How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by dk3000

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
If that were really the case, wouldn't the buildings still be standing?

No, it just means something else happened to help bring the towers down.

Do not forget all the molten metals in the basements, and how long the steel stayed molten in the debris.

The fires in the towers were not hot enough to melt steel and they were burning out before the collapse. So what kept the steel molten hot for several weeks?

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. If these 2 items were not available, then the steel would have cooled a lot faster.

Very accurate. The impact and explosion from the plane was not hot enough to melt steel.

The initial impact and explosion was hot enough to WEAKEN steel, not melt it. Never said it was.

The black and grey smoke which billowed out was proof the fire was oxygen starved.

NOPE. This is a completely incorrect assumption. There are plenty of fires that burn very hot and have black smoke. One source of black smoke is burning plastic.
Here's a fire with black smoke that certainly doesn't look oxygen starved.
newsimg.bbc.co.uk...

Without proper oxygen- fires burn at lower temperatures and certainly not hot enough to molt metal. This is a fact which seems to escape the debunker's.

This observation is correct. Nobody would disagree nor have they.

You can fire off all the mathematical equations for speed+force+mass and whatever else- the fact remains the fires were oxygen starved

Please provide evidence of this. Black smoke is not evidence.

- that is until the controlled explosive materials were added to the mix- which is the only explanation why those building fell the way they did and 3000 people are dead.

Of course it's not the only explanation. If it was the only explanation then there would be zero doubt in anyones minds and we would definitively know what caused the buildings to fall. This is not the case.

This bullet theory I have been reading in this thread is like the magic JFK bullet theory and it is annoying to say the least.

Sorry to hear you're annoyed by the information. Perhaps you could supply some equations that will prove your idea to be correct.

I would be only too happy to. Your awesome picture of black smoke on the BBC thread- was at a chemical plant- not a sky scraper like WTC. I believe the force of impact in the videos clearly shows the impact explosion was probably just a burst- then there was not enough materials to keep the fire burning. Liken to putting out an oil fire with TNT.

btw, I like your posts. My cynical nature is for the 3000 innocent people who are dead- the official story is unworthy of their memory.

The bullet theory doesn't belong on here because a bullet is far more solid than aluminum as most bullets are made with bronze and titanium alloys which are considerably more dense than aluminum and should not be factored into this equation- even as an example.

We have all seen the links and scientific explanations for nearly every theory- so to re-hash on the force equals mass and compare it to a bullet is annoying and it places an unrealistic supposition.

Physics do not equate the official story and any bought off scientist(s) who attempt to disprove Newton and Einstein should never again be taken seriously.

Originally posted by Disclosed
Are you saying that the buildings would have collapsed....even if no planes were involved.

Oh, that was a real question?

No, the buildings would not have collapsed.

The planes had nothing to do with the collapse.

The fires had little to do with the collapse.

[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
Are you saying that the buildings would have collapsed....even if no planes were involved.

Oh, that was a real question?

No, the buildings would not have collapsed.

The planes had nothing to do with the collapse.

The fires had little to do with the collapse.

[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Your stance is somewhat bewildering.

Take the case of a guy getting shot and stabbed, and dying from shock and blood loss. Neither of them would have killed them on their own, but together they were fatal. You seem to be saying that since neither, on their own, were fatal, that he shouldn't have died.

This is a total denial of the fact that BOTH contributed to his death.

The same applies to the towers. BOTH the plane impacts and the fires contributed to their collapse.

Your train of thought is wrong.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
Are you saying that the buildings would have collapsed....even if no planes were involved.

Oh, that was a real question?

No, the buildings would not have collapsed.

The planes had nothing to do with the collapse.

The fires had little to do with the collapse.

Your answer is confusing, ULTIMA1

You say the buildings would not have collapsed if planes werent involved.

Then, you state the planes had nothing to do with the collapse.

If the planes has nothing to do with the collapse, as you have stated, then why would the building have collapsed?

Originally posted by Disclosed
If the planes has nothing to do with the collapse, as you have stated, then why would the building have collapsed?

I suggest you do some research, watch the videos so you can get caught up with the most recent events.

The buildings collapsed because of some of the isolated fires causing thermite reactions from the planes and thermite or chemical beam cutters casusing the collapse.

