How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

reply to post by OrionStars


There is no point in trying to debate this with you.

You will not accept anything presented to you.

I'm not going to waste my time on it.

[edited for perfect clarity]

[edit on 1/0108/08 by neformore]

reply to post by neformore


That is not true. Present any validly substantiated or circumstantially supported logical arguments, and I will continue to do the same.

As it stands now, concerning only one instance of logical fallacy in discussions, people are denying the existance of quantum mechanics' second law of thermodynamics. What proof is there that quantum law has been broken? Scientists have been incapable of breaking it no matter how they struggle to do so. Does anyone think that law will be broken because they wish it to be so by mere opinion?

Originally posted by OrionStars
That is not true. Present any validly substantiated or circumstantially supported logical arguments, and I will continue to do the same.

I'm sorry but it IS true. You deny the physics of an object with mass and inertia. You deny the maths that show you the impact forces.
Those things were presented to you logically and can be substantiated.

You insist that your version of the WTC structure is correct. You have invented "inner steel walls" that did not exist, and you have insisted that there was concrete in the outer tubing and yet numerous people have presented evidence that you are wrong.

You have even told us that O2 is dangerous to breathe and not part of the combustion process.

At every turn in the debate in this thread you have done nothing but deny what has been presented to you. You have nitpicked. You have been obtuse.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from that is you are arguing for the sake of it, and your last post here proves it.

reply to post by neformore


Don't you think the components of objects intersecting might just be some consideration as to whether or not one can penetrate another? If not, why not?

reply to post by neformore


As I have stated before, people are certainly entitled to their opinons right or wrong.

Originally posted by MikeVet
Actually, I agree totally with what that says.

So you would agree then that NIST only guessed at the numbers of windows broken by the fire ?

As stated there was no way to tell how many wre broken by the result of the impact and overpressure, and how many by fire.


[edit on 2-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]

I spent some time researching machining websites. I could find many websites discussing high speed steel cutting aluminum, but not one stating high speed aluminum cuts steel. Could it be the soft properties of aluminum prevent high speed aluminum cutting of steel?

I found machining websites where diamonds will cut steel but not aluminum cutting steel, high speed or otherwise.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So you would agree then that NIST only guessed at the numbers of windows broken by the fire ?

As stated there was no way to tell how many wre broken by the result of the impact and overpressure, and how many by fire.

If you're still asking me this question, then you haven't been paying attention.

Reread your link and the part I agree with. JUST after, the impact, as in the first minute or so, it's impossible to tell which were blown out by what.

Afterwards, heat and fire were the only inputs available to pop out windows.

Unless of course you have another theory to discuss.

Originally posted by OrionStars
I spent some time researching machining websites. I could find many websites discussing high speed steel cutting aluminum, but not one stating high speed aluminum cuts steel. Could it be the soft properties of aluminum prevent high speed aluminum cutting of steel?

I found machining websites where diamonds will cut steel but not aluminum cutting steel, high speed or otherwise.

This is actually true. No one is gonna machine or "cut" steel with aluminum. The tool doing the cutting needs to be much harder to do the job. An aluminum saw cutting steel makes about as much sense as cutting oak with a saw made of balsa.

However, the plane didn't "cut" steel. It bashed its way through by using KE to exceed the steel's yield strength. And denser parts like engines and their attachment points, wing roots, wing spars, landing gear and their attachment points, keel beam, etc.... would be more than capable of opening holes in the towers, thus 'clearing the way' so to speak for parts that would follow behind.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by 2PacSade

 

Non-moving light poles produce kinetic energy? How so?

When measuring kinetic energy of two objects, it matters if both objects are moving vs one is and one is not at impact. When two objects are moving then the kinetic energy of both are a consideration before impact.

Or are your referring to the kinetic energy at impact due to resistance of a non-moving object?

Actually it does not matter which is moving. The formula for the impacting KE of the two objects is the same regardless which is moving.

Since the total KE is a factor of Mass and Velocity, if you added the KE value to the lightpole and say it was traveling at X velocity with a total KE of Y impacting into a stationary Aircraft wing made of aluminum and having a tensile and elongation values of Z and W respectively. The amount of damage to the wing is the same.

Make the lightpole stationary and have the plane with the same KE value hit the pole and the damage and resulting transfer of energy from one object to another is the same.

So it does not matter where you attach the total KE value of the impact to which object only that you know the total KE of the impact and the two respective values of each impacted material.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Look up molecular proccesses in Wiki? Why?

Well because it's a readily available source. If you want to take a trip to the bookstore and buy a few proper books, more power to you. I, however, am not holding my breath for this to happen.

Perhaps you do not understand what you just read, because you do not have enough science education or experience working in the field of science, to understand what you just read?

