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: 21
13
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by questionman
If core columns were cut, the damage would be asymetric and we would not see a symetric failure.


Can you provide evidence of this? Thanks.




posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Yes, the buildings were designed for hurricane force winds. The steel was massive four inches thick at the base...roughly a 50 by 26 box column with 4 inch steel. And 47 of these monsters tied together. Whoa. You have probably seen the 45 degree thermate assisted cuts in the core beams near ground level? The beams are straight on either side of the cut, no melting generally. Just areas of specific cutting and a clear sign of demolition.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Evidence of asymetric failure? Go out to the woods and cut a tree in the normal fashion, weakening one side. The tree will fall to the side in a toppling motion.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by questionman
 


That's actually more of a clear sign of cutting with an acetylene torch cut.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
911blogger.com...

Good website and it shows the themate 45 degree cut in core beam.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by questionman
Evidence of asymetric failure? Go out to the woods and cut a tree in the normal fashion, weakening one side. The tree will fall to the side in a toppling motion.


Actually, I've cut down lots of trees and you have to be very careful with how you make the cuts to fall the tree in the direction you want. If you just slice thru the trunk of a tree though, it will first fall straight down until the cut end hits the ground. Since the tree's lateral support is gone, the tree has to fall in some direction.

The towers didn't fall from the bottom. They collapsed from the top down. It takes energy to make something move laterally and all of the energy in the collapse was provided by gravity.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Please provide evidence that the plane impact transfered less energy then a wind load on the building.

Also, a 707 didn't hit the buildings, a 767 did.
And the impact alone didn't cause the buildings to fall but the impact + fires did.



1. 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.



2. There is not a lot of difference between a 707 and a 767, please do research.

And no the plane impacts and fires DID NOT casue the collaspe.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
That is 911 with firemen standing in the provided link. Any clean up crew would first remove the smaller debris for access and then cut the larger beams horozontally, not diagonally because they are easier to handle that way and a straight cut is shorter, easier and faster.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
That is 911 with firemen standing in the provided link. Any clean up crew would first remove the smaller debris for access and then cut the larger beams horozontally, not diagonally because they are easier to handle that way and a straight cut is shorter, easier and faster.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
"2. There is not a lot of difference between a 707 and a 767, please do research."

I believe you will also find that a 707 could travel at higher speeds, therefore negating any negligible difference in weight.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by open mind
It's a good question however the simple answer is:
when it's going 600 mph

yet theres no case history to back it up whatsoever?

and we spent 20 million investigating this and couldnt produce a viable answer?

well, im glad we have laymen on the internet to clear these kind things up, otherwise conspiracy theories would run rampant...



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by questionman
 


I believe you will also find that the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 707 lost in the fog trying to land, which would mean low speed impact. Not a 707 at cruising or max speed, cleaned up ready to land.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by questionman
That is 911 with firemen standing in the provided link. Any clean up crew would first remove the smaller debris for access and then cut the larger beams horozontally, not diagonally because they are easier to handle that way and a straight cut is shorter, easier and faster.


You wouldn't necessarily remove debris, especially if that standing structure was in the way of the recovery effort. You might also cut straight if you're going to pull it out with a crane. In this case, it appears they were trying to fall that big structure in a specific direction. Notice the spot on the front left corner of the beam. Then notice what appears to the part that was cut down off to the left. Looking at this without any conspiracy blinders and I'd say a metalworker cut that structure to fall in that direction to clear the field for the recovery and cleanup efforts.

Besides being convinced that thermate was the culprit, is there anything inconsistent with my hypothesis?



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I believe you will also find that the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 707 lost in the fog trying to land, which would mean low speed impact. Not a 707 at cruising or max speed, cleaned up ready to land.


