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.

 

How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

page: 13
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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.
So are you saying that some material from the planes, reacted with thermite which was in the buildings but not on the planes?


Beam cutters were put in the builidng to bring it down.

Do you have evidence of this?


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

So there were several weeks worth of thermite left over after the initial collapse?


Most photos show twisted and melted ends on the steel.

So there were no pools of liquid metal? Bent and warped beams are fairly common with large building fires.




posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   

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


So your stating that the NIST model was wrong or did they contridict themselves?



[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
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?

So are you saying that some material from the planes, reacted with thermite which was in the buildings but not on the planes?

Do you have evidence of this?

So there were several weeks worth of thermite left over after the initial collapse?

So there were no pools of liquid metal? Bent and warped beams are fairly common with large building fires.


1. The majority of the steel removed from the debris pile were more then just warped and twisted, do you need photos?

2. No, materials from the plane created a thermite reaction.

3. The molten steel in the debris and the way the beams are cut. Also the FEMA tests.

4. Thermite will burn untill its all burned up and the fuel around it.

5. Yes there were pools of liquid metal. The beams were more then warped and twisted.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



1. The majority of the steel removed from the debris pile were more then just warped and twisted, do you need photos?

Yes, that would be nice. Please show me some photos showing "THE MAJORITY OF THE STEEL REMOVED FROM THE DEBRIS PILES WERE MORE THEN JUST WARPED AND TWISTED".
Thanks



2. No, materials from the plane created a thermite reaction.

But you just said they did a few posts back?


3. The molten steel in the debris and the way the beams are cut. Also the FEMA tests.

What did FEMA say?
Please show info regarding cut beams.


4. Thermite will burn untill its all burned up and the fuel around it.

No, this is not true. Thermite may burn until there is not Thermite left but it can't burn beyond it's own existence.


5. Yes there were pools of liquid metal. The beams were more then warped and twisted.

Please show me evidence of this. Thanks.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes, that would be nice. Please show me some photos showing "THE MAJORITY OF THE STEEL REMOVED FROM THE DEBRIS PILES WERE MORE THEN JUST WARPED AND TWISTED".
Thanks



2. No, materials from the plane created a thermite reaction.

But you just said they did a few posts back?

What did FEMA say?
Please show info regarding cut beams.

Please show me evidence of this. Thanks.


1. i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

2. Please read the statement, it say NO then a comma. that means that material form the plane casued thermite reactions.

3. 911research.wtc7.net...


Findings reported in Appendix C of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study seem to fit the thermite theory remarkably well.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.


911research.wtc7.net...

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion." Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
...
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.


4. Video of fire chief stating how hot the steel was inside the debris pile 6 weeks later.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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


So your stating that the NIST model was wrong or did they contridict themselves?

[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]


Actually, they stated the same thing. You only are selecting quotes that fit your whole conspiracy theory. I noticed you didnt link where you got your quote.

Allow me: www.nist.gov...

After reviewing this data, you will STILL come to the same conclusion as before....which is what thet have said all along: The plane impacts and resulting fires started a chain of events that led to the eventual collapse.

You are agreeing with the official report...whether you like it or not.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
After reviewing this data, you will STILL come to the same conclusion as before....which is what thet have said all along: The plane impacts and resulting fires started a chain of events that led to the eventual collapse.



Funny the site you posted was not even close to what i posted, why are you pretending to post evidnece to support your theory? You can only repeat a few lines that state what you want to believe. You cannot show any other evidence. I can show lots of evidence and reports that show that the official story is wrong.

How could they state the same thing if the model states ther was not enough collums were not damaged by plane or fires to casue the collapse?


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.


NIST aslo stated the following,

wtc.nist.gov...

The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC 1. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed.

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels ...

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:

• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse. Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors of the towers.






[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
After reviewing this data, you will STILL come to the same conclusion as before....which is what thet have said all along: The plane impacts and resulting fires started a chain of events that led to the eventual collapse.



Funny the site you posted was not even close to what i posted, why are you pretending to post evidnece to support your theory? You can only repeat a few lines that state what you want to believe. You cannot show any other evidence. I can show lots of evidence and reports that show that the official story is wrong.



