How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

System threw a doohicky on me. Double post. Please remove.

[edit on 6/1207/07 by neformore]

Originally posted by neformore
Now I hate to break it to you but thats not "evidence" that a 767 can't punch a hole in the side of a building. Its a bunch of pictures of plane damage.

Not only that, but some of the pictures show aircraft impacts that prove that a sizeable section of airframe survives impacts with objects.

No, its photos showing that an aluminum airframes and wings are fragile enough to have birds put holes in them and when even basic objects are encountered it usually shears the wings off and rips open the airframe. Imagine what steel beams would have done.

The impact of the small plane is just of a small brick building, not a buildng with over 100 steel beams, and even then it was enough to shear the wings from the plane and rip out a good part of nose and airframe section and it was a very slow speed.







[edit on 6-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1



The impact of this small aluminum Japanese Zero was enough to put a hole in the side of the USS Hinsdale.

If steel is so strong, shouldnt the small plane have just crumpled on the side of the ship and slid into the ocean?

[edit on 6-12-2007 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No, its photos showing that an aluminum airframes and wings are fragile enough to have birds put holes in them and when even basic objects are encountered it usually shears the wings off and rips open the airframe. Imagine what steel beams would have done.

How fast was the plane going when the bird hit the wing Ultima?

If you compare the tensile strength of the bird, to the tensile strength of the wing, the wing is harder than the bird.

And yet the bird manages, during a high-speed impact collision, to punch a hole in the wing.

Now, we covered this about 15 pages back, so I'm going to spell it out to you in very simple to understand words.

What your photos of "bird strikes" prove is that a weaker object can do considerable damage to a substantially stronger one. In essence you are arguing against yourself, and proving us right

So, I ask again - and I would like a proper answer this time, with the corresponding physics explanation;

Where is the proof, and the evidence, that the 218,000lb mass of a Boeing 767 travelling at 466mph can't punch a hole through the side of the WTC - aluminium cutting steel - as per the topic?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ok, youve posted a few times now about birds penetrating the skin of an aircraft. i get it ( i wont speak for others) but, thats JUSt the skin of the plane.

what is the sheet aluminum covering? what gives the airfrae any stability.

you once posted (im not going to look it up) that the wings of a plane are designed to take the verticle stresses of lift and flight.

so, if the wings have no horizontal strength, then how exaccly do the wings stay on when the engines start applying horizontal force to push the plane forward?

there HAS to be some kind of frame under the skin that holds the plane together. if you can agree to that statement then you have to then also admt that this airframe is going to be a bit more riigid and thicker and heavier than just the skin.

now if you can also agree to that statement, i dont understand the issue at stake

if the airframe is thicker and heavier materials than the aluminum skin of the plane, then the whole aluminum cutting steel is suddenly pretty much explained. its basic freshman in Hs physics class. mass and velocity

if you really want to insist that its a matter of al being softer than steel, then ill be compelled to lay out another example

which is harder copper or steel?
which is harder copper or lead?

if you will agree that steel is harder than either of the other two, then i suggest you test this yourself go to a sporting goods store and buy a box of .50GMG rounds, take a vice grips and remove the bullet from the shell. set the bullet on something hard anvil would b ideal but i know most dont have one of those laying around) take the biggest hammer you can find and smash the bullet.

that round is armor piercing and th hammer is stell. does that buillet punch a hole in the hammer? unlikely. if it hist the target at a good perpendicular angle an M2 will punch holes in a tank, or even just steel plating.

its not like an airplane is constructed like a soda can, and i would be hard pressed to believe anyone actually considers that type of thing a fair comparison.

ok, plane hits steel wall, outter aluminum skin of the plane gets shredded. so what? so then instead of one airplane hitting, you have a mass thats not going to maintain its shape as a plane after impact but its STILL many tons of matrial hitting a steel wall at 500 or so MPH.

so why exactly is there any confusion about this?

ok ok the animation. wasnt that done by a school that many consider to be part of the "system" that was behind 911?

so why are govt sources full of lies yet perfectly acceptable to use them as fact when it supports ones thesis?
(PS ultima the last 2 paragraphs of this arent directed at you alone by a long shot)

lets settle this once and for all. lets build an aircannon and get some steel columns that are the same as what the perimeter walls were made of and see if we can apply enough force to get the can (empty of course) to penetrate the steel. simple and the arguments over

lets settle this once and for all. lets build an aircannon and get some steel columns that are the same as what the perimeter walls were made of and see if we can apply enough force to get the can (empty of course) to penetrate the steel. simple and the arguments over

That sounds like a great job for the mythbusters! I wonder if that's been suggested to them before?

Its not normal aluminum like you would see in most applications, it’s an aluminum alloy…

2024 is an aluminum alloy, with copper and magnesium as the alloying elements. It is used in applications requiring high strength to weight ratio, as well as good fatigue resistance. It is not weldable, and has average machinability. Due to poor corrosion resistance, it is often clad with aluminium or Al-1Zn for protection, although this may reduce the fatigue strength.

reply to post by StudioGuy


They have done a similar test already. The episode about bird strikes to an aircraft windscreen. They built the infamous chicken cannon, then shot frozen and thawed chickens at aircraft windscreen. The first round of testing was considered a failure because they didn't get the properly rated windscreens, but I believe the did get another set that was rated for bird strikes.

Originally posted by Disclosed
The impact of this small aluminum Japanese Zero was enough to put a hole in the side of the USS Hinsdale.

You do know that the Japanese Zero has an engine in the front of the plane that hit first and did the damage, not the airframe?

