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: 23
13
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Please show me where something official and/or scientific says that.


I have shown it to you. I have more but if you will not even admit to what i have already shown i doubt you will admit no matter how much evidence i show.

So please just state. Will you admit to evidence to goes against what you believe happened, YES or NO ?




posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 03:06 AM
link   

The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut like the photo above, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it's a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column. You can direct it with a canister but that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. Nano-thermite has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns.

www.debunking911.com...



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Please show me where something official and/or scientific says that.


I have shown it to you. I have more but if you will not even admit to what i have already shown i doubt you will admit no matter how much evidence i show.

So please just state. Will you admit to evidence to goes against what you believe happened, YES or NO ?


Perhaps I missed something please post it and show me how the plane impact is compared to wind loads. Again something official and/or scientific. So far I have seen opinion and semi-relevant info. Thanks. Also, did you understand my blow dart analogy?



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123 Again something official and/or scientific.


Oh, so now your saying the NIST report i posted is not official or scientific?

So doesn't that mean the NIST report you keep using is not official or scientific?

More NIST report about impact and wind.

www.nist.gov...

The two WTC towers withstood the initial impact of virtually identical aircraft (Boeing 767 200ER) during the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The robustness of the perimeter structural system and the large dimensional size of the WTC towers helped the buildings withstand the aircraft impact.


Following impact, the WTC towers displayed and withstood vibrational forces that were as much as half the levels (in extreme wind conditions) for which the buildings were designed.



[edit on 3-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



I'm curious why this thread keeps getting completely derailed. What does wind force have to do with aluminum cutting steel?



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


I have lead with a then copper jacket slise through steel like butter. However it did it . thoughsands of people witnesses it live and billions seen it on video.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



I'm curious why this thread keeps getting completely derailed. What does wind force have to do with aluminum cutting steel?


This thread is completely derailed because ULTIMA1 is not one to acknowledge his utter defeat in the argument which is the topic of thie thread. And there we have it, -- with wind load, 707 vs 767 and all such unrelated stuff.

I suggest we let ULTIMA1 has his final word on wind load and be done with it.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 




The two WTC towers withstood the initial impact of virtually identical aircraft (Boeing 767 200ER) during the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The robustness of the perimeter structural system and the large dimensional size of the WTC towers helped the buildings withstand the aircraft impact.

Following impact, the WTC towers displayed and withstood vibrational forces that were as much as half the levels (in extreme wind conditions) for which the buildings were designed.


Do you really understand what this means?
The vibrational wind load would be absorbed by the entire side of the building as wind doesn't blow in little concentrated tubes.
The planes did not stop at the outside perimeter of the buildings, they entered the buildings and caused damage to the structure itself. No wind ever caused core support columns to be severed, has it?
What you've posted is only referring to the vibration resulting from plane impacts, not the internal damage or subsequent fires which resulted from the plane impacts.
Please read and understand what you are posting. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Disclosed
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I'm curious why this thread keeps getting completely derailed. What does wind force have to do with aluminum cutting steel?


This thread is completely derailed because ULTIMA1 is not one to acknowledge his utter defeat in the argument which is the topic of thie thread. And there we have it, -- with wind load, 707 vs 767 and all such unrelated stuff.

I suggest we let ULTIMA1 has his final word on wind load and be done with it.



oops! I posted a response without reading what you posted. Of course you're right so that will be my last "wind load" response on this thread. My apologies. He is really good at derailing though isn't he?



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I would like to throw another story into the analogy pot.

This is another example of a softer substance severely damaging a harder substance.

I was listening to local talk radio this morning and one of the DJ's was talking about a transmitter tower wire that went from the tower to their building. He mentioned that, in the winter, icicles would build up on the wires and when it warmed up enough, the icicles would break off. It became a serious safety issue and several cars were damaged by falling icicles. One cars windshield was broken out and a local reporters SUV was pierced through completely by several icicles.

So either we should build planes out of ice or under certain circumstances, softer substances when propelled with enough velocity, can severely damage harder substances.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
This thread is completely derailed because ULTIMA1 is not one to acknowledge his utter defeat in the argument which is the topic of thie thread.


So i see that the people who still believe the official story are living in a fantasy world and cannot accept the reality that i have proven time and time again that the planes impacts did not cause the collapse.

Why are you so afraid of the truth ?



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Here's the problem. The threads subject is specifically about whether or not aluminum can cut steel with regard to 9/11 plane impacts. We keep getting off track from the one and only subject that the thread is about. Claiming people don't want to know the truth just because they are not willing to constantly derail the topic, is silly. If you have other subject matter, please post it in the appropriate thread.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Here's the problem. The threads subject is specifically about whether or not aluminum can cut steel with regard to 9/11 plane impacts.


Yes, and i have posted on that subject. But i also brought up other facts and evidence of the planes impacts not causing the collapse.

Sorry if you do not like the facts and evidence i post just because they go against what you believe happened.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes, and i have posted on that subject. But i also brought up other facts and evidence of the planes impacts not causing the collapse.
Sorry if you do not like the facts and evidence i post just because they go against what you believe happened.

So when you say that you "also brought up other facts and evidence of the planes impacts not causing the collapse", you understand that is not part of the thread subject matter? Do you understand that? YES or NO?



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So when you say that you "also brought up other facts and evidence of the planes impacts not causing the collapse", you understand that is not part of the thread subject matter? Do you understand that? YES or NO?


Yes, but it does go along with the facts the planes impacts did not casue the collapse, which was trying to be proven by some people using the "aluminum cutting steel" OP.




[edit on 3-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The original poster was just inquiring about aluminum cutting thru steel. They did not mention the collapse, or anything other than the plane cutting thru the building "like butter".

Any topics on "wind resistance", or the collapse in general are completely irrelevant.

They just wanted to know about aluminum cuttin thru steel...thats all.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
They just wanted to know about aluminum cuttin thru steel...thats all.


Yes and i posted facts and evidence that the aluminum would not cause that much damage.

CASE WAS CLOSED.


[edit on 3-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes and i posted facts and evidence that the aluminum would not cause that much damage.


If you did, you must have been writing with invisible ink, because there was nothing memorable you posted in this topic. On the other hand, plenty of example were given to you on the subject of soft objects cutting through hard objects due to kinetic energy. You ignored the calculation offered to you by two posters regarding the amount of kinetic energy contained in the WTC plane being comparable to cruise missiles. Having exhausted your options, you resorted to derailing the thread because you decided to try and save face; and that, in fact, is a pretty arrogant thing to do.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
If you did, you must have been writing with invisible ink, because there was nothing memorable you posted in this topic.


Just another sign your living in a fantasy world. Common sense and facts cannot even get through to you.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by buddhasystem
If you did, you must have been writing with invisible ink, because there was nothing memorable you posted in this topic.


Just another sign your living in a fantasy world. Common sense and facts cannot even get through to you.


No offense but buddhasystem is right. You haven't posted anything of substance stating that aluminum would not do that much damage. I would appreciate it if you would and I will most definitely read the material. Thanks in advance for posting the info.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join