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.
Originally posted by robert204
if a bird can do damage to a much stronger item I.E. large aircraft, than i would guess a large aircraft would be able to do some serious damage to a tower?
Originally posted by canadude
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
WATER CUTTING STEEL
I worked in machine shops for many years and have used steel cutting machines such as laser, plasma, wire EDM and the waterjet cutting machines. Water does NOT cut steel but it carries an abrasive (sand) in order to cut steel. Tons of sand is required to operate a waterjet machine ($1000 - $2000 / months for sand alone)
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by robert204
if a bird can do damage to a much stronger item I.E. large aircraft, than i would guess a large aircraft would be able to do some serious damage to a tower?
But on the other hand, if a bird can damage an airframe then steel will tear it to pieces.
Originally posted by jfj123
You're missing the point again.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
You're missing the point again.
No, your missing the point that yes the aluminum airframe might make it into the steel building a few feet. But the steel is going to be shredding the aluminum airframe to pieces.
The aluminum airframe is not going to make it too far into building, and then only in pieces.
Originally posted by jfj123
What is your reasoning for this? Your own previous argument completely contradicts what you just wrote.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
What is your reasoning for this? Your own previous argument completely contradicts what you just wrote.
No, i have always stated that the steel beams would shred the aluminum airframe. Also the aluminum airframe is not going to cause much damage to the building.
It just follows my point that the aluminum airframe is fragile.
[edit on 23-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by jfj123
You have said a bird, which is more fragile then an airplane, can damage an airplane.
Originally posted by eyewitness86
Thanks for posting the pictures.
My opinion is that the fires were burning underground. The materials that made up the WTC's were all great insulators which would cause an oven like environment. With that type of environment, the fires would burn hotter and longer which could heat the steel up to the point of being red hot.
Originally posted by adjay
I am going to stop discussing things such as car crashes, arrow heads, bullets, etc as they are all unrelated entirely to these massive deficits in the laws of physics, and far too easy for people to twist round to suit their own agenda.
Originally posted by neformore
The laws of physics do not change with the size of the objects. They remain the same. Only the mass is different.
Originally posted by neformore
How much of that fuselage is still intact?
....
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by neformore
How much of that fuselage is still intact?
....
Did you watch the video at all, Maybe that is because the test was only set up for the wings not the fuselage, the wings were shredded very quickly and easily.
Originally posted by neformore
I see a plane hitting a runway at speed.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by neformore
I see a plane hitting a runway at speed.
Well for one, it did not hit the runway at speed, it was remotely glided into the test area.
So do you have photos of aluminum airframes surviving crashes with objects YES or NO ?