The site I posted was not even close? You mean my link to the NIST website, to the conference given June 22, 2004 entitled Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis. That IS the refernece you made in your quote.

If that wasnt close to what you posted, then you have mis-quoted the report they gave. Why would you do that now....Hmmmm???



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
If that wasnt close to what you posted, then you have mis-quoted the report they gave. Why would you do that now....Hmmmm???


Sad thing is the site you posted doesn't show anything about the collums, like i posted.

Why are you posting wrong information? Seems like you will try anything to try to pove the official story, must be getting desperate?

[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



Are you saying the quote you used from the Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis dated June 22, 2004.... was not in fact from the report from the NIST?

Why did you link this then in your quote?

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
fahim.sadek@nist.gov
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft
Impact Damage Analysis
June 22, 2004

That is the report I linked.

I'm curious why you are mis-quoting then...



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Are you saying the quote you used from the Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis dated June 22, 2004.... was not in fact from the report from the NIST?


I am not misquoting, you do not have the correct report.I would suggest you stop posting the wrong information and get the site correct.

Here is the correct link.

wtc.nist.gov...





[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I am not misquoting, you do not have the correct report.I would suggest you stop posting the wrong information and get the site correct.

Here is the correct link.

wtc.nist.gov...

[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]


ULTIMA1,

If you bothered to read the link I sent, it contains your link to the PDF. Once again...my link:
www.nist.gov...

your presentation PDF is linked at Project 2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis
Dr. Fahim Sadek, WTC Investigation, Project 2 Leader


This again shows that you agree with the NIST report.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed


Well either you cannot read or you are just do not want to admit when you are wrong. Please see the PDF i posted and go to the last page. It proves by the NIST model the planes and fires did not cause the collapse.

The official story has been proven wrong yet again, give it up and move on. You have failed to show any facts or evidence to support the official story.




[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed


Well either you cannot read or you are just do not want to admit when you are wrong. Please see the PDF i posted and go to the last page. It proves by the NIST model the planes and fires did not cause the collapse.

The official story has been proven wrong yet again, give it up and move on. You have failed to show any facts or evidence to support the official story.

[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]


OK somebody tag me out. I don't understand how Ultima can argue with himself about his own posts and lose and not know it ????

People are posting evidence left and right.
People are showing you your own mistakes in your posts left and right. Apparently comprehension is a privilege and not a right



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed


Well either you cannot read or you are just do not want to admit when you are wrong. Please see the PDF i posted and go to the last page. It proves by the NIST model the planes and fires did not cause the collapse.

Once again, selectively picking slides to back your conspiracy theory. Why not mention slide 77 of 82? What does it say immediately after your quote?? Let me quote it:


More detailed models will account for local buckling of columns, and the failure and role of the floor system in redistributing the loads; factors that are not considered in this analysis.


Why leave this part out?



The official story has been proven wrong yet again, give it up and move on. You have failed to show any facts or evidence to support the official story.
[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]


Actually, You have proven the official story is STILL correct. Thanks for sharing your quotes...and backing the official story.

Thanks!



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
People are posting evidence left and right.
People are showing you your own mistakes in your posts left and right. Apparently comprehension is a privilege and not a right


Please explain to me how a NIST report that states the planes and fires did not casue the collaspe is a mistake?

Can you show any real evidence (Not NIST) that proves the planes and fires bought the buildings down?

Because i have lots of other reports that will state the planes and fires did not casue the collaspe.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



Sorry, jfj123.

There is no helping some people. I've noticed certain people posting "facts" in one thread, then contradicting those very facts in another thread....or sometimes even the VERY SAME THREAD!

Not to worry, the truth will always prevail.



Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Can you show any real evidence (Not NIST) that proves the planes and fires bought the buildings down?


WHy? Because the NIST report shows your theory wrong?


[edit on 26-11-2007 by Disclosed]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
People are posting evidence left and right.
People are showing you your own mistakes in your posts left and right. Apparently comprehension is a privilege and not a right


Please explain to me how a NIST report that states the planes and fires did not casue the collaspe is a mistake?

