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.

 

Steel vs. Aluminum

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 


No I'm suggesting that the force of impact would leave some damage. And that damage could be determined via math.

Doesn't matter what the building is made of. There would be damage.




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by itisortofthetruth
 


The only steel in the building was the core, all the external walls and window frames were aluminium.

What videos show the nose of the plane coming out the other side of the tower?


God, this is disgusting. The perimeter columns supported 47% of the buildings weight. From the 9th floor to the top they consisted of 27,000 tons of steel. You can even find the company that made the perimeter wall panels, what Judy Wood calls "wheatchex" in the NIST report. They were covered with aluminum cladding.

This is part of why this crap goes on and on and on. People don't check stuff worth a damn.

psik



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastermindkar
as ATS user Bonez used to point out frequently,

Here I am!


I see a few items that I think I can clear up.



Originally posted by itisortofthetruth
How did an all aluminum plane penetrate a steel beamed building?

The planes didn't penetrate the buildings, they penetrated the bolts and welds holding the outer steel columns together, nothing more, nothing less. Bolts and welds are no match for a jetliner traveling circa 500mph.



Originally posted by itisortofthetruth
there should of been a little pancaking of the plane occurring before entering the tower

I never knew that bolts and welds could be so strong so as to cause a plane to "pancake" in someone's world. In this world, that would likely never happen. Bolts and welds offer almost zero resistance against a fast-moving jetliner.



Originally posted by itisortofthetruth
Another point I want to address was the fact that in one of the many videos the nose of the plane can be seen coming out the other side of the tower in perfect condition.

This is completely false and, in fact, disinformation brought to you by the disinformation artists who created the "September Clues" disinformation videos.

Let's take a look at the tower where the alleged nose could/would have came out:





As you can see, there's no exit hole, and as such, no nose came out of that tower. In fact, the towers were so strong and assembled so well, that very few aircraft parts actually exited the towers. Some parts, like the strongest parts of a jetliner like the landing gear, engines and seats, did manage to exit as those are the strongest parts with the most weight and mass.



Originally posted by Observer99
But the "nose of the plane coming out" was due to obvious video fakery.

I hope you're not turning this into a no-planer thread as those threads end up in the HOAX bin. The no-planer, tv fakery garbage is proven disinformation and a deliberately made-up HOAX.



Originally posted by Chadwickus
The only steel in the building was the core, all the external walls and window frames were aluminium.

Wow, Chad. I'm very disappointed in your statement. The perimeter columns were steel box columns welded together by spandral plates in sections of 3x3 and then bolted together on the tower. The only aluminum was the cladding (siding). They don't build skyscrapers out of aluminum.




Originally posted by Observer99
The flashes are interesting. They could easily be arcing from static electricity. Metal plane, metal building

The flashes were the pure oxygen tanks igniting. ATS member Weedwhacker posted a schematic of the 767 and you can see where the pure oxygen container is and it's in the exact location of the flash of the second plane.

Furthermore, aluminum doesn't attract static electricity like steel.



Originally posted by turbofan
I've always wondered how the wings cut through the steel, and concrete floors.

The wings didn't cut through the steel. Look at the close-up pictures of the holes. You won't find any severed columns. The wings only had to break the welds and bolts which is easy enough.



Originally posted by turbofan
Think of the floor having a steel pan, trusses and a layer of concrete.

The trusses were very light-weight and not much to them:




The concrete was a very light-weight mix (aggregate). When people think of concrete, they think of roads or other hard, thick concrete objects. The concrete in the towers had to be light for weight purposes. Thinking of roads being hard, thick concrete, the concrete on the floors in the towers was not so hard and not so thick. There are different thicknesses and/or concentrations of concrete that can be used for many different purposes.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Airplane slices through a steel building like a hot knife through butter and not a single spark or impact to be seen. Amazing what you can do with fake superimposed video, huh? Well, not that amazing, since these were awful special effects, as evidenced by the nose out screw up. Looks like somebody forgot to put the brakes on that runaway cartoon airplane.


A reduced scale model of the towers and the airplane can be built reenacting the crash and not in a million years will the airplane enter the building as cleanly as it did in that CGI video. Of course, this simulation will never be done, since it will blow everything about the Official Fairy Tale out of the water.

The fake video theory is fiercely and religiously shot down by dubunkers and controlled fake truthers because it is the one piece to the puzzle which exposes 911 for the complete farce that it was.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   


The video producer took a still frame of the explosion/dust plume blasting out a window that resembled the nose of the plane and cooked up a fantasy.

I know the "live" news coverage was absolutely crap, but a dust plume resembling the nose of an airplane? C'mon, you can do better than that. And you talk about other people's imaginations.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The planes didn't penetrate the buildings, they penetrated the bolts and welds holding the outer steel columns together, nothing more, nothing less. Bolts and welds are no match for a jetliner traveling circa 500mph.


The perimeter wall panels were 36 feet tall. There were 19 panels across each side of the building and they were staggered. So only 1/3rd of the panels had joints on any given floor.