Also from the photo you posted it looks like the wings made marks but did not penatrate the hull. Only the engine penatrated (which is not aluminum)

Originally posted by neformore
How fast was the plane going when the bird hit the wing Ultima?

The plane wss on takeoff roll when it encountered a flock of birds. So it was probably doing about 200 mph or so.

I also have the report of a plane hitting 1 single light pole and sheaaring off a large setion of the wing when it was taking off. So if a large sections of wing was sheared off by a single light pole what do you think those steel beams are going to do to it?

And as for the Pentagon plane that was supposed to have hit 5 light poles, where is the debris from the poles that were hit at 500mph?

Originally posted by Damocles
you once posted (im not going to look it up) that the wings of a plane are designed to take the verticle stresses of lift and flight.

No, you did not get it correct. I stated that wings are designed to withstand lateral (up and down) stresses but they are not designed to take impact.

And yes wings do have hardened areas like around the wing root and they do have spars. It was some of the hardened areas like the wing root and landing gear area that smashed some of the beams, not the fragile wing and airframe.






[edit on 7-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I also have the report of a plane hitting 1 single light pole and sheaaring off a large setion of the wing when it was taking off. So if a large sections of wing was sheared off by a single light pole what do you think those steel beams are going to do to it?

If I was a betting man, I'd say they'd probably be smashed to bits along the way...which is exactly what happened. The steel columns were left with holes in them and the wings were completely destroyed.

Can we stop arguing over this nonsense now? The question was how aluminum could cut steel. The answers have been given a bunch of times.

Originally posted by StudioGuy
If I was a betting man, I'd say they'd probably be smashed to bits along the way...which is exactly what happened. The steel columns were left with holes in them and the wings were completely destroyed.

But if the wings were being destroyed as soon as the plane entered the building how did they have enough strength to cut the inner beams?

Don’t confuse the aluminum skin of an aircraft with the aluminum structure of an aircraft (bird theory) IE: wing ribs and spars etc.......Remember that the wing is holding up the aircraft and deal’s with the G’s that it goes thru and is the work horse of the miracle of flight and the load that it carry’s
The skin is there to created a surface to separate the air molecules

Also wing strength in 2 different scenarios
A plane being slammed down on the ground belly first or
A plane being thrown down nose first (wing impacting along its leading edge)

There you go !
How does aluminum cut steel?
Kinetic energy coupled with angle of attack!


[edit on 7-12-2007 by moonking]

I'd like a mod to close this thread.

Its gone past the point of sane reason and into some kind of pointless groundhog day type loop.

Ultima lives on another plane (no pun intended) of existence from the rest of us where only his/her specific, purposefully cultured, branch of physics applies. Most small children can understand that the force of an impact is directly affected by an objects speed, but Ultima can't, and thats the end of it.

The thread has been answered on more than one occasion - yes the plane was capable of punching a hole in the tower - aluminum cutting through steel. Numerous examples have been given of this, many anaolgies drawn, Ultima himself has posted photos that prove what he is arguing against.

The continuation of this thread will just result in a Monty-Pythonesque pissing contest.

Please, could a mod do the decent thing and put it down humanely? It needs to die.

It is an ex-thread.

reply to post by neformore


I completely agree. There is nothing to be gained by discussing the exact same info over and over and hope it clicks and he gets it. He wont'

Please put this thread down !!!! Thanks in advance ANYONE who can pull the trigger.

But if the wings and airframe were being destroyed as soon as the plane entered the building (according to Purdue video) how did they have enough strength to cut the inner beams?





[edit on 8-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


We've been over this, if you're siting the Purdue video as evidence, you obviously believe it is correct. Simply watch as plane parts cut beams and you'll have your answer. I'm really not sure why you're even posting about this as the video you reference clearly gives you your answer.

Originally posted by jfj123
We've been over this, if you're siting the Purdue video as evidence, you obviously believe it is correct.

Since the video shows the airframe and wings being shredded to pieces by the steel beams as soon as it hits the building, does the video actually show aluminum cutting the beams or is it the harder parts of the airframe cutting the beams?







[edit on 8-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Since the video shows the airframe and wings being shredded to pieces by the steel beams as soon as it hits the building, does the video actually show aluminum cutting the beams or is it the harder parts of the airframe cutting the beams?

Do you honestly believe that all parts of an aircraft are the exact same density or that it will all break up at the same time? The airframe is going to disintegrate at different rates according to what each piece hits, the strength of what it hits, the angle which it hits at, the speed that its moving, and how strong or dense each piece is.

So what you're saying is that ONLY the core beams were steel and those were the ONLY ones that mattered? And here we thought the outer facade was steel as well! This thread isn't "How did aluminum make the towers collapse?" It's how does aluminum cut steel. It doesn't make ANY difference if it's the outer facade, or the core beams, the planes bashed their way through steel beams at the towers.

quote]Originally posted by defcon5
Do you honestly believe that all parts of an aircraft are the exact same density or that it will all break up at the same time? The airframe is going to disintegrate at different rates according to what each piece hits, the strength of what it hits, the angle which it hits at, the speed that its moving, and how strong or dense each piece is.

No, i know aircraft are made up of different materials. If you read my post i state that the harder parts of the plane damaged the beams, but not the fragile aluminum part of the airframe and wings.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
This thread isn't "How did aluminum make the towers collapse?" It's how does aluminum cut steel.

Well yes actually it is, thats what the meaning of how does aluminum cut steel since this is a 9/11 forum.

Also the outer beams were a thiner box type not like the inner beams.

Yes the planes did hit the buildings but the fragile aluminum parts of the airframe and wings were shredded by the steel beams.


[edit on 8-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]