Please refer to Disclosed' posts as they do a wonderful job explaining this.


Can you show any real evidence (Not NIST) that proves the planes and fires bought the buildings down?

So all of a sudden, the NIST is not real evidence even though you have been quoting it as real evidence up to this point ????????????????????????????????


Because i have lots of other reports that will state the planes and fires did not casue the collaspe.

But since that can't be real evidence either, those reports are useless.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed

More detailed models will account for local buckling of columns, and the failure and role of the floor system in redistributing the loads; factors that are not considered in this analysis.



So sad that you have to pick and choose a small sentence that goes along with what you think happened.

Now how about i show all the facts that go against the official story.

Why didn't you post what was above what you quoted? Maybe becasue it proves the official story wrong?

wtc.nist.gov...

After aircraft impact, the tower maintained its stability, where the
highest stressed elements were the exterior columns next to the
damaged area on the north face of the tower.

The tower also maintained its stability after losing columns in the
south wall due to fire effects with some reserve capacity left,
indicating that additional loss or weakening of columns in the
core, weakening of additional columns in the exterior, or
additional loss of floors is needed to collapse the tower.


911research.wtc7.net...

Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse. Seconds before, the remaining pockets of fire were visible only to the firefighters and victims in the crash zone. A thin veil of black smoke enveloped the tower's top. In the wake of the South Tower's fall new areas of fire appeared in the North Tower.

This summary is supported by simple observations of the extent and brightness of the flames and the color and quantity of smoke, using the available photographic and video evidence.

Visible flames diminished greatly over time. Significant emergence of flames from the building is only seen in a region of the North Tower 10 stories above the impact zone.
South Tower: Virtually no flames were visible at the time of its collapse.
North Tower: Flames were visible in several areas at the time of its collapse. A region of flames on the 105th floor is seen after the South Tower collapse.
The smoke darkened over time. While the fires in both towers emitted light gray smoke during the first few minutes following the impacts, the color of the smoke became darker.
South Tower: Smoke from the fires was black by the time it collapsed. At that time it was only a small fraction of the volume of the smoke from the North Tower.
North Tower: Smoke from the fires had become much darker by the time the South Tower was struck, 17 minutes after the fires were ignited. The smoke was nearly black when the South Tower collapsed. Thereafter the smoke appears to have lightened and emerged from the building at an accelerated rate.


www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.


www.nist.gov...

Section 2.2.1.2 Fire Development
Although dramatic, these fireballs did not explode or generate a shock wave. If an explosion or detonation had occurred, the expansion of the burning gasses would have taken place in microseconds, not the 2 seconds observed. Therefore, although there were some overpressures, it is unlikely that the fireballs, being external to the buildings, would have resulted in significant structural damage. It is not known whether the windows that were broken shortly after impact were broken by these external overpressures, overpressures internal to the building, the heat of the fire, or flying debris.


www.nistreview.org...

NIST dismisses the possibility that jet fuel played a sustained role in the fires. “While much of the
public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few
minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3)


911research.wtc7.net...

Jet fuel (kerosene) only burns at a fraction of the temperature needed to melt steel. In any case, the fuel did not last long, as much was consumed in the impact fireballs, and the rest would have evaporated and burned in under 5 minutes. Thereafter the fires were far less severe than other skyscraper fires (such as the 19-hour One Meridian Plaza blaze in 1991). Few flames were visible, and the black smoke indicated the fires were oxygen-starved. Survivors passed through the WTC 2's crash zone, and firefighters who arrived there described "two pockets of fire".



TO BE CONTIUED:







[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So all of a sudden, the NIST is not real evidence even though you have been quoting it as real evidence up to this point ????????????????????????????????


I have been using NIST to prove Disclosed wrong, he thinks it is real evidence. Its fun to use a persons site against them. He can only use NIST becasue most other reports state that the planes and fires did not casue the collapse.

I never stated NIST was real evidence, besides NIST reports are not peer reviewed and NIST is not the main investigator for 9/11.

[edit on 26-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join