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: 32
13
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by StudioGuy
The evidence that the planes and ensuing fires brought the towers down is that I saw the collisions (well, the 2nd one live, the first one later), the fires burn, and the buildings fall.


Sorry but you seeing the planes and the fires does not mean thats what brought them down.

You need actual facts and evidence that show the planes and fires brought them down.




posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by StudioGuy
The evidence that the planes and ensuing fires brought the towers down is that I saw the collisions (well, the 2nd one live, the first one later), the fires burn, and the buildings fall.


Sorry but you seeing the planes and the fires does not mean thats what brought them down.

You need actual facts and evidence that show the planes and fires brought them down.


Not true. I would need evidence that something OTHER than the structural failure caused by the impact and fire caused the collapse. Do you have anything like that? I'm not closed to the idea that there's more to it, but I haven't seen evidence that there is.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by StudioGuy
 


How about WTC 7?

No plane, no impact, little to minimal fire, dropped like a sack of # in 6.5 seconds, 0.5 seconds longer than it would take to freefall in a vacuum.

No conservation of momentum (Newton's Laws of Motion) can be observed in the collapse of either WTC1, WTC2, or WTC7.

A fairly decent look at the physics discrepencies that day

[edit on 10-12-2007 by adjay]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by StudioGuyNot true. I would need evidence that something OTHER than the structural failure caused by the impact and fire caused the collapse. Do you have anything like that? I'm not closed to the idea that there's more to it, but I haven't seen evidence that there is.


Well why should i supply evidence if you will not provide evdience to support your theory? If we were in court and i supplied evidence and you did not you would loose the case.

But to answer your question, yes i do have lots of facts and reports.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


It's "lose the case", not "loose".

Do your reports have evidence showing aluminum cutting thru steel?
That IS what this thread is about, is it not? Remember that? The original poster was asking about aluminum cutting thru steel. Not the collapse, not the fires....just about aluminum cutting thru steel.

Post your evidence about that, please. Any other subjects should be in their own thread...please. This thread has been derailed enough.

Please stay on topic.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by StudioGuyNot true. I would need evidence that something OTHER than the structural failure caused by the impact and fire caused the collapse. Do you have anything like that? I'm not closed to the idea that there's more to it, but I haven't seen evidence that there is.


Well why should i supply evidence if you will not provide evdience to support your theory? If we were in court and i supplied evidence and you did not you would loose the case.

Actually this statement is not true. Only one side needs to provide evidence. The prosecuting side. Innocent until proven guilty works pretty well.

You see, what you call "the official story" is the equivalent of a person being accused of a crime. Your side would be the prosecuting side and your side is the only side which is required to present evidence. The accused may sit silently and remain innocent until proven guilty.

Just thought this needed to be cleared up



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   
The towers peeled down, like a banana, as the outer columns were snapping off (where they were fasten together) the concrete floor slabs started falling, while at first still attach to the inner core columns pulling and snapping them down as well
I still say it was how these columns were fasten together was the biggest failure

This video shows some inner core momentarily still intact
www.youtube.com...

When the flame are billowing out of the building in this video, there coming out between the columns, is there any doubt the columns were getting extremely hot ( a common sense question)
www.youtube.com...







[edit on 10-12-2007 by moonking]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by moonking
The towers peeled down, like a banana, as the outer columns were snapping off (where they were fasten together) the concrete floor slabs started falling, while at first still attach to the inner core columns pulling and snapping them down as well
I still say it was how these columns were fasten together was the biggest failure

This video shows some inner core momentarily still intact
www.youtube.com...

When the flame are billowing out of the building in this video, there coming out between the columns, is there any doubt the columns were getting extremely hot ( a common sense question)
www.youtube.com...


[edit on 10-12-2007 by moonking]


If you look around a little bit in the NIST report, I believe, you'll find photos of the exterior aluminum cladding MELTED.

Aluminum melts at what, 600C? So the steel in that area was certainly 500C, at which point steel loses 1/2 its' strength...



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haroki
Aluminum melts at what, 600C? So the steel in that area was certainly 500C, at which point steel loses 1/2 its' strength...


