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: 15
13
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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.




Once again....afraid to post the whole report.

Why are you afraid to post the whole report?




posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
By reading the WHOLE report, you will see that you actually agree with the NIST report.


How does it agree when NIST stated in the answer to the question they did not test for explosives or chemicals?

FEMA did test for explosives and chemicales and found some material from very high heat source like thermite.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Once again....afraid to post the whole report.

Why are you afraid to post the whole report?


Oh, you mean like you are afraid to post anything other then a few lines from NIST? Becasue most other reports prove the planes and fires did not casue the collapse.

Why don't you post more of the previous NIST reports that state the planes and fires did not cause the collapse?

[edit on 27-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
By reading the WHOLE report, you will see that you actually agree with the NIST report.


How does it agree when NIST stated in the answer to the question they did not test for explosives or chemicals?


ULTEMO1,

If you don't bother to click on the links provided, to show you your "missing proof", then why even bother to debate? I linked you directly to the NIST report, and their chemical analysis....even providing you with the exact paragraphs talking about it.

At least have the courtesy of reviewing the evidence at hand.

We cannot help you find your answers if you dont even bother clicking on the links provided.


Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Why don't you post more of the previous NIST reports that state the planes and fires did not cause the collapse?



I cant post what doesnt exist. You WANT to believe it says that, but clearly it does not...as proven by the links I have posted to the NIST.gov site.

Clearly, this thread has derailed from the original topic. I suggest if you want to discuss this further, start a new thread or take it to prive mail. No need to cluttering this thread up with off topic jibber jabber.

I'm out!

[edit on 27-11-2007 by Disclosed]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
I cant post what doesnt exist.
[edit on 27-11-2007 by Disclosed]


Thats funny because i have posted several previous reports that state the planes or fires did not casue the collapse.

They have stated that the buildings survived the planes impacts and would have kept standing, and the fires did not get hot enough or burn long enough to cause the collaspe.

So why don't you post them if i can? Do you need me to show them agian? How far back would you like me to go?









[edit on 27-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
I cant post what doesnt exist.
[edit on 27-11-2007 by Disclosed]


Thats funny because i have posted several previous reports that state the planes or fires did not casue the collapse.

They have stated that the buildings survived the planes impacts and would have kept standing, and the fires did not get hot enough or burn long enough to cause the collaspe.


You're missing what's in your own posts Ultima. Notice that it says WOULD have kept standing??? Would have kept standing except for what? The rest of the info is not in that sentence.

So, would have kept standing except for what?



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I post this long quote as to keep the last paragraph that ultima1 has referred to within its context
They are Preliminary multiple scenarios
Basically saying “IF this many columns then this is how it collapsed” or “IF only this many columns then no collapse”
This paragraph (below) is not saying what actually happen
But only what happens when they tested the scenario trying to figure out how many columns were really damage

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


The key word in that statement is “representative”


Preliminary Findings
􀂉 A 500 mph engine impact against an exterior wall panel results in a
penetration of the exterior wall and failure of perimeter columns. If the
engine does not impact a floor slab, the majority of the engine core
remains intact through the exterior wall penetration with a reduction in
velocity of about 10% and 20%. The residual velocity and mass of the
engine after penetration of the exterior wall are sufficient to fail a core
column in a direct impact condition. Interaction with additional interior
building contents, or a misaligned impact against the core column,
could change this result .
􀂉 A normal impact of the exterior wall by an empty wing segment
produces significant damage to the exterior columns but not necessarily
complete failure. A fuel-filled wing section impact results in extensive
damage to the exterior wall, including complete failure of the exterior
columns. This is consistent with photographs showing the exterior
damage to the towers due to impact.
Preliminary Findings, cont.
􀂉 At room temperature, global instability of the intact tower occurs when
five floors are removed from the tower model. At column temperatures
of 600ºC, the removal of four floors induces global instability.
􀂉 When 15 core columns are assumed severed, it is likely that column
splices below the hat truss will fail due to the large tensile loads in the
columns. When only 8 core columns are assumed severed, the splices
may fail; however, the results are not conclusive.
􀂉 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.ex]

[edit on 27-11-2007 by moonking]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Jeeze, why are you guys discussing this with ULTIMA?

He's obviously just quote mining a preliminary report, and ignoring the findings of the final report.

That's one of the most dishonest tactics there ever was, but a common one among CTerz. I'm surprised that ATS allows this. I thought they were against that type of poster.......



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Would have kept standing except for what?


They would have kept standing except for something happened to cause high amounts of heat (besides the fires) to casue the molten steel in the basements and debris.

Because we know the fires did not get hot enough to melt steel, and the fires were burning out before the collapse. And the testing on the steel that FEMA did.


Originally posted by Haroki
He's obviously just quote mining a preliminary report, and ignoring the findings of the final report.


NO, i am quoting from every report from NIST before the final report.

Only the final report states the planes and fires casued the collapse, and the contridicts all the previous reports.

Also most other reports state the planes and fires did not casue the collapse.




[edit on 28-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   
They would have kept standing except for the fact that they decided to figure out why they didn't
After all, that was there job



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Would have kept standing except for what?


