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.

 

Melting steel?

page: 33
16
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

The fuel would be the accelerant. The velocity of the solid frame of the engines would be the explosive. Again, how does a tin can poke a hole while the solid bricks of metal just disintegrate?

The engine impacts on the WTC's are quite clear by the way just incase you've never actually looked at it.


the solid frame of an aircraft would not explode if there was nothing to burn. that only happens in movies.
you may call the fuselage a tin can, but majority of the mass (probably some 75% random guess) of the mass is along the fuselage, not the wings.

and i didnt ask about the impacts i ask how much was left of the engines in the WTC impacts?




posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

The fuel would be the accelerant. The velocity of the solid frame of the engines would be the explosive. Again, how does a tin can poke a hole while the solid bricks of metal just disintegrate?

The engine impacts on the WTC's are quite clear by the way just incase you've never actually looked at it.


the solid frame of an aircraft would not explode if there was nothing to burn. that only happens in movies.
you may call the fuselage a tin can, but majority of the mass (probably some 75% random guess) of the mass is along the fuselage, not the wings.

and i didnt ask about the impacts i ask how much was left of the engines in the WTC impacts?

here's one



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

The fuel would be the accelerant. The velocity of the solid frame of the engines would be the explosive. Again, how does a tin can poke a hole while the solid bricks of metal just disintegrate?

The engine impacts on the WTC's are quite clear by the way just incase you've never actually looked at it.


the solid frame of an aircraft would not explode if there was nothing to burn. that only happens in movies.

I also would like to stress to you that you are wrong here. High velocity most certainly means explosive force. This is an extreme example, but this object carries no fuel and impacts nothing (except the atmosphere).



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

The fuel would be the accelerant. The velocity of the solid frame of the engines would be the explosive. Again, how does a tin can poke a hole while the solid bricks of metal just disintegrate?

The engine impacts on the WTC's are quite clear by the way just incase you've never actually looked at it.


the solid frame of an aircraft would not explode if there was nothing to burn. that only happens in movies.

I also would like to stress to you that you are wrong here. High velocity most certainly means explosive force. This is an extreme example, but this object carries no fuel and impacts nothing (except the atmosphere).


you are describing a shockwave from moving through the atmosphere at excessive speeds.

and the "explosive" force associated with highvelocity is kinetic energy. but that isnt really explosive now.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

The fuel would be the accelerant. The velocity of the solid frame of the engines would be the explosive. Again, how does a tin can poke a hole while the solid bricks of metal just disintegrate?

The engine impacts on the WTC's are quite clear by the way just incase you've never actually looked at it.


the solid frame of an aircraft would not explode if there was nothing to burn. that only happens in movies.
you may call the fuselage a tin can, but majority of the mass (probably some 75% random guess) of the mass is along the fuselage, not the wings.

and i didnt ask about the impacts i ask how much was left of the engines in the WTC impacts?

here's one


so roughly what?? 30% of the engine remains after crashing into the WTC?

i suppose the other engine was just intact?? (assuming its not the APU)

now is the outer wall of the WTC built with reinforced concrete like the pentagon?



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

Please read up just a bit hereon the physics of things you speak of please.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

The fuel would be the accelerant. The velocity of the solid frame of the engines would be the explosive. Again, how does a tin can poke a hole while the solid bricks of metal just disintegrate?

The engine impacts on the WTC's are quite clear by the way just incase you've never actually looked at it.


the solid frame of an aircraft would not explode if there was nothing to burn. that only happens in movies.
you may call the fuselage a tin can, but majority of the mass (probably some 75% random guess) of the mass is along the fuselage, not the wings.

and i didnt ask about the impacts i ask how much was left of the engines in the WTC impacts?

here's one


so roughly what?? 30% of the engine remains after crashing into the WTC?

i suppose the other engine was just intact?? (assuming its not the APU)

now is the outer wall of the WTC built with reinforced concrete like the pentagon?

that is 30% of the engine? Are you serious?



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

The fuel would be the accelerant. The velocity of the solid frame of the engines would be the explosive. Again, how does a tin can poke a hole while the solid bricks of metal just disintegrate?

The engine impacts on the WTC's are quite clear by the way just incase you've never actually looked at it.


the solid frame of an aircraft would not explode if there was nothing to burn. that only happens in movies.
you may call the fuselage a tin can, but majority of the mass (probably some 75% random guess) of the mass is along the fuselage, not the wings.

and i didnt ask about the impacts i ask how much was left of the engines in the WTC impacts?

here's one


so roughly what?? 30% of the engine remains after crashing into the WTC?

i suppose the other engine was just intact?? (assuming its not the APU)

now is the outer wall of the WTC built with reinforced concrete like the pentagon?

that is 30% of the engine? Are you serious?


so what percentage of the engine is left there??

and was the outer wall of the WTC built the same as the outerwall of the pentagon?



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

You claimed 30% of the engine.

The engine I showed you went through the tower and landed a bit away. That is what you asked for, remnants of engines at the site.

