How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

I appreciated the info you sent me Ultima1
Although it’s not proof that you were a federal officer or you now work for the NSA, it does show that you went to community collage of the air force and had entry level aircraft maintenance, completed courses at the National Cryptologic School and graduated from an 8 week course at the federal law enforcement training center in Georgia
What’s puzzling me is after reading extensive amounts of you post on several forums, it seems you are stating two things
1# that you don’t believe the planes cause the collapse of towers
2# that you don’t believe it was an inside job
If I’m correct on those two points, where exactly are you going with this?

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Are you even looking at what the builidngs could withstand. A surviver on the 78th floor of the North tower stated the tower moved about 20 feet when the plane hit and then moved back,, it was desighned to take a masive wind load.

1. Obviously you believe this to be true or you would not have posted it.
2. Obviously this is saying a massive lateral force was applied to the building to move it 20 ft.
3. How could the eyewitness measure a distance reasonably from their vantage point?
4. Lets assume the eyewitness was correct and the building moved 20 ft out and back and that may even be what happens on a really windy day. Here's he difference, when the building moved out 20 ft., a number of columns that would normally absorb those forces, no longer existed as part of the building. You can't compare a plane impact to a structurally sound building moving back and forth.

This shows that the towers withstood the initial aircraft impacts and that they would have remained standing indefinitely if not for another significant event such as the subsequent fires.

This is part of your quote which explains why the towers fell. Your own post, once again contradicting what you are saying.

Originally posted by jfj123

This shows that the towers withstood the initial aircraft impacts and that they would have remained standing indefinitely if not for another significant event such as the subsequent fires.

This is part of your quote which explains why the towers fell. Your own post, once again contradicting what you are saying.

I will make it as simple as i can. Please read the following sentence slowly and try to understand that it does not state the fires caused the collapse.

""would have remained standing indefinitely"" if not for ""another significant event such as"" the subsequent fires.

Since when does "ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT EVENT SUCH AS" state the fires were the casue?


[edit on 29-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So then you should be able to show me a side by side comparrison of a Boeing 767 and normal cruise missile.

I see! The concept of kinetic energy is foreign to you... I should have figured this one out some time ago.

Let me simplify that for you:

(a) a motorcycle delivers X Joules of energy to your cranium and you die.
(b) a tractor trailer delivers same amount of energy to your cranium and you still die.

Does it matter to you what so reliably caused your untimely death?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I see! The concept of kinetic energy is foreign to you... I should have figured this one out some time ago.

I asked for a comparison of a 767 and a cruise missile, can you do it. YES or NO ?

What missile classes have you had?

[edit on 29-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I see! The concept of kinetic energy is foreign to you... I should have figured this one out some time ago.

I asked for a comparison of a 767 and a cruise missile, can you do it. YES or NO ?

What missile classes have you had?

[edit on 29-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Do you have to have missile class to explain how aluminum can cut thru steel?

If you dont have a reason for that, then you are continuing to derail this thread, and it will be reported. Shall I link you the rules for posting on the ATS forums?

reply to post by Disclosed


after reading your post I had to check ,I was thinking Ultima1 started this thread

Originally posted by moonking
after reading your post I had to check ,I was thinking Ultima1 started this thread

I did not start the thread,,, i am just posting facts and evidence from experience and research.

Something that Disclosed cannot handle.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I did not start the thread,,, i am just posting facts and evidence from experience and research.

Something that Disclosed cannot handle.

Then you will gladly answer the original posters answer, correct?

If you want to start another thread with your other question, more power to you.....but please stick to the topic at hand.

Thank you.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I asked for a comparison of a 767 and a cruise missile, can you do it. YES or NO ?

I gave you a perfetly solid comparison of a 767 and a cruise missile with regards to their kinetic energy. So the answer is YES in capital letters so you can read. Could you read the third-grade arithmetic that accompaigned that? Warhead mass, for different types of cruise missiles, can be easily googled. Have you mastered this advanced skill?

What missile classes have you had?

I stand by every single bit of data that I present and I acknowledge occasional mistakes that I do make. In what I presented to you, ZERO missile classes were needed for derivation of the data, just high schools physics (and I'm not sure you ever mastered that).


[edit on 29-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by moonking
Although it’s not proof that you were a federal officer or you now work for the NSA, 8 week course at the federal law enforcement training center in Georgia
What’s puzzling me is after reading extensive amounts of you post on several forums, it seems you are stating two things
1# that you don’t believe the planes cause the collapse of towers
2# that you don’t believe it was an inside job
If I’m correct on those two points, where exactly are you going with this?

So i guess i went through 8 weeks of federal law enforcement training just for fun?

The National Cryptologic School is at NSA.

1. I have lots of evidence from research that the planes did not casue the collaspe. Also the fires did not casue the collapse.

2. I am looking for the the facts of what actually happened that day, not if it was a inside job or not.








2.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


For a person who can't calculate his own kinetic energy while riding a motorcycle, that's a huge overstatement.

Some expert you are.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Shouldn’t we be using all this brain power to speculate on what the terrorist next target might be and why

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So i guess i went through 8 weeks of federal law enforcement training just for fun?

not at all , I have a dear friend that went thru some branch of training, He wanted to be a cop so bad, but could not pass the profile screening

just curious but does anyone have evidence that aluminum cannot cut steel under any circumstances?

Just trying to prevent the eternal derail from consuming the group.

Thanks for humoring me

Originally posted by moonking
not at all , I have a dear friend that went thru some branch of training, He wanted to be a cop so bad, but could not pass the profile screening

Well i had gone through all of that before training.

Originally posted by jfj123
just curious but does anyone have evidence that aluminum cannot cut steel under any circumstances?

Along the same lines, does anyone have any actual evdeince that the planes caused the collapse?

Since it seems by most of the reports that the buildings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing if not for something else happening.

Originally posted by jfj123
just curious but does anyone have evidence that aluminum cannot cut steel under any circumstances?

Just trying to prevent the eternal derail from consuming the group.

Thanks for humoring me

On the contrary
I think we all agree, even ultima1, that at the very least some columns of steel were taken out by the impact of an aluminum flying machine, thus proving it could be done
I move to close this thread

Originally posted by moonking
that at the very least some columns of steel were taken out by the impact of an aluminum flying machine, thus proving it could be done
I move to close this thread

Yes, SOME collumns. Not enough to cause the collapse.

CASE CLOSED.

[edit on 29-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
just curious but does anyone have evidence that aluminum cannot cut steel under any circumstances?

Along the same lines, does anyone have any actual evdeince that the planes caused the collapse?

Since it seems by most of the reports that the buildings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing if not for something else happening.

Sorry to be a hard @ss but I'm tired of this thread being derailed in endless circles.

There is only one topic here Ultima, you have been humored but lets stop asking off topic questions and stick to the topic. Here's the topic:

HOW DOES ALUMINUM CUT STEEL?