How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

This is two frames from mythbusters...the snowplow....they shoot a rocket propelled steel sled...at 500mph to see if it will slice a car in half...well guess what....it did...but the interesting part is the steel survives...even cutting through the engine block......

so why would the steel in the towers be any different.....this is newtons laws in action......The steel columns would not just shear.....especially after loss of energy of passing through the exterior columns.



and then we have the steel after the concrete block impact the upper part surviving....



video can be seen here.....

youtu.be...

6. What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors

NIST

double post

Originally posted by Bilk22

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.

The tips of the wings sliced only through the aluminum cladding, not through the columns. You can see this in the impact hole:

reply to post by plube


The aircraft did not slice through the columns

It snapped off the welded spandrels plates connecting the columns together and sheared the bolts which
joined sections

The plane then pushed the broken sections out of the way

Here is column section lying in street

The plane then pushed the broken sections out of the way

reply to post by thedman

How do you know those sections are from the impact point?

reply to post by samkent


If you look close can part of aircraft landing gear, ie aircraft tire, embedded in section

Two - area. Can see St Nicholas Orthodox Church in background of pictures. This part of street (Cedar &
West) was buried by collapse of South Tower. St Nicholas being crushed by the debris

This lies south of Tower 1 (North Tower) - debris from the impact landing here as AA11 struck North face of
Tower 1 (North Tower) the debris exited from south side of Tower one to land here

Time frame is from first impact at 8:47 am to collapse of South Tower at 9:59 am

OK so where are those portions of the wings? Why didn't they fall to the ground? Why didn't the tail section fall to the ground? It clearly would have directly impacted horizontal floor sections. I know it was traveling at 500mph.

Originally posted by lunarasparagus

Originally posted by Bilk22

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.

The tips of the wings sliced only through the aluminum cladding, not through the columns. You can see this in the impact hole:

reply to post by thedman


why show the external columns...Interesting....but not what NIST says....they use the term SEVERED...and they show it on their layouts....the interior columns circled in RED...wow you sure do try to baffle with BS.

Now the exterior columns carry 40% of load where the interior columns carry 60% of load....now NIST stated NINE severed interior columns...and then students of Purdue come up with some sort of ...none the less laughable animation...then showing compartmentalized fuel animation...but heck the tanks were not full...so yet more fails...they also discounted NIST with their animation saying...52 coulmns were damaged....no worries though...you keep up the good work Thedman.....as it seems you will just believe anything the OS throws out there...even when they contradict each others work....so maybe you could tell me which one i should believe so that i can then discount the other one....LMAO.



Aslo pleaese inform me of the length of the Core columns....because you will find something intersting.....they did not join on each floor now did they...OH did you forget to mention that bit....yup you did....

you see how easy it is to just leave things out....now If as your so proud to show that pic of the landing gear....what does it mean....does it mean that the only real debris to go past the exterior columns would have been substantially reduced in mass....and also would have lost a great deal of momentum.....think hard about this...because it might cause a disturbance in the force.

Just a note on your photos...do you see what side the landing gear is embedded on.....please come back and tell me you logical conclusions for this....why Is it on the inside ...what does it say...that the gear went through the exterior columns...from aircraft impact side....therough the core ....as you can see from the Nist paper...then embedded on the interior side of the column....ask yourself....does it make sense to you....remembering the landing is tucked up in the planes belly....so that means the nose of the plane went throught the toewer ...exited on the other side .....going out far enough to carry the gear through with it....and then embedded into the column...yup perfect sense.....Or did the gear fall with the tower....and happens to have landed on the piece of column on the ground where it lays....I don't know meself...but i would ask these questions.

So point being...ONE cannot make any assumption of where that section of exterior column came from.

Originally posted by plube
...so maybe you could tell me which one i should believe so that i can then discount the other one....LMAO.

Could you tell us what Truthers we should believe so we can discount the other ones.

reply to post by waypastvne


Once again you dodge the facts by throwing it back without even bothering to answer a question....well done yet again Way.....are you still enjoying trying to annoy truthers....

That is afterall what you stated....you said you were only here to wind up truthers.....I guess it still hasn't worked for you, because we are still here even after 11yrs.

Originally posted by plube
.I guess it still hasn't worked for you, because we are still here even after 11yrs.

