How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

page: 91
10
<< 88  89  90   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I can shoot a lead and copper projectile through solid steel. Lead and copper are far softer than steel.

I can burn through aluminum with a bic lighter. Even though the temperature a bic lighter reaches is not close enough to melt, let alone burn aluminum, I can burn though an aluminum can, and aluminum foil with nothing but a bic lighter.

I can also vaporize gold with a bic lighter.

I just recently had a grease (bacon fat) fire on top of my stove. It burned through the steel base of the element/stove.

You can NOT use figures like "metal x is stronger than metal y, therefore metal y cannot cut metal x" or figures like "material x only burns/metals at temperature y, therefore you cannot burn/melt material x with a fire reaching temperature y"

These are the exact figures used by 911 truthers to show 911 didn't happen. But sadly for them, those figures are general figures for industrial uses. Not absolute figures for the tolerance of metals to heat and other forces.

The same fuel burning in a different manner also influences heat. A forge that uses air forced into it gets very very hot, from the same fuel as a normal fire, that's much cooler. Temperatures inside the towers likely reached far higher temps than the normal "flash point" of the material being burned.

As heat rises inside the towers, cool air is sucked in through the bottom of the tower. As it rises it feeds the fires with dense fresh air. This process can speed up to the point where it naturally acts much like a forge and gets far hotter than it "normally" would.

I know you didn't mention anything about the temperatures and fires, but I am using that as an example of how the figures used to show something "could not have happened" actually show nothing of the sort.

Just because the "shell" of the tower was made of steel, does not mean at all that a projectile (the aircraft) that is less dense and softer couldn't easily punch through it.

You are thinking wrong if you think that's how this stuff works. Explain how a soft bullet can punch through far harder materials. You have to look at how stuff interacts in the real world, not how it should theoretically interact in your mind, based on incomplete information and knowledge.

I mean, you really think a plane flying at hundreds of MPH is just going to bounce off the side of the building? Come on...
edit on 28-2-2013 by James1982 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


A star to you. Just on the previous page, there was a video of a ping-pong ball shooting through a very solid plywood paddle. Just like you said, interaction of objects depends on many factors, rather than on a set of static parameters. You can swirl water in a glass, with you finger, and won't feel much of a resistance, but then try a belly flop in the swimming pool. Ouch.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
A star to you. Just on the previous page, there was a video of a ping-pong ball shooting through a very solid plywood paddle. Just like you said, interaction of objects depends on many factors, rather than on a set of static parameters. You can swirl water in a glass, with you finger, and won't feel much of a resistance, but then try a belly flop in the swimming pool. Ouch.


exactly.


this thread has always amused me to an extent, mostly due to the apparent lack of consideration given to the 'kinetic properties' of that involved.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by James1982
 


A star to you. Just on the previous page, there was a video of a ping-pong ball shooting through a very solid plywood paddle. Just like you said, interaction of objects depends on many factors, rather than on a set of static parameters. You can swirl water in a glass, with you finger, and won't feel much of a resistance, but then try a belly flop in the swimming pool. Ouch.


Another perfect example.

Someone could say "There is no possible way water can damage you, I have punched the surface of the water in a swimming pool before and didn't break my hand" And in the minds of some people, that instantly means that water cannot damage you, which we know is false.

These are the only types of arguments I've ever seen in regards to how 911 "could not have happend" the way they said it did. Taking some anecdotal information, and applying it to a situation that doesn't have anything to do with it, thinking it proves something. It does prove something, that some people don't really think things out. Whether they are purposefully misleading people, or are simply ignorant, there's no excuse, especially when issues as serious as governments attacking their own people are concerned.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I see rubber cut steel all the time. It is even lubricated rubber. In the scenario you are talking about, in simple terms i would say mass and momentum.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   
The point about softer bullets is well taken, but remember the kinetic force is also stronger as well
A bullet traveling at 2000 FPS is traveling 1467.81 MPH. The plane that hit the WTC was going how fast ?
And does not the maximum velocity of planes slow down as they descend to 2000-3000ft?



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 




And does not the maximum velocity of planes slow down as they descend to 2000-3000ft?

