Water cuts Steel

[MarkyX]

According to 9/11 Deniers, planes cannot go through steel frame buildings or reinforced concrete. They are even some folks who believe Flight 77 should have went off course when it hit the Generator or Light Poles.

So by their logic, water cannot cut through steel, right?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm

[peteweaver]

The thing they just don't understand, is that steel is maleable & ductile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ductile

Their arguments treat steel as if it is indestructible and impervious to deformation untill it reaches its melting point.

[Arus808]

The thing they just don't understand, is that steel is maleable & ductile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ductile

Their arguments treat steel as if it is indestructible and impervious to deformation untill it reaches its melting point.


well, then steel used in cars would be able to withstand all car accidents now wouldn't they (which happen at slower speeds than a 500 mph airplane)? since steel is usually used in the construction of a "safety cage" of which a car's body is built on top of.

http://www.steel.org/Content/NavigationMenu/SteelinYourLife/AutoSteel/Auto_Steel.htm

really, are they this delusional?

http://www.car-accidents.com/

[CurtC]

I'm reluctant to link to anything at the howstuffworks.com web site. Check out his answers he gives about the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and about creationism. He's got one foot in the woo camp himself.

[uk_dave]

Need you ask?

Everything 'truth' is based upon ignorance and an inability to comprehend facts.

Comments on another thread got me thinking about this.

They concerned the Fire testing carried out by British Steel (as was) which were then picked up by the 'truthers'.

You can imagine the scenario. 'Truther' is watching replays of the collapse of the wtc towers and thinks "hmmmmm how'd that happen then?"

So 'truther' goes investigoogling, looking for websites concerning structural steel and fire. 'Truther' eventually finds one with pictures and lo and behold 'truther' only sees that the test rig didn't totally collapse. That it was not in any way comparable to the wtc construction matters not a jot. 'truther' has his/her little bit of knowledge and is now an expert.

Similarily with the windsor fire. How ironic that details of this fire are pushed by 'truthers' as an example of a multistorey structure not collapsing when if they bothered to actually read about it they would discover that the steel frame section failed catastrophically.

So, are they delusional? You betcha

[Arus808]

I'm reluctant to link to anything at the howstuffworks.com web site. Check out his answers he gives about the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and about creationism. He's got one foot in the woo camp himself.

and how does that invalidate what the article on "water cutting steel" states?

because a person may believe in some of the theories posited by the 9/11 denial group; doesn't invalidate the rest of the articles on the site that he also provides links to to support the statements made within it.


I would say that if articles consistently on the site have some misinformation or using false facts to support the claims, then yes, I'd be worried about every article posted there. Thus far, I've only noticed the article on 9/11 Conspiracy theories to be the objectionable one on the site.

[Garb]

I'm reluctant to link to anything at the howstuffworks.com web site. Check out his answers he gives about the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and about creationism. He's got one foot in the woo camp himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_jet_cutter

They exist.

[Dave_46]

<snip>
They concerned the Fire testing carried out by British Steel (as was) which were then picked up by the 'truthers'.

You can imagine the scenario. 'Truther' is watching replays of the collapse of the wtc towers and thinks "hmmmmm how'd that happen then?"

So 'truther' goes investigoogling, looking for websites concerning structural steel and fire. 'Truther' eventually finds one with pictures and lo and behold 'truther' only sees that the test rig didn't totally collapse. That it was not in any way comparable to the wtc construction matters not a jot. 'truther' has his/her little bit of knowledge and is now an expert.

<snip>

A couple of points regarding the BRE/British Steel tests at Cardington.

I see you picked up that the design was diferent from the WTC towers. The Cardington building was specifically designed using current (mid 1990's) construction, as most fire tests on full size buildings are performed on old buildings prior to demolition, and this was seen as an opportunity to test current designs. The building may not have collapsed, but it was seriously damaged, to the extent that nobody was permitted on the damaged floors because they were considered unsafe. There was serious sagging of the steel beams supporting the floor in the area of exposure to fire, if I remember correctly in excess of 0.5m.

The other point is a statement of the blindingly obvious - The structure of the building had not been compromised by being hit with an airliner.

Something else I remembered. When the largest fire test was in progress nobody was allowed in the Cardington hangar, we had to watch from doorways. It was an impressive fire.

Dave

[CurtC]

Guys, please - I didn't say that I doubt they exist, I just don't link to the howstuffworks site because it actually endorses the 9/11 conspiracy theories. If you're going to provide a link to someone who is falling for the CTs, find a source other than howstuffworks.

[steve s]

They exist.

Of course they do. Vinnie over at OCC uses one to cut out parts for the bikes they build.

Steve S.

[MIKILLINI]

Waterjet cutting is precise and can cut any material using abrasives.


Does a great job. Just have a look at how precise it is.

http://www.waterjets.org/29.jpg

[Tony Szamboti]

According to 9/11 Deniers, planes cannot go through steel frame buildings or reinforced concrete. They are even some folks who believe Flight 77 should have went off course when it hit the Generator or Light Poles.

