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.

 

Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


You can use big words to describe the MIT paper's model wing...the one they used to dupe the simple folk into believing it could cut steel.

Or would you rather I do the work again?




posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 

Are you still pushing a missile theory for the damage to the WTC's? Is this because you can't believe aluminum alloy can break steel beams or because you want a missile and must claim that it is impossible for the wings to break columns?
As to the paper, do what you wish. Rebut the mathematics, show your own model and publish it. This won't require anything but a pencil and paper. You don't need red paint samples from Jones to do it.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Man, I wish for once you [snip] OSers wouldn't slither away from a direct question.

You laid your silly paper on me as proof that wings can snap steel columns, not the other way around. I took it, and I shredded it. You have nothing, as evidenced by your lame reply.

I guess I will have to do the work again. Please, PLEASE directly answer ANY of the direct questions below.

Behold from earlier in this thread:




The main structural part of the wing is the spar – a continuous beam that extends from one tip of the wing to the other. For modeling purposes, we assumed that the mass of the wings (excluding engine) was approximately 21300kg wing M . This mass does not include the mass of the fuel in the wing tanks. Assuming that this mass is now uniformly distributed over the whole wing span and the wing is modeled as a thin-walled square section cross section ...the equivalent thickness becomes 34.5mm.
So the wing mass, most of which is between the engine and the fuselage has now been equally distributed to the whole wing. All of the material used for support is now used to create a 34.5 mm thick wing-shaped box of aluminum for the sake of their model. Is this an accurate and fair representation to begin this test with?

The wings are swept at approximately 35o so that upon impact, external columns are contacted sequentially, one by one. However, the problem of a hollow beam striking another hollow column at a right angle and a speed of 240 m/s has not been analyzed in the literature. Therefore it is not possible, at this point in time, to give any detailed account on this interaction, between the wings and outer column, with a higher degree of accuracy than our approximate engineering analysis.
Even with making a wing into an aluminum machete, they don’t quite have enough modeling power to give a detailed account on this interaction? Why do they talk about their aluminum machete wing striking the columns at right angles? Wouldn’t a swept wing contact the corner of the column first, and isn’t the corner of the column the sturdiest part? With the wing striking the corner like that, would not the corner act like a more massive knife than even the massive machete-wing? Is this why they chose not to press this argument, settling instead with their lame approximated "engineering analysis"?

The equivalent thickness of the hollow wing beam is approximately four times larger than the thickness of the exterior columns, 9.5mm ext t . It is therefore reasonable to treat wings as rigid bodies upon impact with exterior columns.
They made a wing four times the thickness of the beam of a skyscraper...how is this reasonable?

In actuality the wings are constructed as a 3-dimensional lattice of open section beams, ribs and sheet metal skin that maybe of comparable strength to the floor trusses. However, interaction between two 3-dimensional space frames impacting each other is too difficult to carry out analytically at the present level of approximation.
First they make a machete-wing, and then they want it to be a 3 dimensional lattice work as strong as the floor trusses. How many trusses are they using for this estimate? It’s too difficult to carry out analytically at the present level of approximation? Is that a fancy way of admitting they’re talking out their bung holes?



Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


edit on 28/3/11 by argentus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


As to the paper, do what you wish. Rebut the mathematics, show your own model and publish it. This won't require anything but a pencil and paper. You don't need red paint samples from Jones to do it.


