impact and explosion was hot enough to WEAKEN steel, not melt it. Never said it was.


The black and grey smoke which billowed out was proof the fire was oxygen starved.

NOPE. This is a completely incorrect assumption. There are plenty of fires that burn very hot and have black smoke. One source of black smoke is burning plastic.
Here's a fire with black smoke that certainly doesn't look oxygen starved.
newsimg.bbc.co.uk...


Without proper oxygen- fires burn at lower temperatures and certainly not hot enough to molt metal. This is a fact which seems to escape the debunker's.

This observation is correct. Nobody would disagree nor have they.


You can fire off all the mathematical equations for speed+force+mass and whatever else- the fact remains the fires were oxygen starved

Please provide evidence of this. Black smoke is not evidence.


- that is until the controlled explosive materials were added to the mix- which is the only explanation why those building fell the way they did and 3000 people are dead.

Of course it's not the only explanation. If it was the only explanation then there would be zero doubt in anyones minds and we would definitively know what caused the buildings to fall. This is not the case.


This bullet theory I have been reading in this thread is like the magic JFK bullet theory and it is annoying to say the least.

Sorry to hear you're annoyed by the information. Perhaps you could supply some equations that will prove your idea to be correct.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
The metal stayed molten because there was an outside heat source (possibly smoldering material, leaking gas line, etc.. ) combined with the insulative properties of the debris.


So where is the evidence of this outside heat source?

Do you have a report of a leaking gas line?

One very good and simple explination for the steel to stay molten for several weeks is thermite.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   
The molten metals confirmed there were caused by a very intense heat..there is no doubt about that. WHAT can cause that kind of heat? Fire from some floors far above? No. Gravity? No. The ONLY things that can generate that much heat are thermate type products or some type of fission or nuke weapon. The temps must have been in the tens of thousands of degrees intially to melt enough of the core steel to make the kinds of flowing pools that were seen.

The steel at the bedrock area was severed in order to finish the job and make the steel framework lose its strength. Recall the ' Spire ' turing to dust on film; that means that the core was exposed to heat so massive that it rendered the steel unable to retain its form..it lost its cohesion, and turned to dust. The steel at the lower levels was the only source of the molten mass seen, and the only way to corrupt the core entirely was to burn it out from the bottom . The reports by Rodriguez and others confirms that major blasts were felt and experienced at the very lower levels, originating from BELOW.

What more proof is needed? Major explosions that cause a 50 ton press to DISAPPEAR from the shop area, cause terrible burns on people in the area and pools of molten steel in the bottom of the rubble. Those are cluies that lead to a conclusion: The bottom of the Towers were blown out by a force so robust that it created heat sufficient to melt steel in large qualtities and keep it molten for weeks. And with NO source feeding it.

There has NEVER EVER been any reliable report of any large amounts of combustibles stored in the lower Towers and never has there been any reports of any gas lines feeding the underground area: On the contrary: All utilities were cut immediately after the strikes for just that reason. There was no gas ( it wouldn't burn hot enough anyway)..there was no fuel of any type. A massive explosion and heat that can creat molten steel come from few sources..and the desperate believers in the official lie are reaching very deep into the pit of foolishness to believe that there are any mundane explanations for the molten steel and the explosions.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Pound for pound, aircraft aluminum is tough as it gets, it has a high strength to weight ratio, it’s the same stuff stop signs (at least were I’m from in the U.S.) are made of, had one hanging in my jam room that my friends would mess with, if you ever have a chance to play around with one and see how strong its is you might be amazed
What I saw on 9/11 is what I would expect to see when a jet liner is slammed into a building
If I saw an airliner hit the towers and crumple to the ground, then I would be really amazed, definitely not what I would expect
Those buildings coming down had to do with a lot of factors that have been pointed out; having worked on commercial building as a carpenter I can tell you it’s no mystery to me why they came down
A chain is only as strong as it links, compromise just one and the integrity of the whole structure is jeopardized



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by moonking
Pound for pound, aircraft aluminum is tough as it gets, it has a high strength to weight ratio, it’s the same stuff stop signs (at least were I’m from in the U.S.) are made of, had one hanging in my jam room that my friends would mess with, if you ever have a chance to play around with one and see how strong its is you might be amazed


Gee, so strong but then a small bird can put a hole right through it.

And aiframes are destroyed by just hitting small trees

Large sections wings are sheared off from hitting light poles.

[edit on 24-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Excellent comments, it seems that Aluminum with enough speed behind it can indeed cut steel, however as shown from that picture of a zero going into the ship hull, it looks like the wings didn't make it in.

So basically since the full force of the speed is applied to the nose/front of the plane at impact, the kinetic energy would begin to drop on impact by the time the wings hit, it would have been reduced in theory. This also applies to the pentagon too.

So yes the nose & body pentrates and cuts, but how do the wings do it to?


You have the concept down quite well. Considering a given amount of mass, an object with a smaller profile will penetrate a solid body better than something with a large profile - think of poking a pencil through a sheet of paper versus trying to push your fist through the same paper.

It all comes down to the pressure exerted over an area and if it is more than - in this case, shear strength. This is why bullets can penetrate steel in some cases, blunt hunting arrows can drive through 3/4" plywood, etc. The have a small surface area in section, but have a lot of momentum which produces insane pressures when they strike an object, which will cut anything like a hot knife in butter.

This is also the same principle of how steel is cut using shaped charges - they direct a pressure wave to a small area (in the millions of pound/inch) and it breaks the grain structure of the steel.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ben91069
.The have a small surface area in section, but have a lot of momentum which produces insane pressures when they strike an object, which will cut anything like a hot knife in butter.


But the 767 is not a small surface area. And if you add the wings you have a very large surface area.

Sort of like your comparison of pushing your fist through a piece of paper.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join