So by their logic, water cannot cut through steel, right?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm

It is actually the abrasive that is doing the cutting. The water is only the medium to transport the hard abrasive grains at high speed. It is misleading to imply a waterjet, used for cutting steel, only uses water. The water alone, without the abrasive will not cut through the steel.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Waterjet cutting is precise and can cut any material using abrasives.


Does a great job. Just have a look at how precise it is.

http://www.waterjets.org/29.jpg

Yes abrasive like, Aluminum Oxide 9 on the hardness scale.
Isn't steel about 6 and concrete about 5?

[Tony Szamboti]

According to 9/11 Deniers, planes cannot go through steel frame buildings or reinforced concrete. They are even some folks who believe Flight 77 should have went off course when it hit the Generator or Light Poles.

So by their logic, water cannot cut through steel, right?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm

Planes can and did certainly go through the steel of the Twin towers perimeter. There is also a lot more to the mechanics of how that happened than an analogy to a waterjet can explain. There was bending and shear involved in the aircraft impacts. The bending stresses would have been much more responsible for the rupture of the perimeter beams than pure shear. Additionally, the aluminum of the aircraft would have strain hardened.

[PhantomWolf]

One thing that a lot of people miss is that the silhoutte of the planes on the buildings weren't complete holes. The outer skin of the TTs was aluminium and much of the damage was just where that skin had been removed from the columns. While the column underneath might have been damaged, it wasn't necessarily broken in all cases, especially out at the end of the wings.

[MIKILLINI]

Yes abrasive like, Aluminum Oxide 9 on the hardness scale.
Isn't steel about 6 and concrete about 5?

Yes, aluminum oxide ceramic (often called alumina, AD 99.9).
If you can scratch material with a knife, such as concrete, that would put it at 5 on the Moh scale. And 6 qualifies as able to be scratched with a steel file, and that means you are spot on, as usual CC. :cool:

[Tony Szamboti]

One thing that a lot of people miss is that the silhoutte of the planes on the buildings weren't complete holes. The outer skin of the TTs was aluminium and much of the damage was just where that skin had been removed from the columns. While the column underneath might have been damaged, it wasn't necessarily broken in all cases, especially out at the end of the wings.

Good point. In addition to the wing tips not penetrating through the perimeter beams, it seems like the tail didn't either, at least in the case of the North tower. A close inspection of the North tower perimeter damage shows neither the tail or wing tips went completely through the perimeter.

[njslim]

Lets see - ice is actually water. Ice (water) can not penetrate steel.
TITANIC struck iceberg holing plates. TITANIC sunk. So how did TITANIC
sink if ice can not penetrate steel?

[WildCat]

Lets see - ice is actually water. Ice (water) can not penetrate steel.
TITANIC struck iceberg holing plates. TITANIC sunk. So how did TITANIC
sink if ice can not penetrate steel?
I think it's well established that Sea Monkeys working for Kaiser Wilhelm sunk the Titanic with a thermite torpedo.

Iceberg, that's funny! :rolleyes:

[A W Smith]

Lets see - ice is actually water. Ice (water) can not penetrate steel.
TITANIC struck iceberg holing plates. TITANIC sunk. So how did TITANIC
sink if ice can not penetrate steel?


I guess that ice contained abrasive grit!


:dl:

[Mince]

According to 9/11 Deniers, planes cannot go through steel frame buildings or reinforced concrete. They are even some folks who believe Flight 77 should have went off course when it hit the Generator or Light Poles.

So by their logic, water cannot cut through steel, right?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm


Yeah. I think more than a few of them need some fundamental education in mass, force, velocity, relativity and the like.

I usually use this analogy on them:

"Which is harder, a rubber band or a rod of ice?"

"The rod of ice, of course."

"Then why is it more difficult to break the rubber band?"

Hopefully that gets them started on the path to curing their ignoance.

[kalen]

I guess that ice contained abrasive grit!



Or thermite!

[MIKILLINI]

I guess that ice contained abrasive grit!


:dl:

Titanics hull became brittle from the cold water and...Oh No! To much sulfur in the steel. Titanic was an inside job. :rolleyes:

[A W Smith]

Titanics hull became brittle from the cold water and...Oh No! To much sulfur in the steel. Titanic was an inside job. :rolleyes:


Hold onto your life jackets! Is it realstice to assume back then that marine paint had C4 in it? ill hafta go to myspace and ask ChristopherA

[MIKILLINI]

Hold onto your life jackets! Is it realstice to assume back then that marine paint had C4 in it? ill hafta go to myspace and ask ChristopherA

He will tell you thats why they "planted" that iceberg out there, to distract attention so that c-4 paint could have time to combust. Who planted it? The Jooooo's :D

[Curnir]

Tosh!
Haven't you heard about the intrepid polar bears who boldly ventured out on an iceberg to find the legendary land of Antarctica, where penguins lie about and lucky bears can eat their fill every day.

Their journey started out just fine, and then a ship rammed their iceberg and killed hundreds of innocent polar bears.

[Devil's Advocate]

Well, it cannot cut through a real Katana.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXeGumahvGY

ha!
Debunked.

=o)~