Are you still pushing that red paint blew up the WTC?
So, are you implying that thermite cannot cut through steel?


edit on 25-3-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 




I have said before that it is not my paper and is a model. The model is simplified to make calculation easier and the caveat in the paper explains some of the assumptions "This article was completed prior to the public release of the FEMA/ASCE report, therefore only the generally accessible information from the media and literature were used in the analysis."
For the wing, the mass of the engines and the fuel in the wing tanks is not considered, making the wing lighter and less likely to penetrate the building. The mass is also assumed to be equally distributed across the wing which makes it much easier to model. Given the dimensions and mass of the wings, they can be calculated to be equivalent to a piece of solid aluminum about 34mm thick. On the upper floors, the external columns were box members made from 6.5mm steel. If, as you claim, aluminum cannot penetrate steel, that should be no problem. What the model shows is happening is that the steel and aluminum are mutually destroying one another and the building runs out of external column before the plane runs out of aluminum. The thing that is most difficult to penetrate are the floors and as they roll up they spread the force of collision over a larger area causing more bending of the core columns than shearing.
The bottom line of the paper is that less than 8% of the energy of the plane is used in breaking the perimeter columns. Even if the estimates were off by a factor of ten, the columns would still break and those were modeled at 9.5 mm thickness rather than 6.5mm.

If you still pushing your missile theory are there planes plus missiles or only missiles
edit on 28/3/11 by argentus because: removed huge quote, inserted "reply to"



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Are you still pushing that red paint blew up the WTC?
So, are you implying that thermite cannot cut through steel?

Red paint was what Jones found and it had nothing to do with the collapse. Thermite can cut through steel and I did not imply that it couldn't.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Red paint was what Jones found and it had nothing to do with the collapse.


Are you saying that is all Jones found was just red paint, because if you are then you would be lying.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine
 


Red paint was what Jones found and it had nothing to do with the collapse.


Are you saying that is all Jones found was just red paint, because if you are then you would be lying.

Harrit et al. can conclude all they want, the actual evidence speaks for itself. It's red paint.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Red paint was what Jones found


Proof?

You've already been shown tons of data from analysis to indicate it isn't paint. Someone even posted a nice video for you going down the list. You just chose to ignore all that.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

I have said before that it is not my paper and is a model.


Then why offer this [snip] paper as proof? And why offer the above [snip] reply? Good grief, have you no shame?




The model is simplified to make calculation easier and the caveat in the paper explains some of the assumptions "This article was completed prior to the public release of the FEMA/ASCE report, therefore only the generally accessible information from the media and literature were used in the analysis."


Simplified? We went to war over this [snip]

If we took away all your "caveats" what do we have? More excuses wrapped in confusing sentences? Tell me, do you believe your own tripe or are you just paid to make it look purdy?




For the wing, the mass of the engines and the fuel in the wing tanks is not considered, making the wing lighter and less likely to penetrate the building. The mass is also assumed to be equally distributed across the wing which makes it much easier to model.


I never was talking about the engines to begin with, nor the fuel; where did you come up with that? Honestly.

THE MASS IS ASSUMED! YES, THERE IT IS! Every little thang you say after the "A" word means you're talking out your "A" ahem. Need we delve into the logic behind the rest of their model, which is clearly designed to explain how a machete wing can slice a steel column? The wing was clearly NOT a machete, and the mass was clearly NOT near the tip, and it was clearly NOT 34mm thick, and the tip of the wing has NOTHING to do with the mass of the engine.

Stop your childish games.




Given the dimensions and mass of the wings, they can be calculated to be equivalent to a piece of solid aluminum about 34mm thick.


The wings are really about 2 mm thick sheet aluminum spread over a skeleton of thicker aluminum. The vast majority of the mass of the wings goes into supporting the engine and the connection to the fuselage. The wing from the engine to the tip represents far less than half the mass used in their models, and even then it's not a knife ten times the thickness of real aircraft skin. Their model is LAUGHABLE. But do check the math.




On the upper floors, the external columns were box members made from 6.5mm steel. If, as you claim, aluminum cannot penetrate steel, that should be no problem. What the model shows is happening is that the steel and aluminum are mutually destroying one another and the building runs out of external column before the plane runs out of aluminum.


Mutually destroying each other? Aluminum vs. Steel? Professor, many pages back you agreed to an equal and opposite reaction relative to the mass and materials comprising the colliding bodies. Laterally reinforced steel wins, every time...fraudulent MIT papers notwithstanding.