If I had twenty thumbs, I would have given twenty thumbs up. However, (a) it's unrelated to the issue of Al curring Fe (b) the forum member "ULTIMA1" will bamboozle you with all sorts of non sequitur, so your argument is in vain.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by StudioGuyNot true. I would need evidence that something OTHER than the structural failure caused by the impact and fire caused the collapse. Do you have anything like that? I'm not closed to the idea that there's more to it, but I haven't seen evidence that there is.


Well why should i supply evidence if you will not provide evdience to support your theory? If we were in court and i supplied evidence and you did not you would loose the case.

But to answer your question, yes i do have lots of facts and reports.


You're sadly mistaken about your position in this. The evidence to backup what I say is that it's what happened and was captured on videotape all over the place and concluded in numerous official reports. You, on the other hand, have a differing view that requires evidence. If you have that evidence, you should present it. Since you don't, you should go find some or stay quiet. I'd ignore you, but then I wouldn't be able to tell why all the threads on here keep getting derailed.

The topic of this thread has been answered several times already. Maybe it's time to just let it die.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Studio Guy is very probably right, although perception will ultimately decide which answer is taken from this entire thread.

For anyone who cares, as I notice a fair number of people simply don't bother to read links posted, here is a well presented page refuting the baseless and unsourced claims posted on this page regarding temperatures, steel, collapse.

Anyone who doesn't bother to read it is only embracing ignorance, which is of course your right to do so, but entirely at odds with the point of this discussion forum.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Haroki
Aluminum melts at what, 600C? So the steel in that area was certainly 500C, at which point steel loses 1/2 its' strength...


If I had twenty thumbs, I would have given twenty thumbs up. However, (a) it's unrelated to the issue of Al curring Fe (b) the forum member "ULTIMA1" will bamboozle you with all sorts of non sequitur, so your argument is in vain.



Ok Mr fast fingers, by curring, I guess you mean cutting?

Aluminum, technically cannot CUT steel. It can however, have the mass, density, kinetic energy, etc to smash its' way through the hollow box exterior columns.

Ultima is best described by a certain word that isn't allowed here. I could see that before I even joined. A saying goes along with that.. It goes something like don't feed them..... All should remember that.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I didn't read all the posts but a good answer here can be looked at using water.

A water cutter can cut through even titanium, so steel is an easy task for it. How it does this is by building up pressure until the water comes out of a very tiny orifice at around 900 MPH. This is enough to cut through harden steel without any heat applied.

When you look at a jet going 500 MPH plus and the shear mass of it along with intense heat an aluminum aircraft will have a rather detrimental effect on a building. Add in some building design flaws that along with the heat and damage from the jets allowed the upper floor weight to collapse the weaken floors, and we have literally a house of cards that came crumbling down.

The very striking proof is in that the North Tower was hit first, but the South tower fell first, and the reason for that was because the hit on the South tower was 15 floors lower which meant it had much more weight on the weaken floors.

When you talk force, below is basically what force was exerted on the towers, and if water can cut through steel with enough pressure I'm sure aluminum can too. The damage was done by the pressure and the fire only reduced the steel's strength just enough to start the collapse without actually getting hot enough to melt the steel.



The potential force of the impact from each plane can be approximately
calculated and the figures are very large. The weight of each plane would
have been approximately 150 tonnes, according to the media reports and
Boeing data on this type of plane. The plane would have been traveling at
around 800 kms/hour at impact.

This gives a momentum of 150x800/3.6=33,333 tonnes.m/sec. If the plane was arrested by the building in effectively 0.6 seconds, which is a reasonable estimate based on a linear deacceleration over the 63.5 m width of the building, then the force exerted on the building is the momentum/effective time to arrest, ie Force=33,333/0.6=55,555kN.

To put that in perspective, the ultimate limit state design wind pressure over the entire height of the building is 220 kg/m2. This gives a ULS wind force on one face of the building of 58,400 kN. Thus the potential force of impact from the plane is 95% of the design ultimate limit state wind load on the building! Especially in the case of the North Tower, not much of the plane was ejected from the building, so it is reasonable to assume the most of that potential force was absorbed by the building.



[edit on 10-12-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You see, what you call "the official story" is the equivalent of a person being accused of a crime. Your side would be the prosecuting side and your side is the only side which is required to present evidence. The accused may sit silently and remain innocent until proven guilty.