The maximum "Safe" velocity does. I suspect Boeing is concerned about damage to the control surfaces.
But They were not concerned about using the planes the next day.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
The point about softer bullets is well taken, but remember the kinetic force is also stronger as well
A bullet traveling at 2000 FPS is traveling 1467.81 MPH. The plane that hit the WTC was going how fast ?
And does not the maximum velocity of planes slow down as they descend to 2000-3000ft?


And this means what? That a large plane travelling at 300+ mph hitting a building WON'T cut through concrete and steel? Do you know the GRADE of aluminum used in making planes....it is not like an aluminum can.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
The point about softer bullets is well taken, but remember the kinetic force is also stronger as well
A bullet traveling at 2000 FPS is traveling 1467.81 MPH. The plane that hit the WTC was going how fast ?
And does not the maximum velocity of planes slow down as they descend to 2000-3000ft?


It's true that the WTC planes were not travelling at the speed of a high velocity bullet but you have to take note of their hugely greater mass when looking at the energy of the collision.

Just as a matter of interest I have tried to work out the kinetic energy of the collision of UA 175. Please work it out yourself and point out where I am wrong .

The formula for arriving at an energy figure in joules is 1/2 X Mass X speed2.

The mass of UA 175 at impact, including 10,000 US gallons of fuel, is estimated to be 150,000 kilograms and the estimated speed 590 mph or 263 metres per second.

According to the formula therefore we have 1/2 mass = 75000 times the speed squared =69169. I make 75000 X 69169 = 5,187,675,000 joules..

To put that in some sort of context, the detonation of a stick of dynamite produces 2,100,000 joules. So the impact of UA 175, even ignoring the fuel, was approximately equal to 2470 sticks of dynamite. Clearly a tremendous blow.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


Just to correct you on one point..


As heat rises inside the towers, cool air is sucked in through the bottom of the tower. As it rises it feeds the fires with dense fresh air. This process can speed up to the point where it naturally acts much like a forge and gets far hotter than it "normally" would.

The towers were built so that this specifically could not occur. Any "chimney" effect was impossible.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



As I wrote earlier, I did the same kind of math myself and the kinetic energy carried by the plane turned out to be close to the energy released during detonation of a warhead of a typical cruise missile. That's probably hard for some people to soak in, but the planes were effectively hugely destructive missiles.

In addition to "cutting" the steel, it is extremely likely that the point of impact became quite hot just for the reason that the kinetic energy was expended. The exact points where the aluminum was hitting steel were probably extremely hot just for that reason. I mean try to drill a piece of sheetrock for a few seconds and then touch the bit. Now imagine the process is compressed to a millisecond. In addition to steel effectively melting at the point of impact, there was likely huge mechanical stress in the steel beams because the heating and resulting expansion happened to so quickly and was so localized. I used to have friends who spent years modeling thermal stress in a variety of materials, the application being tank armor, which can actually crack upon sudden heating due to the effects mentioned above. Obviously this is real and this is important. Again I understand that's hard to get for somebody without good knowledge of physics and material science.
edit on 1-3-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
The point about softer bullets is well taken, but remember the kinetic force is also stronger as well


There is no such thing as "kinetic force". It sounds the same as "serendipitous bloviating".




And does not the maximum velocity of planes slow down as they descend to 2000-3000ft?


The velocity is a number. Numbers do not slow down. You can't pitch two pounds of color green. Magnetic field is not Belgian. But I think you might have a borderline case of dyslexia.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
My point is simply that planes can fly faster at maximum thrust at 40,000 ft than they can at 3000 ft.

That being said the point about the kinetics & WTC is well taken.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
My point is simply that planes can fly faster at maximum thrust at 40,000 ft than they can at 3000 ft.


You are 100% right. And in fact, the planes that hit the towers were flying well beyond their normal operating limits -- the suicide pilots applied full throttle or close to it. There was a fair chance that the planes would disintegrate because of the excess stress on the airframe. Could have happened. And so the planes were still going very, very fast. You can look up the actual numbers if you wish, I did it a while ago. Don't have the link now.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 88  89  90   >>

log in

join