The wings are swept back, which explains their reluctance to complete their model. When striking a corner of a column, it was not so much not possible "at this point in time, to give any detailed account on this interaction, between the wings and outer column", but it was more likely they realized even a 34mm thick machete wing would not sever even a single laterally reinforced column when struck on the corner. Look at the columns. When struck from the corner, they're more of a knife than even an imaginary machete wing.






The thing that is most difficult to penetrate are the floors and as they roll up they spread the force of collision over a larger area causing more bending of the core columns than shearing.


The plane would strike a minimum of two floors on just the fuselage. The floors are not the plane's problem. The exterior columns are. Only the engines and landing gear could penetrate that laterally reinforced steel.



If you still pushing your missile theory are there planes plus missiles or only missiles?


My missile theory is a better explanation than your fairy princess airplanes.

edit on 25-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)


Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


edit on 28/3/11 by argentus because: snipped censor circumventions



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

My missile theory is a better explanation than your fairy princess airplanes.


If it is that good a fairy princess missile theory, you should explain it in detail, if you can. Explain how planes impacted the towers and where the missiles came from. Of course aluminum can't break steel. The NAVY just uses those silly aluminum projectiles for show in their railgun and actually uses missiles to destroy the target.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Proof?

You've already been shown tons of data from analysis to indicate it isn't paint. Someone even posted a nice video for you going down the list. You just chose to ignore all that.


Use your scientific skills to explain the thermodynamics of the red chips and why they produce more thermal energy than thermite and any mixture of thermite and high explosives. Explain why they produce this energy in spite of incomplete reaction. Explain why the red chips were not completely reacted in spite of being held within an oven above their reaction temperature. Once you do that, we can get into faulty analytical protocols, invalid conclusions, and generally starting with a desired conclusion and trying to make the data fit said conclusion.

This is all the data that is needed to indicate it isn't thermite.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

If it is that good a fairy princess missile theory, you should explain it in detail, if you can. Explain how planes impacted the towers and where the missiles came from. Of course aluminum can't break steel. The NAVY just uses those silly aluminum projectiles for show in their railgun and actually uses missiles to destroy the target.



You gave me your MIT as an explanation for how aluminum jet wings can cut steel. It failed to do prove that In fact it only proved how tilted they had to make their model to fit their required results. It is a dishonest report and it was dishonest to present it as evidence a jet wing can cut steel. You know a wing cannot, else you would make some grown-up attempt to prove it.



The damage on the corner is visible from multiple angles.



This is your chance to defend your position. Prove how a wing tip can cause the damage, and show me how my explanation for the damage is so off base.

Your boorishness wears thin; if your only reason to suspect a plane is because you saw it on the TeeVee, spit it out already.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
This is your chance to defend your position. Prove how a wing tip can cause the damage, and show me how my explanation for the damage is so off base.

Your boorishness wears thin; if your only reason to suspect a plane is because you saw it on the TeeVee, spit it out already.


I note that you are talking about wing tips now and not just how aluminum can't penetrate steel. There is nothing like a rail gun to demonstrate the physics of high velocity impacts.

Explain your missile theory in detail so I can be amazed at your insight. This would mean what it was, who fired it, and how they did it to prevent anyone from noticing while airliners simultaneously struck the building. Then you can explain how the fireball was executed, as that was several thousand gallons of hydrocarbon vaporizing and deflagratng. Far too much fuel for a cruise missile and far too different from a high explosive detonation.

If you are a no-planer, just come out and say so. Many people on this forum support the no planers because all those faked videos and holograms make so much more sense than high speed aircraft witnessed by thousands and videoed from many angles and by many sources. You may want to talk to Judy Wood as her idea makes a lot more sense than yours.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Interesting story.

Can you describe how an aluminum wing can make the scarring in the wall shown on the images?