Yes and when i do provide the evidence then your defense side will need to show evidence to fight my evidence or you will be guilty.


Originally posted by StudioGuy
You're sadly mistaken about your position in this. The evidence to backup what I say is that it's what happened and was captured on videotape all over the place and concluded in numerous official reports.


No you are very mistaken. The FBI and NTSB has not released most of the videos, evidence, and official reports.

In case you did not know the FBI and NTSB are the main investigating agencies.


[edit on 11-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
Hollow box structure? Can you prove the WTC was a hollow box structure? Since when is steel and concrete hollow? Do you have any idea how much concrete/steel was behind the part of the building the plane was ploughing into when it hit the WTC?




The perimeter columns had a square cross section, 14 inches on a side (36 cm), and were constructed of welded steel plate




To solve the problem of wind sway or vibration in the construction of the towers, chief engineer Leslie Robertson took a then unusual approach — instead of bracing the buildings corner-to-corner or using internal walls, the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a central core and perimeter columns sharing the loads.


From World Trade Centre

Picture of an perimeter colum section being lifted into place. Note the holes in the structure that clearly show it as hollow. The lifting plates have been welded onto the end section.

Perimeter colums being lifted into place



The thickness of the plates and grade of structural steel varied over the height of the tower, ranging from 36[48] (260 to 670 MPa). The strength of the steel and thickness of the steel plates decreased with height because they were required to support lesser amounts of building mass on higher floors.[47] The tube-frame design required 40 percent less structural steel than conventional building designs


From Design and Construction of the World Trade Centre

How much more evidence do you need? The outer columns were hollow.

[edit on 11/1207/07 by neformore]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore

Thanks for posting that construction pic

It's looking less 'plane-proof' all the time and those truss seats didn't waste any material at all not to mention the relative flimsy appearance of the trusses themselves. I wonder what would happen if several adjacent floors were destroyed and the trusses came off their seats as the walls bowed outward - and that very effect was observed & photographed immediately before the collapse started.

I also read that asbestos fire proofing which was vital for protecting those trusses in a fire was outlawed when the buildings were about half-way up so they had to switch to a less effective (but more acceptable) material for the upper floors.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
Yes and when i do provide the evidence then your defense side will need to show evidence to fight my evidence or you will be guilty.

I'm still waiting for you to provide the physics evidence behind your suppositions. As soon as you can do this and prove I'm wrong, I will happily admit you are correct. Will you post your math proving we are wrong? YES or NO?


No you are very mistaken. The FBI and NTSB has not released most of the videos, evidence, and official reports.
In case you did not know the FBI and NTSB are the main investigating agencies.

Please show proof that this is true.
Once you show proof that this is true, please explain why this shows evidence of wrong doing.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by jfj123]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
In case you did not know the FBI and NTSB are the main investigating agencies.

Please show proof that this is true.
Once you show proof that this is true, please explain why this shows evidence of wrong doing.



I never stated there was any wrong doing. I am stating that people that still believe the official story have not done the research to find the truth of what happened. I am doing research to find the truth since my education and experience, along with common sense tells me the official story we have been fed is wrong.

Anytime an aircraft crash is considered a crime by law the FBI with the NTSB for technical help becomes the main investigating agency.

911commission.gov...

By law, the FBI becomes the lead investigative agency when airline crashes are the result of a criminal act, and the NTSB provides support when requested.


The FBI has not released the majority of the photos and videos of the crime scenes. they also have not released any crime scene reports.

You would know this if you had done any real research and filed FOIA requsts like i have.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



I never stated there was any wrong doing. I am stating that people that still believe the official story have not done the research to find the truth of what happened. I am doing research to find the truth since my education and experience, along with common sense tells me the official story we have been fed is wrong.

This means you believe there was wrong doing on the part of the government. You believe the official story is false, the government says it's not. The ONLY conclusion you could arrive at is to state the government is attempting to cover up SOMETHING. Thus the wrong doing.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
This means you believe there was wrong doing on the part of the government. .


No, stop being immature and twisting what i post.

I am saying that we do not have all the facts and evidence of what happened that day. The FBI has not released it.

Maybe if you did any research you would know this.


[edit on 11-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join