But it still means the buildings would withstand a lot of impact when you figure in the buildings also withstood a large wind load.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I would advise everyone to look not only at the multitude of 911 truth videos, but also the Nova and PBS videos.
The Nova and PBS videos use computers to depict the 911 event and in doing so, show the loads staying centered, the top loads transferring to the bottom of the building. But that is not what happened with regard to towers one and two. The loads were laterally ejected by some unidentified source, over 350 feet. The loads on the bottom portion of the building DECREASED to the extent of the lateral ejection carried the pulverized mass off its base support below. Nova and PBS carefully avoid any discussion of these displaced upper loads because their arguement depends on the top crushing the bottom, however illogical that is..
If Nova and PBS and Popular Mechanics were serious about their science, why neglect the very obviously displaced upper loads?
Note, the loads blew out of each of the 4 sides of the building.
Note also, the the failure of WTC 7 was blamed in part on structural compromised building due to the laterally ejected loads!!!
In one instance with towers 1 and 2, the displaced loads were ignored, while when describing the failure of WTC 7, the displaced loads were emphasized. Hello? Gotta go to work. Thank you.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123



1. 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.

Ok here is what you're missing:
1. The EARLY news reports said......
2. had been designed to resist STEADY wind loads 30 times the weight of the craft.
The wind load was distributed across the entire building and not in one small area. If the wind and plane had the same amount of energy transfer, the wind would have blown the building over.


2. There is not a lot of difference between a 707 and a 767, please do research.

You too


707-320B (largest of the 707 class)
Max take off weight 333,600 lb
767 200 ER max take off weight 395,000 lb
767 max. take off weight is 61,400 lbs more.

707 plane empty weight 146,400 lb
767 plane empty weight 181,610 lb
767 plane empty weight is 35,210 lbs more

707 wing span is 145.75 ft
767 wing span is 170.33 ft
767 wing span is 24.58 ft longer


And no the plane impacts and fires DID NOT casue the collaspe.

Yes they did


[edit on 1-12-2007 by jfj123]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


You know, this windload argument is a good one, but I think it moves even further away from the need for explosives to bring the towers down. I remember going to lunch at the restaurant at the top of one of the towers (don't remember which) when I was visiting a friend in NYC and the waiter told us about how he could feel the building sway a little on really windy days. I'm deathly afraid of heights, so that thought caused me a little anxiety.

Now consider a big airliner slamming into the building and inevitibly causing, at the very least SOME structural loss. Then the subsequent fires. Then add in the ever-present wind loads and you've got a lot of forces acting upon the structure. I personally believe the towers were brought down by the chain of events that followed the airplane impact and explosives weren't needed.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
[You too


707-320B (largest of the 707 class)
Max take off weight 333,600 lb
767 200 ER max take off weight 395,000 lb
767 max. take off weight is 61,400 lbs more.

707 plane empty weight 146,400 lb
767 plane empty weight 181,610 lb
767 plane empty weight is 35,210 lbs more

707 wing span is 145.75 ft
767 wing span is 170.33 ft
767 wing span is 24.58 ft longer


So you just proven there is not that much difference between a 707 and a 767. When it comes to aircrat those numbers are not that much different, sorry.

You only have NISt stating the planes and impacts casued the collaspe when they have been proven to keep changing their story.

I have several reports that state the planes and fires did not cause the collapse.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I believe you will also find that the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 707 lost in the fog trying to land, which would mean low speed impact. Not a 707 at cruising or max speed, cleaned up ready to land.


But it still means the buildings would withstand a lot of impact when you figure in the buildings also withstood a large wind load.


You cannot compare a large wind load to an airplane impact. The differences include speed and surface area. There has never been a 600 mph wind blowing on the WTC's in a focused area similar in size as the 767's.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by StudioGuy
Then add in the ever-present wind loads and you've got a lot of forces acting upon the structure.


Reports state it was not a windy day that day so the winds would not have played a part.

I have a video from a surviver from the 78th floor of the North tower. He stated when the plane hit the building moved about 20 feet, stopped and came back and setteled back down again, meaning the building did what it was built to do.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join