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: 47
13
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Now to the real question of the thread, can you provide evidence showing that aluminum can not cut steel ?


I believe the onus of proof lies on you to show actual evdeince that the aluminum wings and airframe did enough damage to casue the collapse.

Since this is a 9/11 thread.




posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
A 757 had the ability to "cut core supports" at the Pentagon... What makes the larger 767 unable to cause damage to the core of the WTC towers?

Here is a diagram showing how much damage flight 77 caused and how many support colums were severed.


First, of all, you are talking apples and oranges in design. There is no actual realistic comparison of the entire construction of the Pentagon to the entire construction of WTC towers in this particular case.

The WTC core supports were designed nothing like the internal primary load bearing supports of the Pentagon. The steel in WTC twin tower cores was massively denser and higher intensity than the reinforced concrete, with reinforcing rebar, internal load bearing supports inside the Pentagon. The Pentagon is primarily constructed of reinforced concrete. The Pentagon's support beams are spiral rebar covered in concrete. Steel rationing during WWII is why. I have pictures of the support columns of the Pentagon, in a book I purchased dedicated to a detailed investigation of the Pentagon on 9/11.

You are certain a 757 cut steel supports in the Pentagon? Have you actually seen said beams? Or are you only going by what the "official" version and some, but not all, eyewitnesses said happened? Because no one has ever proved any plane went into the Pentagon.

We have been told some type of plane shape entered, and the official "version" says it was a 757 commercial passenger jet. Eyewitnesses said they saw a plane shape, but could not identify it, until they were told it was a 757, and assumed it was true. We have seen a great deal of smoke. When the smoke gave us visibility to view the wall, there was a hole not big enough to accomodate a full 757.

The hole is claimed to be what - 18'x 20'? There are no holes to accomodate the horizontal wing span. There is no way, considering wing depth, wings got carried along into a hole only 18' wide, said to already be occupied by 15' diameter of fuselage going in. Not even if they, by a twilight zone freak of chance, broke enough to vertically rotate, and then fold flatly parallel to the fuselage. There would only be a 1.5' clearance on either side of the fuselage, provided it was dead center in the hole. Provided a 757 is 15' diameter from one horizontal outside fuselage outside wall to the opposite horizontal outside fuselage wall.

If a hole is not big enough for an object to get through, and no debris showing any part of a plane was sheared off and was left outside the hole, while trying to fit an entire plane with well over 100' of wing span and 15' fuselage in a hole only 18' wide and 20' high, how do we know a plane no one saw enter, actually entered and cut through anything on the inside?



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I believe the onus of proof lies on you to show actual evdeince that the aluminum wings and airframe did enough damage to casue the collapse.

Since this is a 9/11 thread.



I think the phrase is "burden of proof".

Actually, the OP was only asking about aluminum cutting thru the outer steel frame.....not bringing down the whole tower. I thin early on in this thread we answered that question.

This thread was NOT asking about the buildings collapse, the pentagon attack, mermaids, Tigonderosa pencils or Ocelots.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars
 



Why don't you tell us how the planes did it considering what they encounted outside the impact area and along the path we have been told
to believe they took?





Read the NIST reports.



That is a blatant cop out. You tell people to prove to you, and then you tell them to go read someone else's words. Rather than prove anything yourself. You are not legitimately debating. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. I am not playing those ridiculous games with you or anyone else.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed

I think the phrase is "burden of proof".

Actually, the OP was only asking about aluminum cutting thru the outer steel frame.....not bringing down the whole tower. I thin early on in this thread we answered that question.

This thread was NOT asking about the buildings collapse, the pentagon attack, mermaids, Tigonderosa pencils or Ocelots.



Since, I , too have used the word onus, please be aware onus is burden of proof.