Now explain to me how a tin can pokes a hole in reinforced concrete, but solid chunks of metal disintegrate doing zero damage.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

Please read up just a bit hereon the physics of things you speak of please.


so these meteor events are making you think that the solid frame of an engine is an explosive?



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

What do you think any solid object fired at another object at around 500 mph would be?



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

You claimed 30% of the engine.

The engine I showed you went through the tower and landed a bit away. That is what you asked for, remnants of engines at the site.

Now explain to me how a tin can pokes a hole in reinforced concrete, but solid chunks of metal disintegrate doing zero damage.


pretty simple.. the fuselage which is majority of an aircrafts mass, is directly behind the nose..

so you can say large portion of the mass of the jetliner was concentrated at one relatively small area. and please stop calling it a tin can.

now about the survival of this one engine.. is the outer wall of the WTC built like the outer wall of the pentagon? if you cant answer this ill assume that you think they are which is why you think something almost as complete as that engine should have been found at the pentagon?



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

What do you think any solid object fired at another object at around 500 mph would be?


if its a solid object without any fuel of some kind its not explosive, it may cause an "explosion" through kinetic energy but its not explosive.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

You claimed 30% of the engine.

The engine I showed you went through the tower and landed a bit away. That is what you asked for, remnants of engines at the site.

Now explain to me how a tin can pokes a hole in reinforced concrete, but solid chunks of metal disintegrate doing zero damage.


pretty simple.. the fuselage which is majority of an aircrafts mass, is directly behind the nose..


That is completely wrong.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

You claimed 30% of the engine.

The engine I showed you went through the tower and landed a bit away. That is what you asked for, remnants of engines at the site.

Now explain to me how a tin can pokes a hole in reinforced concrete, but solid chunks of metal disintegrate doing zero damage.


now about the survival of this one engine.. is the outer wall of the WTC built like the outer wall of the pentagon

Is the outer part of the pentagon built more solid than an entire building and the concrete below it?



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

You claimed 30% of the engine.

The engine I showed you went through the tower and landed a bit away. That is what you asked for, remnants of engines at the site.

Now explain to me how a tin can pokes a hole in reinforced concrete, but solid chunks of metal disintegrate doing zero damage.


pretty simple.. the fuselage which is majority of an aircrafts mass, is directly behind the nose..


That is completely wrong.


im trying to describe force distribution..

think of a knife point and the knife blade which one has more PIERCING power?



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

You claimed 30% of the engine.

The engine I showed you went through the tower and landed a bit away. That is what you asked for, remnants of engines at the site.

Now explain to me how a tin can pokes a hole in reinforced concrete, but solid chunks of metal disintegrate doing zero damage.


pretty simple.. the fuselage which is majority of an aircrafts mass, is directly behind the nose..


That is completely wrong.


im trying to describe force distribution..

think of a knife point and the knife blade which one has more PIERCING power?

well there is your problem, your entire thinking is wrong.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

You claimed 30% of the engine.

The engine I showed you went through the tower and landed a bit away. That is what you asked for, remnants of engines at the site.

Now explain to me how a tin can pokes a hole in reinforced concrete, but solid chunks of metal disintegrate doing zero damage.


now about the survival of this one engine.. is the outer wall of the WTC built like the outer wall of the pentagon

Is the outer part of the pentagon built more solid than an entire building and the concrete below it?


after a quick search the pentagon had walls about 5 inches thick.. the WTC was about 3/4inches thick.. or are you trying to suggest that the inside of the WTC was solid like the pentagon walls?



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

You claimed 30% of the engine.

The engine I showed you went through the tower and landed a bit away. That is what you asked for, remnants of engines at the site.

Now explain to me how a tin can pokes a hole in reinforced concrete, but solid chunks of metal disintegrate doing zero damage.


now about the survival of this one engine.. is the outer wall of the WTC built like the outer wall of the pentagon

Is the outer part of the pentagon built more solid than an entire building and the concrete below it?


after a quick search the pentagon had walls about 5 inches thick.. the WTC was about 3/4inches thick.. or are you trying to suggest that the inside of the WTC was solid like the pentagon walls?

I'm suggesting the ENTIRE building was more solid than the wall of the pentagon. The engine flew through the building and down on to the concrete and didn't disintegrate. Explain that.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: choos

You claimed 30% of the engine.

The engine I showed you went through the tower and landed a bit away. That is what you asked for, remnants of engines at the site.

Now explain to me how a tin can pokes a hole in reinforced concrete, but solid chunks of metal disintegrate doing zero damage.


pretty simple.. the fuselage which is majority of an aircrafts mass, is directly behind the nose..


That is completely wrong.


im trying to describe force distribution..

think of a knife point and the knife blade which one has more PIERCING power?

well there is your problem, your entire thinking is wrong.


is it?? the fuselage pierced the walls of the pentagon.. the wings and engines did not..

think of the fuselage like the knife point, the wings and engine like the blade. which has more piercing power?

add in that the fuselage has alot more mass behind it than the engines or wings.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join