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: 14
13
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Remember what you said one post ago?

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

The very next post you use NIST info for evidence? Please edit all NIST related information from your post since you have stated it is not real evidence. If you believe this is true, and you are posting it as evidence, you are knowingly attempting to spread disinfo.




posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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I never stated NIST was real evidence, besides NIST reports are not peer reviewed and NIST is not the main investigator for 9/11.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


Odd how you say the NIST is wrong, yet you use it to prove your theory? I'm confused, ULTIMA1....if it is so unreliable, why are you using to try and prove your side?

Most other sites? Hmm, the NIST and FEMA and 911commission reports state the same thing. What sites are you using now? 911research.wtc7.net? LOL!

Oh, and you are wrong again about not being peer reviewed:


Since 1959, the National Research Council (NRC) has assessed the technical merit, relevance, and quality of NIST's (previously NBS's) laboratory programs in the context of NIST's mission. The NRC review by expert panels is independent, technically sophisticated, and extensive, The individual FY 2007 NRC Assessment Reports were published in September 2007.


[edit on 26-11-2007 by Disclosed]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Maybe all this is drifting away from the original question and trying to analyse the entire event instead of what initiated it all.

I feel we have a reasonable amount of good evidence to suggest that aluminium can indeed cut steel if it has sufficient momentum so is there anyone still in denial about that?

Perhaps bash it's way through is more a more accurate statement than 'cut'

[edit on 26/11/2007 by Pilgrum]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Please edit all NIST related information from your post since you have stated it is not real evidence.


Ok, when you and Discloed edit the NIST related information from your post and use other facts and evidence to support the official stroy. Since i have proven that NIST changes thier reports or contidicts themselves.

Like first NIST states that the towers pancacked, now they changed thier story again to say it didn't pancake. I wish they would make up there minds.

Also they still cannot tell us the real reason builidng 7 collapsed.



[edit on 27-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 27-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Please edit all NIST related information from your post since you have stated it is not real evidence.


Ok, when you and Discloed edit the NIST related information from your post and use other facts and evidence to support the official stroy. Since i have proven that NIST changes thier reports or contidicts themselves.

Like first NIST states that the towers pancacked, now they changed thier story again to say it didn't pancake. I wish they would make up there minds.

Also they still cannot tell us the real reason builidng 7 collapsed.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 27-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]


I already posted the reason the NIST said building 7 collapsed.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Ok, when you and Discloed edit the NIST related information from your post and use other facts and evidence to support the official stroy. Since i have proven that NIST changes thier reports or contidicts themselves.


WTF does "contidict" mean?

Why are you so afraid of the NIST information? Is it because the more you read it, the more you realize it answers your questions? You do realize your theory is basically the same as the NIST report, correct? You believe thermite reactions may have brought down the buildings. Thermite reactions caused by the plane debris (aluminum) that melted from the heat of the fires. The NIST report has already stated that impact (which dislodged fireproofing from key beams) and resulting fires (which melted your aluminum) caused a chain of events (heating/weakening and yes possibly even thermite reactions) which led to the eventual collapse.

Thanks for proving the NIST report correct, ULTEMO1 :-)



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I feel we have a reasonable amount of good evidence to suggest that aluminium can indeed cut steel if it has sufficient momentum so is there anyone still in denial about that?

Perhaps bash it's way through is more a more accurate statement than 'cut'

[edit on 26/11/2007 by Pilgrum]

I’m with pilgrum

The answer to the question “Can aluminum cut thru steel?” Is “YES”

Did you know they use Thermite to weld steel together?


The reaction is used for thermite welding, often used to join railroad rails

Might explain why they found thermite on the end of steel that looked cut, It might be a joint that was welded with thermite that broke clean
en.wikipedia.org...


Thermite was originally used for repair welding in-place thick steel sections such as locomotive axle-frames where the repair can take place without removing the part from its installed location.













[edit on 27-11-2007 by moonking]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by moonking
 

Thanks for the link, moonking. I did not know that. Very interesting


[edit on 27-11-2007 by Disclosed]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Thermite reactions caused by the plane debris (aluminum) that melted from the heat of the fires. The NIST report has already stated that impact (which dislodged fireproofing from key beams) and resulting fires (which melted your aluminum) caused a chain of events (heating/weakening and yes possibly even thermite reactions) which led to the eventual collapse.


Can you cite for me the specific passage of NIST that says thermite reactions would be a possibility in this way?

