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: 30
13
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
OK since the planes had NOTHING to do with the collapse (your words), what was the reason for the collapse's?

Also keep in mind that since the planes were not a cause then the fires caused by the planes were also not a cause for the collapse.


Stop twisting what i post, its not very mature.

I'm not twisting anything you are saying. As a matter of fact, here is your EXACT post
"The planes impacts had nothing to do with the collapse of the towers "
So you are saying that if the planes never hit the towers, they would still have collapsed.

If the planes never hit the towers, there would be no resultant fires from said planes, so the fires had nothing to do with the collapse either.


I stated the planes impacts did not cause the collaspe i said nothing about the fires.

Well what you said is that they had NOTHING to do with the collapse. This is a very broad statement.


It was a few things along with the fires that casued the collaspe,

OK now you're saying the fires were involved and since the fires were started by the plane impacts, the plane impacts were the start of the cascade of events that lead to the building collapses.


the fires themselves did not burn long enough or get hot enough to weaken the steel so some other condition had to help raise the temps. That was thermite as FEMA test results show.

Well we know that jet fuel does burn hot enough to weaken steel.




posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
If the planes never hit the towers, there would be no resultant fires from said planes, so the fires had nothing to do with the collapse either.

OK now you're saying the fires were involved and since the fires were started by the plane impacts, the plane impacts were the start of the cascade of events that lead to the building collapses.


the fires themselves did not burn long enough or get hot enough to weaken the steel so some other condition had to help raise the temps. That was thermite as FEMA test results show.

Well we know that jet fuel does burn hot enough to weakened steel.



Yes you are twisting what i posted. I never stated anything about there not being any fires. Please read my post before posting.

I will state it again for you and make it as simple as i can.

1. The planes impacts did not cause the collapse.

2. The fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to cause the collaspe.

3. Another cause such as thermite raised the temps enough to cause the weaken steel and the molten steel in the debris.

Now is that simple enough YES or NO ?


[edit on 9-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123



Yes you are twisting what i posted. I never stated anything about there not being any fires. Please read my post before posting.

How can I twist what you post when all I did was repost what you wrote?


I will state it again for you and make it as simple as i can.
1. The planes impacts did not cause the collapse.
2. The fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to cause the collaspe.
3. Another cause such as thermite raised the temps enough to cause the weaken steel and the molten steel in the debris.

So are you saying that thermite was ignited from another source other then the fires which resulted from the plane impact?
YES or NO?
Where do you believe the thermite came from?
Where in the report you previously mentioned, does it say thermite? Please provide a link and post the paragraph you are referring.

[edit on 9-12-2007 by jfj123]

[edit on 9-12-2007 by jfj123]

[edit on 9-12-2007 by jfj123]

[edit on 9-12-2007 by jfj123]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So are you saying that thermite was ignited from another source other then the fires which resulted from the plane impact?
YES or NO?

Where do you believe the thermite came from?

Where in the report your previously mentioned, does it say thermite? Please provide a link and post the paragraph you are referring.


YES, fires were started by the planes fuel, but it burned off quickly so all you had was an office fire.

Possible sources for thermite. The aircraft themselves may have casued some thermite reactions to add to the heat and thermite planted before the planes hit the buildings.

The FEMA reports show testing done on the steel that show possible thermite reactions on the steel.

911research.wtc7.net...

Findings reported in Appendix C of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study seem to fit the thermite theory remarkably well.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.



911research.wtc7.net...

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion." Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
...
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.







[edit on 9-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The FEMA report does not say anything about THERMITE. Show me what page, what line, says the word THERMITE.

You will not find it.

Oh, on a side note...the word is CAUSED, not casued.


[edit on 9-12-2007 by Disclosed]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
YES, fires were started by the planes fuel, but it burned off quickly so all you had was an office fire.

Possible sources for thermite. The aircraft themselves may have casued some thermite reactions to add to the heat and thermite planted before the planes hit the buildings.
The FEMA reports show testing done on the steel that show possible thermite reactions on the steel.


Please show me where in either the FEMA, NIST, etc.. reports, specifically discuss thermite and actually use the word thermite.

Again, if you could show me the ACTUAL reports, that would be great.