So that plane had to have broken steel beams. That is one of the curious phenomenon.

psik



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So only 1/3rd of the panels had joints on any given floor.

They weren't joints. The panels were bolted together:







But that doesn't matter because, as I have already stated, the panels themselves were welded together by spandral plates:





So the assembly was staggered so that the bolts were not all in the same place, but all of the welds holding the columns together were aplenty. Thus brings me back to the planes breaking the bolts and welds and easily penetrating the perimeter columns with almost zero resistance.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 

You're deliberately perpetuating known disinformation and hoaxes. The no-plane threads are in the HOAX forum for a reason. And that is: nobody's entertaining the CGI/tv fakery/no-planes disinfo anymore, including ATS.

You really have no idea how ridiculous you look typing that garbage out, do you? Truly sad....



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by itisortofthetruth
How did an all aluminum plane penetrate a steel beamed building? According to the Rockwell Hardness Test aluminum places far lower than steel.

Also, here are some basic comparisons between the two Basic Facts

I am just wanting to know how such a basic thing as density and hardness was thrown out the window that day. At best, with the speed factor thrown in there should of been a little pancaking of the plane occurring before entering the tower, but, it was like a knife on butter.

Another point I want to address was the fact that in one of the many videos the nose of the plane can be seen coming out the other side of the tower in perfect condition. All the words I can find for that is, ....what...just...how?

Discuss on, my friends. The truth is what you make it.


Next we will have links to pictures showing bird damage to aircraft which will actually PROVE that a softer object can cause damage to a harder object due to its MASS and velocity lots of KINETIC ENERGY look it up or learn some physics!

The resolution of those videos are so poor its debatable what you can actually see!

Read up on the Empire State building crash a smaller lighter plane crashed into that and an engine went right through the building and out the other side, the other ended up in a lift shaft!


edit on 20-6-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Here are some more great hits from 1945 aka Kamikazes against US Navy ships

USS Hinsdale (APA 120)



USS Sterret (DD 407)

www.navsource.org...

Lightweight ALUMINIUM Japanese aircraft penetrating steel hull ships

So much for aluminium aircraft not penetrating steel ships

Off Okinawa Japanese aircraft - some of them wood/fabric trainers and obsolete aircraft sank 30 Us ships and
damaged 300 more.......



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So only 1/3rd of the panels had joints on any given floor.

They weren't joints. The panels were bolted together:

But that doesn't matter because, as I have already stated, the panels themselves were welded together by spandral plates: So the assembly was staggered so that the bolts were not all in the same place, but all of the welds holding the columns together were aplenty. Thus brings me back to the planes breaking the bolts and welds and easily penetrating the perimeter columns with almost zero resistance.


The ends being bolted together are a joint.

The columns were welded to the spandrels but those spandrels were up against the edges of the floor slabs. So the planes had to push them into the edges of the floor assemblies. It was not just a matter of hitting columns and spandrels. The fuselage had a 17 foot radius and the floors were 12 feet apart.

psik



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The fuselage had a 17 foot radius and the floors were 12 feet apart.

psik


Sorry, that is wrong. It is supposed to be 17 foot diameter.

psik



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itisortofthetruth
 




I need to inform you that the nose in/nose out video was a creation made to fool the people into believing in a lie that there were no planes. The creator took 5 frames of the plane going in and the 3 frames of something coming out, picked the two that were the closest in shape, then use Anti Aliasing to round them and make them appear to be the same. In truth, what came out wasn't the same at all.






Any more nonsense you would like logical people to straighten out for you?



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: _BoneZ_

I would like to correct a misconception. The welds did not break. Welded joints are always stronger than the steel itself. Weak welded joints would have defeated the purpose of constructing the tower with offset sections. The idea was to utilize the bolts as lines of perforated weakness. The lines did not line up horizontally. They worked with the rectangular beams which, by nature, resist torsion - twisting caused by torque. This kept most of the energy from being transmitted through the beams (I and H-beams will twist in comparison). Instead, the shock of the collision was transmitted along a perforation of bolt patterns which focused the energy in a vertical direction straight up and down as well as diagonal (following the bolt pattern).



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
i think the more appropriate question should be:

how does a plane whose wings are designed to disengage on any impact crash through a building with wings intact?



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: plaguewolf




how does a plane whose wings are designed to disengage on any impact crash through a building with wings intact?

Care to show any proof of that?

Have you all forgotten history?
The Egyptians use copper tools to cut the stones for their monuments.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
In think some on here should look at the simple fact that when you see video running at 29 fps, YOU will NOT SEE the interaction of the aircraft with the building.

When engineers look at high speed impacts they have cameras that run at 1000's up to MILLIONS of frames per second.

Also some need to brush up on their observational skills here is a BIG clue look at the shape of the hole left by the aircraft and then look at how the column trees of the structure were built & bolted together, YOU will then see that the BOLTS failed at the joints so the steel did not get cut by the wings or body of the plane.

That's why people that DON'T understand the design or construction of the Towers get sucked in by BS conspiracies.




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join