The evidence of this is the molten steel in the basements and in the debris, since the fire was burning out before the collapse and would not be able to get oxygen under the tons of debris.



[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
If the planes has nothing to do with the collapse, as you have stated, then why would the building have collapsed?

I suggest you do some research, watch the videos so you can get caught up with the most recent events.

The buildings collapsed because of some of the isolated fires causing thermite reactions from the planes and thermite or chemical beam cutters casusing the collapse.

Thermite reactions from the planes.....so the planes (or plane debris)did play a role in the collapse then, correct?

Originally posted by Disclosed
Thermite reactions from the planes.....so the planes (or plane debris)did play a role in the collapse then, correct?

Oh so now your changing the question to include debris. Why do you have to change the question?

Is it because you have no evidence to debate my answers?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
If the planes has nothing to do with the collapse, as you have stated, then why would the building have collapsed?

I suggest you do some research, watch the videos so you can get caught up with the most recent events.

What does this have to do with the question you were asked?

The buildings collapsed because of some of the isolated fires causing thermite reactions from the planes and thermite or chemical beam cutters casusing the collapse.

Where is the evidence of thermite?
Why was there thermite on the planes?
Why were cutters left all over the buildings?

The evidence of this is the molten steel in the basements and in the debris, since the fire was burning out before the collapse and would not be able to get oxygen under the tons of debris.
[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I think you are assuming everything was packed air tight and there were no pockets or openings and that is rarely the case for any building collapse.

Also if there was no oxygen as you say, how did the steel remain molten for weeks?

If the steel started out super hot (hot enough to liquify the metal), how did they retain their shape when pulled from the wreckage at a later date?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
Thermite reactions from the planes.....so the planes (or plane debris)did play a role in the collapse then, correct?

Oh so now your changing the question to include debris. Why do you have to change the question?

Is it because you have no evidence to debate my answers?

I know this statement is not directed toward me but I would like to take the opportunity to respond by saying.... WHAT? Not sure what else to say then that...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
Thermite reactions from the planes.....so the planes (or plane debris)did play a role in the collapse then, correct?

Oh so now your changing the question to include debris. Why do you have to change the question?

Is it because you have no evidence to debate my answers?

Lets see if we can simplify this so you can understand....

You stated the following:
The buildings collapsed because of some of the isolated fires causing thermite reactions from the planes and thermite or chemical beam cutters casusing the collapse.

There were thermite reactions from the planes (your words).

So....that being said, the planes DID play some role in the collapse.

quote]Originally posted by jfj123
Where is the evidence of thermite?
Why was there thermite on the planes?
Why were cutters left all over the buildings?

Also if there was no oxygen as you say, how did the steel remain molten for weeks?

If the steel started out super hot (hot enough to liquify the metal), how did they retain their shape when pulled from the wreckage at a later date?

The evidecne of thermite is the molten steel in the basements and debris
The thermite was not on the planes, the fires casued some thermite reactions because ot the materials from the plane.
Beam cutters were put in the builidng to bring it down.

The steel remaned molten due to thermite, thermite creates its own oxygen.

Most photos show twisted and melted ends on the steel.

Originally posted by Disclosed
So....that being said, the planes DID play some role in the collapse.

The way you put it. NO, the planes or debris from the plane had nothing to do with he collapse, just maybe some added heat and molten material.

So do you have any facts or evidnece to debate the facts and evidence i have, YES or NO ?

[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
If the planes has nothing to do with the collapse, as you have stated, then why would the building have collapsed?

The buildings collapsed because of some of the isolated fires causing thermite reactions from the planes and thermite or chemical beam cutters casusing the collapse.

The evidence of this is the molten steel in the basements and in the debris, since the fire was burning out before the collapse and would not be able to get oxygen under the tons of debris.

OK so everything you said here, you are saying is now incorrect? I just want to be clear so I don't make any assumptions about what was said.

Originally posted by jfj123
OK so everything you said here, you are saying is now incorrect? I just want to be clear so I don't make any assumptions about what was said.

No, it is correct, you and disclosed just need to stop putting words in my mouth or twisting it.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
OK so everything you said here, you are saying is now incorrect? I just want to be clear so I don't make any assumptions about what was said.

No, it is correct, you and disclosed just need to stop putting words in my mouth or twisting it.