From Webster's:

Main Entry: onus
Pronunciation: \ˈō-nəs\
Function: noun
Date: circa 1640
1[Latin — more at onerous] a: burden b: a disagreeable necessity : obligation c: blame d: stigma
2[New Latin onus (probandi), literally, burden of proving] : burden of proof

Simply, because one unnamed gauge and casting of aluminum may be able to cut through some unnamed gauge and casting of steel at some unnamed speed (velocity), does not prove any 767 cut through two twin towers.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by OrionStars]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


why do you have 2 member names?

Refer to the NIST reports for my evidence.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Contrary to what some people have been led to believe, the twin tower structures was not "tied together as one big unit"internally or externally. Either tower could have lost 110 floors on one side,and as long as the core was intact, 110 stories of three walls would have been standing. If something is "tied together as one big unit", load shifting for stability cannot be done. There is enough valid information on the Internet that states the twin towers had substantial load shifting capability for stability.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Contrary to what some people have been led to believe, the twin tower structures was not "tied together as one big unit"internally or externally. Either tower could have lost 110 floors on one side,and as long as the core was intact, 110 stories of three walls would have been standing. If something is "tied together as one big unit", load shifting for stability cannot be done. There is enough valid information on the Internet that states the twin towers had substantial load shifting capability for stability.


Please support your statement that the WTC towers could have lost 110 floors completely on one side and still remained standing.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   
No text.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by OrionStars]



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Alrighty then:

Kindly stay ON topic and cease that back and forth sniping.

Thanks
FredT, Moderator



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Please support your statement that the WTC towers could have lost 110 floors completely on one side and still remained standing.


Do you notice anything conspicuously missing from the building in the photo at the link, that would not be missing in most rough framed exterior walls? If you do notice what is missing, it will start to dawn on you that each side was independent of other sides when it came to dropping floors one on top of the other. Then if you do research on the floors under the concrete, it will become clear why no one can legitimately call the twin towers "tied together as one big unit". The towers looked to be that way as any other high rise. The twin towers were not constructed like any other high rises.

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

First, of all, you are talking apples and oranges in design.


Well then surely you must have an "apples to apples" comparison in order for you to be so confident in your findings. No?



There is no actual realistic comparison of the entire construction of the Pentagon to the entire construction of WTC towers in this particular case.


On this I agree somewhat, although you can see that a jetliner travelling at a high rate of speed DOES have a damaging effect on buildings.

I understand that many of the columns in the pentagon were designed differently.. common sense. Why would one design be so impervious and another be so penetrable? Or perhaps! Damage was done to BOTH ( or actually all three's support structure)



You are certain a 757 cut steel supports in the Pentagon? Have you actually seen said beams? Or are you only going by what the "official" version and some, but not all, eyewitnesses said happened? Because no one has ever proved any plane went into the Pentagon.


Yeah, Yeah...Drones, fly-0v3rz, cruise missles.... Man, this stuff is goofy..but in this case off-topic so I digress.


When the smoke gave us visibility to view the wall, there was a hole not big enough to accomodate a full 757.

The hole is claimed to be what - 18'x 20'? There are no holes to accomodate the horizontal wing span. There is no way, considering wing depth, wings got carried along into a hole only 18' wide, said to already be occupied by 15' diameter of fuselage going in. Not even if they, by a twilight zone freak of chance, broke enough to vertically rotate, and then fold flatly parallel to the fuselage. There would only be a 1.5' clearance on either side of the fuselage, provided it was dead center in the hole. Provided a 757 is 15' diameter from one horizontal outside fuselage outside wall to the opposite horizontal outside fuselage wall.


Wow welcome to 2005, Loosechange. The hole was plenty big and there were all kinds of plane parts, landing gear, black boxes, PASSENGERS , all inside the Pentagon.. It is cognative dissonance to deny this FACT and spin it into some support for your theories on the WTC failures.

Heck even Ultima admitts there was a ton of Boeing 757 wreakage at the Pentagon...but now he wants to see serial numbers.. just wow.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Simply, because one unnamed gauge and casting of aluminum may be able to cut through some unnamed gauge and casting of steel at some unnamed speed (velocity), does not prove any 767 cut through two twin towers.