And a related question: when was the last time you initiated a eutectic reaction between iron oxide and aluminum by just melting the aluminum (placing it at only ~650 - 700 C)? I've seen video of people smearing molten aluminum on steel rust, and nothing happens. No one has ever used thermite this way, because it does not work.


Also, NIST also shows exterior columns that were severed by the plane impacts, that still had fireproofing visibly attached to them a few feet below where they were impacted. NIST did no reliable test to see if fireproofing could realistically be expected to come off during the impacts. Instead, they shot a spray-on fireproofed truss with a shot gun and noted that some of it came off. If a conspiracy theorist tried to use "evidence" like that, who would take them seriously? Would you? Because if you buy that kind of reasoning ("shot gun blast knocks off fireproofing = plane impact knocks off fireproofing!") then I could convince you of all sorts of erroneous things.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Why are you so afraid of the NIST information?


Well lets start with some actual facts.

FACT 1. The 9/11 commission report did not agree with or publish all the NIST findings.

FACT 2. The final reports from NIST about the planes and fire causing the collapse totally contridicts all the previous NIST reports that the planes and fires did not casue the collapse. It also contridicts most other reports that the planes and fires did not cause the collaspe.

FACT 3. NIST did not test any steel for explosives or chemicals.

FACT 4. NIST did not recover any steel from WTC builidng 7 for testing.

This makes any NIST report about building 7 invalid.


Originally posted by bsbray11
And a related question: when was the last time you initiated a eutectic reaction between iron oxide and aluminum by just melting the aluminum (placing it at only ~650 - 700 C)? I've seen video of people smearing molten aluminum on steel rust, and nothing happens. No one has ever used thermite this way, because it does not work.


Well you have to understand that there was more then just molten aluminum involved. You had molten aluminum comming into contact with the following material.

Jet Fuel
Magnesium
Titanium
Tungsten
Oxygen tanks.

www.firehouse.com...

Molten aluminum has a 4-digit UN identification number of 9260. When referenced in the ERG it refers to guide 77 for hazards of the material. Guide 77 was an addition to the 1993 version of the ERG. Molten aluminum is the only material that refers to this guide. The guide indicates that the material is above 1300� F, and will react violently with water, which may cause an explosion, and release a flammable gas. The molten material in contact with combustible materials may cause ignition, if the molten material is above the ignition temperature of the combustible material. For example, gasoline has an average ignition temperature of around 800� F. Diesel fuel has an average ignition temperature of around 400� F, depending on the blend, and additives. In an accident gasoline or diesel fuel could be spilled. The molten material could be an ignition source for the gasoline or diesel fuel if it came in contact. When contacting concrete on a roadway, or at a fixed facility, molten materials could cause spalling and small pops. This could cause pieces of concrete to become projectiles. Contact with the skin would cause severe thermal burns. There is no personnel protective clothing that would adequately protect responders from contact with molten materials.








[edit on 27-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well lets start with some actual facts.

FACT 1. The 9/11 commission report did not agree with or publish all the NIST findings.

Your proof of that is.... ? They seem to agree with all the NIST reports that are publicly available. Unless you are viewing some super secret NSA eyes only documents...


FACT 2. The final reports from NIST about the planes and fire causing the collapse totally contridicts all the previous NIST reports that the planes and fires did not casue the collapse. It also contridicts most other reports that the planes and fires did not cause the collaspe.

ACTUAL FACT 2. The NIST reports still say what they have said all along: The plane impacts, and resulting fires, caused a chain of events that led to eventual collapse.


FACT 3. NIST did not test any steel for explosives or chemicals.

ACTUAL FACT 3. The NIST DID infact test for chemicals. Please refer to wtc.nist.gov... , section E.5 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES. Specifically the lines talking about the chemical analysis and chemistry results. Sounds like chemical test to me...


FACT 4. NIST did not recover any steel from WTC builidng 7 for testing.

You are correct about this one fact....congrats!



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well you have to understand that there was more then just molten aluminum involved. You had molten aluminum comming into contact with the following material.

Jet Fuel
Magnesium
Titanium
Tungsten
Oxygen tanks.


So we know this? Or is this the working assumption?

I've seen how it could all be worked out theoretically if this-and-that condition happened to be met at the right place(s) at the right time(s) (all this using chemistry that, if only HALF as inaccurate and unrealistic as other calculations thrown out there that I know are crap, would still be pretty bad -- but I wouldn't know) but I haven't seen much evidence, you know? I'd especially like to see people intentionally start thermite reactions by the processes they suggest were accidental, just to see if they would work at all.