This is not a rail gun, not an MIT machete wing, not a special bullet, not a kung-fu video, not a kinetic energy question and not a water cutting steel question either.

This is me watching you squirm.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451
 



If you are claiming the full mass of the airplane, and all of it's interconnected parts, I get to claim the full mass of the building and all of its interconnected parts.


This isn't a board game. The plane, as a unit hit one particular section of the building. Thats how life works. The plane did not hit the whole building. It only challenged those pieces of the building it made contact with. It can't be any simpler than that.


Physics or get out. The part of the building it hit was in suspension by the rest of the building below it. As a result, it challenges the integrity of the entire building.

If you have trouble grasping this concept, visit your local highschool, sit in on their engineering shop class, and watch them build realistic bridges and test how weight and impact is displaced.

A plane hitting WTC would challenge the integrity of the entire building, otherwise the building would have collapsed upon it's own weight before it was ever attacked.

Common sense.....


I think it's fairly obvious that a plane looking object hit the building. Nobody really knows if those were the planes that went missing, as there really wasn't anything left of them and the only sources we have are those from the media.

I was born and raised in NYC, and have plenty of friends and family that were at ground zero when this happened. I even knew the captain of Rescue 5, Staten Island FD.

There is no evidence, just media reports. It looked like a plane, but couldn't we put wings on a missile?

I'm not a no planer, but I am in favor of the plane not being able to do that kind of damage. WTC wasn't the first skyscraper to be hit by a plane.... it is the only one that ever collapsed, and it was a building rated higher than buildings that were previously hit by planes.

Not only that, but sheer physics states that jetfeul wouldn't have been able to do it... not to mention, as soon as the plane exploded all the jet fuel was ignited and burned off in the fire ball. There wouldn't be any left to linger and burn for hours. Only things that would be burning are office supplies, which don't take down megalithic buildings.

If it truely was a plane, then there was a catalyst on the beams, if it was a missile designed to look like a plane, than it's anybodies guess as to what kind of explosive it was..... Could of been a nano thermite napalm bomb designed to burn over time.... could just been a mega bomb too....

No way to know for sure, but one thing should be made clear. People cutting on dude for using thermate, instead of thermite, when what they found was remains of nanothemite, which is once again -- considerably more powerful than thermate, which is a step up from thermite already.

Also, thermate isn't designed to cut through steel, it's designed to be a weapon in the form of incindiary grenades, which is the worlds #1 product for the use of thermate.

Cool story on all these people who do their research before they speak.

So many absolutley generic sweeping statements.

Thermate is also just a variation of Thermite, coincidentally, a more powerful variant is known as nanothermite.


edit on 26-3-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


Red paint was what Jones found and it had nothing to do with the collapse.

Are you saying that is all Jones found was just red paint, because if you are then you would be lying.
Harrit et al. can conclude all they want, the actual evidence speaks for itself. It's red paint.


What “actual evidence” are you talking about? You made a blanket statement by parroting your friend pteridine, how about showing your so call “actual evidence” that all Harrit found was red paint. Please demonstrate this by showing this evidence in Jones’ Journal? I double dog dare you, as G.O.D would say.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine
 


Red paint was what Jones found and it had nothing to do with the collapse.


Are you saying that is all Jones found was just red paint, because if you are then you would be lying.




Jones found a substance that produces MORE heat energy than any flavor of thermite can. Conclusion: Not thermite.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin
Thermate is also just a variation of Thermite, coincidentally, a more powerful variant is known as nanothermite.


Actually, a little correction here. Nano-thermite technically doesn't exist. It was a term coined by the same fellow who thought he found it. He burned the dust he found and then claimed that it exhibited extremely volatile characteristics, then claiming that it was a super version of thermite made of nano-particles of aluminum and rust (even though those would have obviously been a part of the dust from the WTC, considering that there was a great deal of aluminum and rust in the building.)