Also, before you had mentioned the plane impacts had nothing to do with the collapses, now you are saying that the resultant fires initiated something else which caused the collapse. This means,according to your statements, the plane impacts did indeed contribute to the collapses by initiating the chain of events that lead to the collapses.


[edit on 9-12-2007 by jfj123]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Adjay, since you referred to you post, I dug it out just to see what physics inconsistencies you had found. I don't think you found anything at all.


Why pick out my hypothesis, when I specifically said the physics anomalies I pointed out around page 10?


Originally posted by buddhasystemOthers have told you multiple times that the kinetic energy matters, and to me that's a valid physics argument. You somehow do not take it. Calculate the kinetic energy of the WTC planes and compare it to the energy contained in a war. of an average cruise missile. You'd be surprised.


If you read my posts again properly you will find I never denied the kinetic energy of the planes. The calculations were slightly off, but you, and many others, are applying this kinetic energy in entirely the wrong way. I point out again Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. Whatever kinetic energy was spent, was spent on BOTH the tower and the plane. If you don't understand this, I'm not sure what else to say - see my previous point.

Watch the video's. Upon impact, the plane is seen "cutting" a shape into the steel and concrete side of the WTC, with no apparant deformation of the aluminium structure of the plane. Newton's 3rd Law is violated - the kinetic energy would be busting up the side of the building AND the plane, being an equal and opposite reaction. Yet, we only see the building taking damage.


Originally posted by buddhasystemSecond... You deviated from the topic when saying "never enough to initiate a collapse". Nobody said the towers came down like cut grass after the impact, so your statement is pointless.


It's not deviating from the topic, unless you happen to think the WTC didn't have a steel structure supporting it. Evidence says otherwise. It wasn't the fires that brought it down, physics proves this. Again, Newton's 1st Law is violated upon collapse initiation if you give any official story credit.



Originally posted by buddhasystemPS. If you feel so inclined, read about the dangers of wax bullets and how they, even in vaporized form, can break glass:
www.foreworks.com...

Surely wax is not as hard as glass. And...

Inside of ten feet, a wax round or an ordinary blank round will turn flesh into hamburger and bone into tooth picks.


Please, show me some evidence of a wax bullet turning flesh into hamburger meat, I'm sure McDonalds would be interested in that one! Once again, a bogus example is brought in to hide the physics discrepencies on that day:

  1. Newtons 3rd Law upon plane impact (deformation of ALUMINIUM ON PLANE)
  2. Newtons 2nd Law (negligible deacceleration upon impact and penetration)
  3. Newton's 1st Law (freefall collapse of every floor)



[edit on 9-12-2007 by adjay]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
You don't see the deformation of the plane because you would need a high speed camera to see it. There is no way that a regular video camera would possibly catch that on a video. It went into the building too fast for it to show up on those videos.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I am stunned and amazed by this comment.

But the camera's were "fast enough" to capture the deformation of steel and concrete?

You most definitely would see deformation of the aluminium. The aluminium would ripple, at the very least, as the nose impacted and initiated the missing deacceleration of the plane.

EDIT: The only reason you may not see any deformation I can think of would be if there was significantly LESS steel and concrete where the plane struck (i.e. little to no resistance)

[edit on 9-12-2007 by adjay]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   
You didn't see the steel as it was deforming. You saw the AFTERMATH of the entrance of the plane. You didn't see the steel actually bending. It was straight in one picture, and as the plane was entering it was bent, there was no video that *I* saw that showed it bending as the plane went into it.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


We appear to have some crossed wires, I think. I think seeing a hole appear in concrete and steel as an aluminium object impacts is deformation, whether I can see the steel bend or not. I know it has bent because it was there before, and now something has penetrated it. The point being, that as this hole was made, the object "making" it did not appear to take any damage (force, deformation, ripple) whatsoever.

If it was a reversed situation (hypothetically speaking), and we saw the plane crumple up into a concertina shape and the WTC take no damage, my stance would be the same - the WTC did not show any signs of deformation.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   
It would require a super slow motion camera to capture that sort of detail. At the NTFS frame rate of 30fps there's no chance of seeing it as the plane travelling at 220m/s on impact was moving 1m in 4.5mS which is about a tenth of a frame. Only something like 1000fps could show what is claimed to be missing and even then it would only appear in a couple of frames.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


What sort of detail are you referring to Pilgrum? The deformation, or deacceleration?

