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: 28
13
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The floors below were designed to support them with SMALL movements, like from them rocking in the wind.


Well actually they were designed to support rather large movements from the wind.

A surviver from the 78th floor of the North tower stated the tower moved several feet when the plane hit but came back into postion just like it does in high winds.



Actually, the quote from the survivor is that the tower swayed 20 ft, which is of course ridiculous.

NIST estimated, by looking at videos and measuring the movement, that it swayed 20 inches.




posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haroki
Actually, the quote from the survivor is that the tower swayed 20 ft, which is of course ridiculous.

NIST estimated, by looking at videos and measuring the movement, that it swayed 20 inches.


I would rather believe the person that was actually there then NIST who was not there.

The building had expansion joints to be able to move a lot in the high winds.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
And how does that person know that it was 20 feet? Did he have some way of measuring it? MANY eyewitnesses swear that something happened, only to find out later on that it DIDN'T happen the way they thought it did.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And how does that person know that it was 20 feet?


Well i tend to think a person that is blind has a better feel for things that happen then a sighted person.

He stated that him and a co-worker thought that the building was going to fall over before it stopped and righted itself.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   
And I would think that a person who has never felt the building sway like that before, and was in a total panic over what happened would have THOUGHT it was worse than it really was. Or are you going to claim that ONE PERSON is more accurate than videos and pictures, and the measurements taken from them?



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well i tend to think a person that is blind has a better feel for things that happen then a sighted person.


Actually to a blind person it would feel worse then it was. The reason being that it would effect the inner ear, but he would not have the visual cues to perceive the correct amount of movement, so it would feel worse then it actually was.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And I would think that a person who has never felt the building sway like that before, and was in a total panic over what happened would have THOUGHT it was worse than it really was. ?


But this person worked there daily for years and knew the building swayed and had felt the building sway before.

He did not panic, neither did his dog that helped him out of the building.


Originally posted by defcon5
Actually to a blind person it would feel worse then it was.


But the sighted people with him agreed with his assesment.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


You think that someone is going to feel the building sway (supposedly) TWENTY FEET and is not going to panic, even a little? Oh right, you're also the one that said that the Flight 93 pilots should have responded instantly to the warning to secure the cockpit and CERTAINLY wouldn't have sat there in shock for a minute or two.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Do you understand the difference between static and kinetic?


So even with the floors moving the floors below should have held the extra weight.
[edit on 8-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


If you believe this statement is correct, please show the math proving it. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by Zaphod5
The floors below were designed to support them with SMALL movements, like from them rocking in the wind.

Well actually they were designed to support rather large movements from the wind.

A surviver from the 78th floor of the North tower stated the tower moved several feet when the plane hit but came back into postion just like it does in high winds.


Actually according to your previous posts, you mentioned the survivor said the building moved 20 ft then came back. How possibly could the survivor gauge the distance accurately from their vantage point and under extreme stress??




[edit on 8-12-2007 by jfj123]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Haroki
Actually, the quote from the survivor is that the tower swayed 20 ft, which is of course ridiculous.

NIST estimated, by looking at videos and measuring the movement, that it swayed 20 inches.


I would rather believe the person that was actually there then NIST who was not there.

The building had expansion joints to be able to move a lot in the high winds.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


But how in the world would that survivor be able to give an accurate distance from their vantage point? What would be their local frame of reference?



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And how does that person know that it was 20 feet?


Well i tend to think a person that is blind has a better feel for things that happen then a sighted person.

He stated that him and a co-worker thought that the building was going to fall over before it stopped and righted itself.


Sounds like a lot of sway caused by your fragile aluminum plane. Could it be that it had more force than you are saying, then?



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You think that someone is going to feel the building sway (supposedly) TWENTY FEET and is not going to panic, even a little? Oh right, you're also the one that said that the Flight 93 pilots should have responded instantly to the warning to secure the cockpit and CERTAINLY wouldn't have sat there in shock for a minute or two.


1. Well first as i have stated the man worked there for years and knew the building moved. He remained was panicked but remained calm to help get his co-workers and visitors out of the building. He had little probelm getting around with the lights being out.


2. As stated a number of times, unless you can prove to me that the hijackers were in the cockpit in under 4 seconds the pilots had time to get a call or signal off.

It only takes 1 second to key a mike, it takes less then 4 seconds to change the codes on the transponder.

So can you show proof the hijackers were in the cockpit in under 4 seconds, YES or NO ?


Originally posted by Disclosed
Sounds like a lot of sway caused by your fragile aluminum plane. Could it be that it had more force than you are saying, then?


No, as i have shown with a number of reports and as stated by the surviver, the building was designed with expansion joints to move.

Please read post and do research before posting about something that has already been proven by facts and evidence.



[edit on 8-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Do you have any idea how little sense that makes? "The plane hit with very little force, but since it has expansion joints it moved 20 feet."
What???? If the plane didn't hit with much force the building would have rocked back and forth just a little bit, and the expansion joints wouldn't have come into play. IF the building moved 20 feet, that means that the planes hit with huge forces involved.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Do you have any idea how little sense that makes? "The plane hit with very little force, but since it has expansion joints it moved 20 feet."


Well please show me where i stated there was little force.

I stated the aluminum wings and airframe would do that much damage to the steel beams. I never stated anything about there being little force.

*SNIP*



[edit on 9-12-2007 by sanctum]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Ok it's good to see this thread go on for so long its my best thread yet.

Now how about this test.

Make an aluminum bullet(same alloy as planes are made of) 50 calibre and shoot it at best speed range at a steel beam the same thickness as the beams at the WTC.

What happens to this bullet, what happens the steel?

This might be a good way to test kinatic energy against steel.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Sounds like a lot of sway caused by your fragile aluminum plane. Could it be that it had more force than you are saying, then? [/quote


No, as i have shown with a number of reports and as stated by the surviver, the building was designed with expansion joints to move.

Please read post and do research before posting about something that has already been proven by facts and evidence.



[edit on 8-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


Right there he asks if the planes could have hit with more force than you are saying, and you say "no". How is that misunderstanding you????

[edit on 12/8/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Right there he asks if the planes could have hit with more force than you are saying, and you say "no". How is that misunderstanding you????


Well please show me where i stated there was little force.

I stated the aluminum wings and airframe would do that much damage to the steel beams. I never stated anything about there being little force.




[edit on 8-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   
This all comes back to acceleration - in this case the acceleration of the building caused by a 100 ton object striking it at over 200m/s. A blind individual would sense the acceleration but not the actual distance moved.

Is there still any disagreement that the plane entered the building?
We know it went from an intact aircraft to an unrecognisable mangled mess of various alloys in less than a second but that mangled mess was still a 100 ton compacted mass moving at high speed which would take a heavy toll of damage on the object stopping it.

We've seen the photographic evidence of fractured steel columns, gaping aircraft sized hole, collapsed floors and massive fireball propagating from inside the building so there can't be any doubt that a 767 sized (& shaped) object did, in fact, go through the columns.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

We've seen the photographic evidence of fractured steel columns, gaping aircraft sized hole, .


No, not true. We have seen photos of the outer panels, NOT the inner beams.

Also the hole shows the wings, specially at the wing tips barely made it into the building.

As for the fireball that was jet fuel buring off outside the buildings causing litlte or no damage according to all the reports.





[edit on 8-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join