Don't go any where, I'm still having fun. So which Truthers should we discount ? The Jew World Order Truthers, The No Planers, The Pull Its, The Hole Too Smallers, The Free Fallers ?

High velocity light, hollow ping pong ball penetrates hard plywood paddle and leaves "Wile E. Coyote cut-out". And no ping pong ball parts, seats, or luggage fall to the ground:

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - A Purdue University mechanical engineering technology professor has built a new air-powered bazooka that shoots pingpong balls at speeds faster than an F-16 fighter jet, blowing the doors off similar far less powerful devices peers use to explain physics properties.

Mark French drew on his experience as an aeronautical engineer for the U. S. Air Force to create a device that blasts balls clean through plywood or aluminum and deeply dents steel. Online video of the bazooka destroying pingpong paddles, VHS tapes and a series of soda pop cans has generated more than a half million views.

Previous devices propelled balls by popping the seal on a vacuum tube. French had his doctoral students Craig Zehrung and Jim Stratton create a pressure chamber connected to the vacuum tube via a convergent-divergent nozzle.

"That hourglass-shaped nozzle is similar to what is used in fighter jets," French said. "When the pressurized air rushes through the bottleneck it accelerates to supersonic speed as it helps propel the ball through the clear PVC barrel."

French says the supersonic speeds are surprising because the lightweight balls have such poor aerodynamics and high-drag coefficient. At a mere 2.3 grams, the balls deliver a startling amount of energy to targets - the equivalent of a 125 mph fastball or a brick falling several stories.

"There is not enough money you could give me to get me to step in front of that gun," French said.

French uses the gun as an educational device for his students in the College of Technology and as an outreach tool during demonstrations for a wide variety of schoolchildren.

Writer: Jim Schenke, 765-237-7296, [email protected]

Source: Mark French, [email protected]

VIDEO: youtu.be...

Oh man this old thread, still the question remains was the aluminum going fast enough when it hit the steel, and even if it was, the first column would have slow it down so much that it wouldn't have been able to do the second.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Oh man this old thread, still the question remains was the aluminum going fast enough when it hit the steel, and even if it was, the first column would have slow it down so much that it wouldn't have been able to do the second.

Well you see you highlight nicely the problem with this sort of threads - right there, you are making a whole lot of assumptions. That doesn't really shed light on anything at all. You just ASSUME that "the first column would have slow it down so much". You don't have any further argument. As such this post if pretty useless.

reply to post by lunarasparagus


Thank you for posting this excellent video presentation. It's just cool. Fast going objects can do a lot of damage. Just wanted to add (I think I might have mentioned this before) that the speed of the airplanes that hit the towers was in the same range as the bullet fired from a small revolver. Yes I mean a puny gun, but a gun nevertheless. I think I also calculated the kinetic energy contained therein, and it was an equivalent of a warhead charge of some cruise missiles.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Kinetic energy slows from the first time it hits resistance, this is basic and thus my point.
And an aluminum wing that has the velocity through kinetic energy to slice through 1 giant steel I beam would have slowed considerably and perhaps snapped of by the time it met the second. Secondly perhaps the aluminum wings does have the ability to cut steel. But the energy exerted at the plane body where the wings attached to the plane would have been tremendous, it is a given that at some point the wings snapped off, as the body of the plane attacting like a missile went deeper into the structure.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Kinetic energy slows from the first time it hits resistance, this is basic and thus my point.

Kinetic energy is a quantity and not an object, hence it cannot slow down and your "basic point" is moot.

And an aluminum wing that has the velocity through kinetic energy

An object does not have "velocity through energy". Strike two.

to slice through 1 giant steel I beam would have slowed considerably and perhaps snapped of by the time
it met the second.

You don't have any means to substantiate that. Strike three. Out.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Ok do the semantics dance, other posters know exactly what I am saying.
I am dealing will logical physics and you are playing games with words and baseball, you just fouled out.

Good day to you, sir, I will not play your game.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Ok do the semantics dance

Translation: "I can't get my semantics right. I don't know how to express whatever I might or might not think."

I am dealing will logical physics

I am a physicist. You don't know the subject, what a shame.

Your not dealing with logic or physics except in your head not the real world. You need to go to Physics 101

Do you know they use copper in armor percig shells

AHHHHHH!!!