Nano-thermite is supposedly a super secret government thermite, so no one has proved that it exists or even what it is capable of. Simply by making the claim, it is completely untestable, meaning that there is no scientific method of replicating the results he got, especially since the one person that tried could only find paint and couldn't get it to combust anything like Jones was claiming. That person was just called a liar lol
edit on 26-3-2011 by Varemia because: added a name



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin
I think it's fairly obvious that a plane looking object hit the building. Nobody really knows if those were the planes that went missing, as there really wasn't anything left of them and the only sources we have are those from the media.


And the FAA, ATF, FBI, NYPD, etc.......


Originally posted by Laokin

I was born and raised in NYC, and have plenty of friends and family that were at ground zero when this happened. I even knew the captain of Rescue 5, Staten Island FD.


Wonderful for you.


Originally posted by Laokin
There is no evidence, just media reports. It looked like a plane, but couldn't we put wings on a missile?


And make it look like a 767? Sure....but why would you?


Originally posted by Laokin
I'm not a no planer, but I am in favor of the plane not being able to do that kind of damage. WTC wasn't the first skyscraper to be hit by a plane.... it is the only one that ever collapsed, and it was a building rated higher than buildings that were previously hit by planes.


Correct, in a sense. Yes, it was the first building to collapse after a plane crashed into it. However, it was also the first building to ever be hit by a speeding jetliner, causing massive damage, and intense, multi-floor fires, that went unfought from impact, to collapse. So, yes, that is correct.

But, what I am curious about is the "a building rated higher than buildings that were previously hit". Can you expand on this a little?



Originally posted by Laokin
Not only that, but sheer physics states that jetfeul wouldn't have been able to do it...


Correct. Jetfuel was the ignition source for tons and tons of office material, which can and will burn very hot. Say, upwards of 2000 deg. F. It was not just the jet fuel.


Originally posted by Laokin
not to mention, as soon as the plane exploded all the jet fuel was ignited and burned off in the fire ball.


Well, we know that a large portion of it did. However, even if 500 gallons of the fuel was laft to burn, this would cause massive fires elsewhere.


Originally posted by Laokin
There wouldn't be any left to linger and burn for hours. Only things that would be burning are office supplies, which don't take down megalithic buildings.


Sorry to nitpick, but megalithic would be a stone statue, or a building that uses large stone and bricks and mortor for it's construction. This is not what the WTC was.

And yes, an "office fire" is absolutely capable of causing steel to fail. Ask the Charleston FD about steel failing in fires. They can tell you all about it.



Originally posted by Laokin
If it truely was a plane, then there was a catalyst on the beams, if it was a missile designed to look like a plane, than it's anybodies guess as to what kind of explosive it was..... Could of been a nano thermite napalm bomb designed to burn over time.... could just been a mega bomb too....


nano-thermite doesn't do "over time". Sorry, but it's like asking c-4 to slowly explode. It doesn't work. Thermite is used because of it's fast reaction time, but still remains sub-sonic.

Meaning, not an explosive.



Originally posted by Laokin
No way to know for sure, but one thing should be made clear. People cutting on dude for using thermate, instead of thermite, when what they found was remains of nanothemite, which is once again -- considerably more powerful than thermate, which is a step up from thermite already.


And yet, Jones et al.'s own data show that it produces more heat energy than any flavor of thermite is capable of.



Originally posted by Laokin
Also, thermate isn't designed to cut through steel, it's designed to be a weapon in the form of incindiary grenades, which is the worlds #1 product for the use of thermate.


What this has to do with the price of tea in China, I have no idea.


Originally posted by Laokin
Cool story on all these people who do their research before they speak.


Pot......kettle.......


Originally posted by Laokin
So many absolutley generic sweeping statements.

Thermate is also just a variation of Thermite, coincidentally, a more powerful variant is known as nanothermite.


Correct. However, the heat energy in nano-thermite is less than thermate, and thermite. Because it's reaction is quicker, it produces less heat energy.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join