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 ULTIMA1
But the 767 is not a small surface area. And if you add the wings you have a very large surface area.
Sort of like your comparison of pushing your fist through a piece of paper.
Originally posted by ben91069
I should have added that it is proportional to its mass.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
The metal stayed molten because there was an outside heat source (possibly smoldering material, leaking gas line, etc.. ) combined with the insulative properties of the debris.
So where is the evidence of this outside heat source?
Do you have a report of a leaking gas line?
One very good and simple explination for the steel to stay molten for several weeks is thermite.
Originally posted by eyewitness86
The molten metals confirmed there were caused by a very intense heat..there is no doubt about that. WHAT can cause that kind of heat? Fire from some floors far above? No. Gravity? No. The ONLY things that can generate that much heat are thermate type products or some type of fission or nuke weapon. The temps must have been in the tens of thousands of degrees intially to melt enough of the core steel to make the kinds of flowing pools that were seen.
The steel at the bedrock area was severed in order to finish the job and make the steel framework lose its strength. Recall the ' Spire ' turing to dust on film; that means that the core was exposed to heat so massive that it rendered the steel unable to retain its form..it lost its cohesion, and turned to dust. The steel at the lower levels was the only source of the molten mass seen, and the only way to corrupt the core entirely was to burn it out from the bottom . The reports by Rodriguez and others confirms that major blasts were felt and experienced at the very lower levels, originating from BELOW.
What more proof is needed?
Major explosions that cause a 50 ton press to DISAPPEAR from the shop area, cause terrible burns on people in the area and pools of molten steel in the bottom of the rubble. Those are cluies that lead to a conclusion: The bottom of the Towers were blown out by a force so robust that it created heat sufficient to melt steel in large qualtities and keep it molten for weeks. And with NO source feeding it.
There has NEVER EVER been any reliable report of any large amounts of combustibles stored in the lower Towers and never has there been any reports of any gas lines feeding the underground area: On the contrary: All utilities were cut immediately after the strikes for just that reason.
There was no gas ( it wouldn't burn hot enough anyway)..there was no fuel of any type.
A massive explosion and heat that can creat molten steel come from few sources..and the desperate believers in the official lie are reaching very deep into the pit of foolishness to believe that there are any mundane explanations for the molten steel and the explosions.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by moonking
Pound for pound, aircraft aluminum is tough as it gets, it has a high strength to weight ratio, it’s the same stuff stop signs (at least were I’m from in the U.S.) are made of, had one hanging in my jam room that my friends would mess with, if you ever have a chance to play around with one and see how strong its is you might be amazed
Gee, so strong but then a small bird can put a hole right through it.
And aiframes are destroyed by just hitting small trees
Large sections wings are sheared off from hitting light poles.
[edit on 24-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by ben91069
.The have a small surface area in section, but have a lot of momentum which produces insane pressures when they strike an object, which will cut anything like a hot knife in butter.
But the 767 is not a small surface area. And if you add the wings you have a very large surface area.
Sort of like your comparison of pushing your fist through a piece of paper.
Originally posted by jfj123
So your argument must prove to you that the plane could damage the building.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
So your argument must prove to you that the plane could damage the building.
The plane might do some damage, but the aluminum is not going to cause the damage that would casue the building to collapse.
Look at this photo and tell if you believe an aluminum airframe will go through many steel beams.
If small trees can destroy a airframe, steel will shred it to pieces.
i114.photobucket.com...
So now that you have actual proof that airframes are fragile, please explain to me how it would destroy enough steel to cause a collapse.
I didn't see anywhere that shows the plane being damaged by a small tree. Could you either show me the video where the plane is being sheared due to a small tree or a report stating that the massive amount of damage was done by a small tree?
Also, please review the Purdue video and you will see how the plane damaged the building. If you believe the Purdue video to be incorrect, please show me the correct physics/mathematics.
Originally posted by jfj123
I didn't see anywhere that shows the plane being damaged by a small tree.
Also, please review the Purdue video and you will see how the plane damaged the building. If you believe the Purdue video to be incorrect, please show me the correct physics/mathematics.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
It probably hit the ground 500m further back fracturing the wing mounts too.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So if the wings sheared off just from a minor impact, what would happen if the struck a obsticle at high speed?
Also the small tress ripped open the aluminum airframe like a can opener.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
I didn't see anywhere that shows the plane being damaged by a small tree.
Also, please review the Purdue video and you will see how the plane damaged the building. If you believe the Purdue video to be incorrect, please show me the correct physics/mathematics.
Are you serious, you could not see the trees in the photo that destroyed the airframe? There is nothing but small trees in the photo.
The Purdue video supports tht fact that the aiframe was shredded by the steel as soon as it hits the building. The damge casued by the airframe is minor. NIST, FEMA and most other reports state the buildings withstood the planes impacts.
Originally posted by jfj123Just because you see some small damaged trees doesn't mean that is what damaged the plane.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The plane might do some damage, but the aluminum is not going to cause the damage that would casue the building to collapse.
So now that you have actual proof that airframes are fragile, please explain to me how it would destroy enough steel to cause a collapse.
Originally posted by moonking
How much damage needs to be done to start the eventual collapse of the towers in your opinion?
You should be asking “Is a jet liner, full of fuel, slamming into the tower, going to be sufficient enough to cause a chain reaction of events that will eventually cause the building to collapse”
Just by the mere time that passed between them being struck and when they collapse is enough to tell you that in the end it was structure of the building that gave way once a sufficient part of it was compromise by the intense fire, it became cataclysmic , a sudden fundamental change in the integrity of the intended engineering of the structure
The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123Just because you see some small damaged trees doesn't mean that is what damaged the plane.
What else in the photos would have casued the damage.
So tell me, even if the Purdue animation does show 24 beams being destroyed, do you think that is much damage for buildings the size of the twin towers?
[edit on 25-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]