Nobody is putting words in your mouth. We're using YOUR OWN WORDS to try and clear up the confusion. How can I answer your questions if you keep changing your answers?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
So....that being said, the planes DID play some role in the collapse.

The way you put it. NO, the planes or debris from the plane had nothing to do with he collapse, just maybe some added heat and molten material.

Your answers dont make any sense whatsoever, ULTIMA1.

"maybe added some heat and molten material"? Did that contribute to the collapse?

If the plane wasnt involved in the collapse, then that means the heat and molten material also would not have been involved in the collapse....since those were introduced by the planes.

Originally posted by jfj123
Nobody is putting words in your mouth. We're using YOUR OWN WORDS to try and clear up the confusion. How can I answer your questions if you keep changing your answers?

I have never changed my answers, the questions keep changing to try and fit what you and disclosed want to hear.

[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Disclosed
If the plane wasnt involved in the collapse,

I will make this simple and only post it 1 more time.

The planes did not cause the collapse.

So no matter how many times you ask and how many times you change the question the answer is always going to be the same.

So move on to another subject.

[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
If the plane wasnt involved in the collapse,

I will make this simple and only post it 1 more time.

The planes did not cause the collapse.

So no matter how many times you ask and how many times you change the question the answer is always going to be the same.

So move on to another subject.

[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

We all KNOW the planes themselves did not cause the collapse. The NIST and FEMA reports say that. You are stating something we already know.

However that is not what we were asking now, is it?

We have said from the beginning that the plane impacts, and resulting fires, started a CHAIN OF EVENTS that led to the eventual collapse. That is also what thE NIST report says.

Plane impact alone did not cause the collapse....

Fires alone did not cause the collapse....

Combine the two, and voila! A new set of circumstances begin to evolve! Thermite reactions from the plane debris and fires possible? Sure! Weakened beams from heat (not melted). Sure!

You always seem to focus on individual events...and cannot combine them.

Why is that?

Originally posted by Disclosed
We all KNOW the planes themselves did not cause the collapse.

Combine the two, and voila!

Then why do you keep asking me about the plane if you know it did not cause the collapse?

No the combination was not enough to cause the collaspe according the NIST model. Their had to be something else. (like thermite)

Fahim Sadek, Michael A. Riley, Emil Simiu,
William Fritz, and H.S. Lew
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
U.S. Department of Commerce
[email protected]
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft
Impact Damage Analysis
June 22, 2004

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.

[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
We all KNOW the planes themselves did not cause the collapse.

Combine the two, and voila!

Then why do you keep asking me about the plane if you know it did not cause the collapse?

No the combination was not enough to cause the collaspe according the NIST model. Their had to be something else. (like thermite)

Fahim Sadek, Michael A. Riley, Emil Simiu,
William Fritz, and H.S. Lew
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
U.S. Department of Commerce
[email protected]
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft
Impact Damage Analysis
June 22, 2004

Lets look at what the NIST said April 5, 2005:

www.nist.gov...

The specific factors in the collapse sequences relevant to both towers (the sequences vary in detail for WTC 1 and WTC 2) are:

Each aircraft severed perimeter columns, damaged interior core columns and knocked off fireproofing from steel as the planes penetrated the buildings. The weight carried by the severed columns was distributed to other columns.
Subsequently, fires began that were initiated by the aircraft’s jet fuel but were fed for the most part by the building contents and the air supply resulting from breached walls and fire-induced window breakage.
These fires, in combination with the dislodged fireproofing, were responsible for a chain of events in which the building core weakened and began losing its ability to carry loads.
The floors weakened and sagged from the fires, pulling inward on the perimeter columns.
Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.
Collapse then ensued.

The sequences are supported by extensive computer modeling and the evidence held by NIST, including photographs and videos, recovered steel, eyewitness accounts and emergency communication records. Additionally, this information was used to document a variety of factors affecting the performance of the buildings, the efforts of emergency responders and the ability of occupants to escape prior to the collapses. In turn, NIST has identified a number of future practices and technologies that potentially could have enhanced building performance and life safety capabilities on 9-11 had they been available for implementation. All are being considered for NIST’s upcoming recommendations.

Apparently you are wrong, and the DID state the combination was enough to cause the collapse.

[edit on 26-11-2007 by Disclosed]