Let me assure you that on your scale I have a rather stratospheric level of science education. And yet no amount of education will help anybody to decipher the pseudo-scientific musings of yours such as

Under normal atmospheric conditions in fire, the heat is unbonding oxygen from other gases in the atmosphere. Think the evaporation process of unbonding two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Then bonding one carbon and one part oxygen in smoke and other parts of the atmosphere. If fire is utilizing O2, in proper mix, there will be blue flame not orange or yellow. Blue flame indicates a fire is not oxygen deprived.

Basically, not a single sentence in the whole parapgraph is remotely true.




[edit on 2-1-2008 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by MikeVet
However, the plane didn't "cut" steel. It bashed its way through by using KE to exceed the steel's yield strength. And denser parts like engines and their attachment points, wing roots, wing spars, landing gear and their attachment points, keel beam, etc.... would be more than capable of opening holes in the towers, thus 'clearing the way' so to speak for parts that would follow behind.

That's a well composed parapgrah. I can add one analogy (to the million already posted in this thread): shaped charge anti-armor munitions use metals like lead or copper as penetrators. It's is plainly obvious that both lead and copper are not nearly as hard as the steel, yet they manage to go through some considerable thickness of armor plate.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Pilgrum

 

Isn't it amazing, that since all center core beams were one continuous unit from the bedrock to the roof,

Orion you are seriously misguided if you believe the above, it is no wonder you fail to recognize any real scientific data.

There is not one Fab house on this entire planet that can make a continuous beam that long. Simple gravity would bend and distort the beam before you could move it in place, the total mass of the beam spread out over the profile of the beam would have bent it into a contorted pile if it was not supported at literally thousand of points.

There is no such thing as a 1,000 foot plus continuous steel beam.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Is that right? What do you think happens during evaporation process of liquids? Do those bonded gases then become unbound, i.e H20 becomes H-H-O (3 individual molecules of gases) not H2O(3 bonded gas molecules resulting in a liquid)? Heat has everything to do with whether or not molecules will be bound or unbound in chemical process.

If Wiki articles are telling people differently, then perhaps people should consider finding science articles written by professionals, and stay away from Wiki.

reply to post by robertfenix


Am I now? I have cited that information on the core supports in these discussions on more than one occasion. Cited meaning I used a reference from a source. That source was a structural engineering journal.

Would you care to tell us everything you think you know concerning the twin tower material specs and construction?

It is certainly so easy to tell others they are wrong without providing valid substantiation to prove others wrong, isn't it?

Originally posted by robertfenix
There is not one Fab house on this entire planet that can make a continuous beam that long. Simple gravity would bend and distort the beam before you could move it in place, the total mass of the beam spread out over the profile of the beam would have bent it into a contorted pile if it was not supported at literally thousand of points.

There is no such thing as a 1,000 foot plus continuous steel beam.

Makes it very unsurprising that the core columns failed to remain standing once all lateral support was stripped away. They wouldn't need any cuts to buckle and break into lots of pieces (large long heavy pieces).

reply to post by buddhasystem


In order to complete "bash through" that means cutting to get through, doesn't it? Since no one was able to witness any alleged plane "bashing through" any double steel walls or any other concrete and steel of the twin towers, that means all people have is assumption it happened. There was clearly no plane visible, in any photos or videos, once the smoke clearer enough to see the exterior of any hole, after all that assumed "bash through".

Originally posted by OrionStars
What do you think happens during evaporation process of liquids? Do those bonded gases then become unbound, i.e H20 becomes H-H-O (3 individual molecules of gases) not H2O(3 bonded gas molecules resulting in a liquid)?

During evaporation process, the molecule remains same molecule. Your point?

reply to post by buddhasystem


It does? Well, then, how do you account for barometric pressure drops indicating a severe lack of humidity in the air? Humidity is H2O still bonded but rapidly becoming unbound for all three molecules. Drop in barometric pressure indicates H2O has become H - H - O.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program. The subject is "How does aluminum cut steel?", which it does not. If people think it does, please scientifically prove it, including providing all that technical information from lab experiments proving it does under any velocity conditions.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

It does? Well, then, how do you account for barometric pressure drops indicating a severe lack of humidity in the air? Humidity is H2O still bonded but rapidly becoming unbound for all three molecules. Drop in barometric pressure indicates H2O has become H - H - O.

Please don't construe the following as a personal attack and accept it as a plain statement:

in the past few pages, you amply demonstrated that your knowledge of physics is certifiably zero. That last statement of yours is just icing on this unappetizing cake. To say that water molecules disintegrate into highly reactive substances during the simple evaporation process is beyond ridiculous.