A 24fps camera would capture any damage done to the plane within 1/24th of a second. I have been up close and personal to a B52 that saw significant action in Vietnam - and the shock waves of the bombs it had dropped had caused very visible "rippling" on the aluminium airframe.

I am not comparing the damage done, but the impact on WTC would cause significantly more visible damage to the airframe and skin than some bombs from x,000 feet. It would only be a small window of course - but the point is it would happen upon impact, and there's a few frames after this - look closely, no visible defomation whatsoever.

EDIT: And, at 220 M/s, with the plane length being ~50M, there would be approx 6 frames of impact, at 24fps (due to the deacceleration it would theoretically be more than 1/4 24). So, unless you are saying there is some kind of delay on the camera lense, 5 frames should show deformation of at least some kind (a bend, ripple, something).

[edit on 9-12-2007 by adjay]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by adjay
 


I haven't seen any videos that had the resolution to catch something like a wrinkle in the aluminum skin of the aircraft during the impact. I personally don't have any actual 30fps video (well, 29.97) from that day. The videos you find on youtube and google aren't clear enough due to the video compression to really prove or disprove whether there was any decelleration damage to the airframe before it entered the building.

By the way, to correct another poster's quotation on the video format, it's not NTFS, it's NTSC. And given that there are probably a limited number of PAL cameras that were pointed at the WTC on that day, any 25fps (PAL standard) is going to have been converted and would therefore have some artifacts too.

I'm not even sure what this discussion has degenerated into at this point, but I'm sure that if there had been a high-speed camera positioned on the airplane or building to capture the event in that detail, we would see the damage the way some folks seem to think a youtube video should show it.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by adjay
 


Can you show us the deformation on this jet plowing into a reinforced concrete wall? I cant seem to see any ripples...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by StudioGuy
 


I am not saying there would be a wrinkle, but there would definitely be something. To imagine a plane could strike something like a skyscraper, and all the damage be contained in just the penetrated parts of the plane? Highly unlikely. There are some good copies of the impacts around on the net, some slowed down / steadied and it's more than clear, these planes slice through concrete and steel, with no apparantly visible damage. Not even an "impact hjolt" of the kind you get when two objects collide.

With regards to the deacceleration issue, please see my post I link to above, I base my calculations on figures arrived at in the NIST report, so the video's showing anything is rather a moot point (although it backs up the calculations that the planes do not deaccelerate, as they should according to Newton's 2nd law)



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by adjay
 


They DID decellerate! The vast majority of the airplanes came to a complete stop within a 200' distance. There's not enough visible evidence in any video from that day to sufficiently determine whether there was or was not any decelleration of the parts of the plane outside the impact area.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
Can you show us the deformation on this jet plowing into a reinforced concrete wall? I cant seem to see any ripples..


Conceded, no ripples. Deformation is obvious as the entire airframe structure deformed upon impact. Or am I watching a different video?

Where is the cartoon cutout of the jet punching a hole through the wall?

What happened to the "kinetic energy" of the jet now?

You can clearly see there is nothing penetrating the other side, no nose cone ejecting itself from the other side, no amount of kinetic energy can make the jet stronger than the object it impacts. I daresay the concrete wall had some damage to it, a shame the clip ends where you might see some of this.

Bear in mind, this reinforced concrete may have been designed to withstand this impact, but so were the WTC towers!



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by StudioGuy
 


There's enough evidence for NIST to use figures in their report giving times of the aircraft stopping, to work out how fast it was going once the tail landed inside the building - apparantly the steel and concrete of the WTC did pretty much nothing to slow it down, as my calculations show, which is unbelievable when you look at how much energy must have been used up in the work needed to break and bust steel and concrete.

The tail of the aircraft is attached to the nose, if the nose hits something, the entire structure will slow down, yet the tail of these planes indicate it was almost travelling as fast as if it had not have hit a thing!



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by adjay
 


Is your contention that there mustn't have been airplanes hitting the tower? Or is this a "wrong conlusion in NIST report" post?




top topics



 
13
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join