Thermite usually requires small particles of the reactants to provide as much surface area contact between them as possible. Smaller particles allow for tighter fitting and more surface areas contacting between them, which is why "nanothermites" are more energetic. I've seen a lot of amateurs intentionally trying to start commercial thermite reactions and filming it on YouTube (just search for "thermite") and having all kinds of problems getting a good reaction. This is people intentionally trying to start them with all the ingredients required at hand, not requiring any coincidence at all. I haven't seen it work once using molten aluminum. Needless to say I've never heard of thermite reactions naturally ("stupidly") occurring, either (in any form). There needs to be some kind of scientific precedent if I'm going to really buy into any of this stuff.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Can you cite for me the specific passage of NIST that says thermite reactions would be a possibility in this way?


I cannot at this time. I was mainly adding that to humo ULTEMO1, but if you like i'll do a bit more digging into the NIST report and see what I can find for ya.

Theoretically it may be possible....I'll just find your answers for ya.

Thanks for the reply!



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

So we know this? Or is this the working assumption?



All the materal listed is material from the plane itself.

wheels are made of magnesium
engine sections are made of titanium
counterweights are tungsten



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
ACTUAL FACT 2. The NIST reports still say what they have said all along: The plane impacts, and resulting fires, caused a chain of events that led to eventual collapse.


ACTUAL FACT 3. The NIST DID infact test for chemicals. Please refer to wtc.nist.gov... , section E.5 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES. Specifically the lines talking about the chemical analysis and chemistry results. Sounds like chemical test to me...


Actual Evidence 2. No the previous NIST reports stated the planes and fires did not cause the collapse.

wtc.nist.gov...

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.


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.


Actual Evidence 3. NIST stated they did no test for explosives or chemicals.

www.911research.wtc7.net...

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.




[edit on 27-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
ULTEMO1,

If you bothered to read the ENITRE June 2004 report by the NIST, you will see this little diddy:

www.nist.gov...


The NIST investigation team has formulated the following chronological sequence of major events leading to the eventual collapse of the towers:

Aircraft impact damaged the perimeter columns, causing redistribution of column loads to adjacent perimeter columns and to the core columns via the hat truss (the steel structure that supported the antenna atop the towers and was connected to the core and perimeter columns).
After breaching the building’s exterior, the aircraft continued to penetrate into the buildings, damaging core columns with redistribution of column loads to other intact core and perimeter columns via the hat truss and floor systems.
The subsequent fires, influenced by the post-impact condition of the fireproofing, weakened columns and floor systems (including those that had been damaged by aircraft impact), triggered additional local failures that ultimately led to column instability.
Final column instability resulted when redistributing loads could not be accommodated any further.


Sound strangely familiar? Wow, it's what they have said all along!!


So, you link a conspiracy website that says the NIST didnt test chemicals.

I link the actual NIST report with the chemical analysis.

I wonder which is right....conspiracy site? actual report?

Hmm...



[edit on 27-11-2007 by Disclosed]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
He just likes to watch this.




posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed I wonder which is right....conspiracy site? actual report?


But can you prove the site is a conspiracy site. YES or NO?

Also the questions were from NIST , correct? YES or NO?

"A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions."

But if it makes you feel beeter i can get the same evidence from a NIST site.


[edit on 27-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed

Aircraft impact damaged the perimeter columns, causing redistribution of column loads to adjacent perimeter columns and to the core columns via the hat truss (the steel structure that supported the antenna atop the towers and was connected to the core and perimeter columns).


And the preliminary findings on the NIST model state the following.


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.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But can you prove the site is a conspiracy site. YES or NO?

Did the site perform investigations at the recovery site? Did they have exclusive access to evidence from the WTC site, Pentagon site and Shanksville site?


Also the questions were from NIST , correct? YES or NO?

"A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions."


The small portion of the report you link is from the NIST site, true. However, but by not providing the entire section you derived it from, you dont tell the entire story.
That would be like me saying Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz killed the wicked witch of the west, then left the city. You leave out the part about the house crashing on her after being picked up by a tornado, etc etc etc...

By reading the WHOLE report, you will see that you actually agree with the NIST report. Guess I'm confused as to why you say you dont,




top topics



 
13
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join