How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

reply to post by questionman


The lateral ejection of material is different from laterally moving the falling mass. That lateral ejection actually disproves the fallacy of "free fall speed" in the collapse because the central core was falling quite a bit slower than the outer structure. There was so much kinetic energy in the collapsing structure that it would have been impossible for all of the material to stay centered over the footprint. Just consider the amount of air pressure present in the structure as it fell and you can figure that there were some pretty explosive outgassings which would have caused even more dispursal of ejected material.

Originally posted by jfj123
You cannot compare a large wind load to an airplane impact.

I will state it 1 more time.

Reports state the planes impacts were nothing compared to what the building could withstand.

Almost all reports have stated the plane impacts and fires did not cause the collapse.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


A 15.5 % difference in max takeoff weight
A 20 % difference in empty plane weight
A 14.4% difference in wingspan

That isn't much? Yeah, ok
How about when you're given your pay, they take out 15.5 percent more every week and see if it makes a difference in your income

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
You cannot compare a large wind load to an airplane impact.

I will state it 1 more time.

Reports state the planes impacts were nothing compared to what the building could withstand.

Please post them. Do you understand the difference between wind hitting the building and a plane hitting the building?

Almost all reports have stated the plane impacts and fires did not cause the collapse.

Actually the NIST final report states the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Reports state the planes impacts were nothing compared to what the building could withstand.

However a wind loading is applied to the total surface area of the side facing into the wind so the pressures are miniscule in comparison to the planes impact area as a percentage of that side of the building which explains the ease with which the planes entered the buildings.

Also from the www.tms.org site you quoted the wind loading rating from, in the very next paragraph...

Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse

Seems they don't have a problem with tying the impacts and fires together to cause collapse.

Pilgrum, Let's rephrase that quote from tms.org and some more info to clarify what actually happened that day.....

The fire that ensued from the explosion 56 minutes (or 102 minutes) earlier when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel ignited on initial impact...

It doesn't sound so much clearly the principal now....

Originally posted by NIcon
Pilgrum, Let's rephrase that quote from tms.org and some more info to clarify what actually happened that day.....

The fire that ensued from the explosion 56 minutes (or 102 minutes) earlier when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel ignited on initial impact...

It doesn't sound so much clearly the principal now....

I think pilgrum explained it clearly. What part of the post seemed unclear?

reply to post by jfj123


jfj123, his post was perfectly clear. I had a problem with the quote... I made the mistake of thinking these two lines represented the tms.org's argument before reading the page. I assumed their argument was the explosion had more to do with the collapse than supposedly the fire. But I'm reading and comparing that page now...

I just quoted it exactly as it is written

There's a strong concensus in professional circles that the impact damage + fuel explosion damage + fire damage was enough to initiate structural failure without reliance on anything extra like planted devices or other exotic technology.

A lot of time and energy is going into overt theories because they're physical and way more interesting than the more likely covert possibilities.

Originally posted by jfj123
Please post them. Do you understand the difference between wind hitting the building and a plane hitting the building?

Actually the NIST final report states the exact opposite of what you are saying.

I have posted them, please go back and read the facts and evidence i have posted. By the way NIST did the wind load reports, are you saying they are wrong about the wind loads?

The NIST report is 1 report and NIST is not the official investigating agency for 9/11. Do you have any actual evidence and official reports that state the impacts and fires caused the collaspe.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
By the way NIST did the wind load reports, are you saying they are wrong about the wind loads?

The NIST report is 1 report and NIST is not the official investigating agency for 9/11. Do you have any actual evidence and official reports that state the impacts and fires caused the collaspe.

How do you resolve the following?

You state that the wind loads were harder on the buildings then the plane impact.
The plane went into, through, and out the other side of the building (some debris only). This would require more energy then any wind load the buildings would have encountered?

If you want to know how the buildings fell, read the NIST final report. It sums it up very well.

[edit on 2-12-2007 by jfj123]

Originally posted by jfj123
You state that the wind loads were harder on the buildings then the plane impact.

Please read the following facts and evidence slowly and carefully.

www.nist.gov...

Wind load capacity is a key factor in determining the overall strength of a tall building and is important in determining not only its ability to withstand winds but also its reserve capacity to withstand unanticipated events such as a major fire or impact damage.

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.

[edit on 2-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Yes, I have thank you for posting the info. Now please explain to me in detail, what this information has to do with the actual plane impacts.

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes, I have thank you for posting the info. Now please explain to me in detail, what this information has to do with the actual plane impacts.

The facts and evidence basically state the planes impacts were not enough to cause the collapse due to the fact that the builidngs were built to withstand more force or impact then the planes caused.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123

The facts and evidence basically state the planes impacts were not enough to cause the collapse due to the fact that the builidngs were built to withstand more force or impact then the planes caused.

please now explain how wind is the same as a plane impact. thanks.

Originally posted by jfj123
please now explain how wind is the same as a plane impact. thanks.

Are you for real? I have not stated the wind is the same as a plane impact.

I have posted facts and evidence that state the buildings were capable of withstanding more then the planes impacts.

double post

[edit on 2-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
please now explain how wind is the same as a plane impact. thanks.

Are you for real? I have not stated the wind is the same as a plane impact.

I have posted facts and evidence that state the buildings were capable of withstanding more then the planes impacts.

Yes I am for real as I am not a hologram

Do you understand that simply because the buildings could withstand a lot of wind, they may still not be able to withstand a plane impact?

Originally posted by jfj123
Do you understand that simply because the buildings could withstand a lot of wind, they may still not be able to withstand a plane impact?

But the facts and evidence have stated the the builidngs could withstand more then the impacts the planes created.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Do you understand that simply because the buildings could withstand a lot of wind, they may still not be able to withstand a plane impact?

But the facts and evidence have stated the the builidngs could withstand more then the impacts the planes created.

Please show me where something official and/or scientific says that.

Try this analogy for comparison.
You stand in a 30 mph wind. You are the building.
Now someone fires a blow dart at you at 30 mph. Which of the 2 will hurt? By the way the blow dart is the plane and you are still the building.