They would have kept standing except for something happened to cause high amounts of heat (besides the fires) to casue the molten steel in the basements and debris.

Because we know the fires did not get hot enough to melt steel, and the fires were burning out before the collapse. And the testing on the steel that FEMA did.


Originally posted by Haroki
He's obviously just quote mining a preliminary report, and ignoring the findings of the final report.


NO, i am quoting from every report from NIST before the final report.

Only the final report states the planes and fires casued the collapse, and the contridicts all the previous reports.

Also most other reports state the planes and fires did not casue the collapse.




[edit on 28-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]


No, you're quote mining, pure and simple.

You quote the part that seems to bolster your position, but ignore the part - IN THE VERY SAME REPORT - that says that the follow up report will address the other issues - someone else posted that part.

ATS ought to give you a warning for that kind of bs. After having my fill of all the trolls and non-existant moderating one finds on other CT sites, I thought I found a site that stood for something better.......



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Haroki
ATS ought to give you a warning for that kind of bs. After having my fill of all the trolls and non-existant moderating one finds on other CT sites, I thought I found a site that stood for something better.......


Actually, I think the same.

After the selective editing of the Boeing 707 video earlier on, and the selective quoting, and the continual referal back to points that have already been answered, the only conclusion that I can draw is that there is no attempt on Ultima's part to answer, or listen to the answers put forward to the question that was raised and instead the topic is being prolonged for the sake of argument.

[edit on 28/1107/07 by neformore]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haroki No, you're quote mining, pure and simple.
You quote the part that seems to bolster your position, but ignore the part - IN THE VERY SAME REPORT - that says that the follow up report will address the other issues - someone else posted that part.



No you are ignoring the parts that states the planes and fires did not casue the collapse.

Pleas read this NIST report that states the fires were not enough to casue the collaspe.

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.


So how can NIST change its mind from evidence that fires were not hot enough to cause a collapse to stating it was a cause of the collaspe?



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTEMO1,

Why are you quote mining?

The executive summary of that very report states this:

wtc.nist.gov...


E1. OVERVIEW:
The World Trade Center (WTC) towers collapsed on September 11, 2001, as a result of damage inflicted by aircraft and the ensuing fires.


If thats not enough, whats this???


[Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW AND SCOPE
The collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on September 11, 2001, were the result of damage inflicted by the aircraft impact and the ensuing fires within the two buildings.


The first sentence in both the executive summary, and chapter 1 state the obvious.

Please quit trolling...



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
The first sentence in both the executive summary, and chapter 1 state the obvious.

Please quit trolling...


Then both sentences contridict the evidence on the pages. Why does NIST contridict itself?

How can fires be a cause if they were not hot enough or last long enough according the evidence in the report?

Is NIST lieing about the outcome or the evidence?

[edit on 28-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Then both sentences contridict the evidence on the pages. Why does NIST contridict itself?

How can fires be a cause if they were not hot enough or last long enough according the evidence in the report?

Is NIST lieing about the outcome or the evidence?
]


Actually, I'm curious why you are only posting portions of the link you sent. More quote mining?

Why did you leave out this key sentence in your second paragraph? Let me finish the sentence, as it was intended to read:


More than 170 areas were examined on the perimiter column panels; however, these columns represented only 3 percent of the perimiter columns on the floors involved in fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors.


Also, these were PERIMITER COLUMNS....not from the core. ALso, the sample used was only 0.25 to 0.5% of the 200,000 tons of structural steel. That means 99.5% was untested.



Curious why you left that part out.



[edit on 28-11-2007 by Disclosed]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Curious why you left that part out.


Curious why you left this part out.


6) Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.


And this


The collection of steel from the WTC towers was sufficient for determining the quality of the steel and, in combination with published literature, for determining mechanical properties as input to models of building performance.





[edit on 28-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

So show us the part in the report where it says the fires did not burn long enough or hot enough. I searched thru that 9 meg PDF and couldnt find them saying that anywhere...

Show us, ULTEMA1.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
Curious why you left that part out.


Curious why you left this part out.


6) Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.



Did you forget this already?

these columns represented only 3 percent of the perimiter columns on the floors involved in fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors.


Cannot be considered representative of other colums on these (fire involved) floors.

Now you're just arguing to argue...and ignoring facts presented before you. I think its time the mods intervene....

No sense trying to explain something with someone so closed minded.


[edit on 28-11-2007 by Disclosed]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
So show us the part in the report where it says the fires did not burn long enough or hot enough. I searched thru that 9 meg PDF and couldnt find them saying that anywhere...

Show us, ULTEMA1.


I have just shown you in the above quotes from the NIST report.

But in case you did not read them. Here are the highlights from the NIST report. Please notice part 5, 6, and 7

1) No WTC-7 steel was recovered or analyzed.

2) No unprocessed, intact floor trusses were recovered or analyzed.

3) No testing for explosives (or sulfidation or other residue of any kind) was performed.

4) Only 12 total core columns were recovered from WTC-1 & WTC-2 combined.

5) Of the recovered core pieces, none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.

6) Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.

7) No recovered steel showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.




top topics



 
13
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join