However it doesn't prove that a 767 didn't break through steel columns either. The plane was definitely shredded in the process but the mass would be compacting to a higher density and still had >50% of its kinetic energy to dissipate within the outer walls destructively and we'll never know how extensive that structural damage actually was. I believe all firestair access to the upper floors of WTC1 was wiped out so there's a good clue as to how far projectile type debris penetrated through the core structure.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

However it doesn't prove that a 767 didn't break through steel columns either. The plane was definitely shredded in the process but the mass would be compacting to a higher density and still had >50% of its kinetic energy to dissipate within the outer walls destructively and we'll never know how extensive that structural damage actually was. I believe all firestair access to the upper floors of WTC1 was wiped out so there's a good clue as to how far projectile type debris penetrated through the core structure.


Simply saying it doesn't prove it did not happen is logical fallacy. What can you prove about it happening as you say it happened? Do you have evidence that people can see a plane actually entering a wall on either tower? That would say it was able to break through.

What can you provide for proof to substantiate your claim that a plane was definitely shredded? Making such a definitive statements requires valid substantiation. Clues need to have some legitimate basis to help prove anything. What you have given is your opinion and no proof of what actually happened.

Can you prove 767s were the alledged planes flying toward the WTC buildings? Or are you taking the word of the media and others it was 767s?

However, what I stated still stands. It makes a difference when knowing the material specs of each object and the accurate speed. If they are not relatively comparable to a 767 and a twin tower, it makes any argument meaningless related to WTC.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

Originally posted by OrionStars

First, of all, you are talking apples and oranges in design.


Well then surely you must have an "apples to apples" comparison in order for you to be so confident in your findings. No?


I have science and definitive information on the construction of the twin towers, which I have presented. What do you have for validation?




On this I agree somewhat, although you can see that a jetliner travelling at a high rate of speed DOES have a damaging effect on buildings.


I have to say it this way instead. A 757 has the potential to cause a great deal damage, depending on what it hits and at what exact speed. That is as far as I can go until any 757 impact is proved to do damage, and the damage is properly investigated.




I understand that many of the columns in the pentagon were designed differently.. common sense. Why would one design be so impervious and another be so penetrable? Or perhaps! Damage was done to BOTH ( or actually all three's support structure)


Try totally different materials and material specs. All the Pentagon had for comparison to WTC building was reinforced concrete floors (compared to reinforced concrete support beams in the Pentagon) and maybe some steel load bearing supports. Nothing like the massive core units in the WTC buildings. Apart from the two twin towers and Pentagon all being buildings, the twin towers and Pentagon really did not have much in common for material specs or design.


You are certain a 757 cut steel supports in the Pentagon? Have you actually seen said beams? Or are you only going by what the "official" version and some, but not all, eyewitnesses said happened? Because no one has ever proved any plane went into the Pentagon.




Yeah, Yeah...Drones, fly-0v3rz, cruise missles.... Man, this stuff is goofy..but in this case off-topic so I digress.


What type of response was that? I asked you if you are certain a 757 cut steel beams in the Pentagon. And you respond, "Yeah, Yeah...Drone...", which has nothing to do with what I asked. It is a simple question that requires a "Yes", or "No", or "I don't know." Same question. Can you give a relevant civil answer to that question? Or do you prefer not to answer at all?




When the smoke gave us visibility to view the wall, there was a hole not big enough to accomodate a full 757.

The hole is claimed to be what - 18'x 20'? There are no holes to accomodate the horizontal wing span. There is no way, considering wing depth, wings got carried along into a hole only 18' wide, said to already be occupied by 15' diameter of fuselage going in. Not even if they, by a twilight zone freak of chance, broke enough to vertically rotate, and then fold flatly parallel to the fuselage. There would only be a 1.5' clearance on either side of the fuselage, provided it was dead center in the hole. Provided a 757 is 15' diameter from one horizontal outside fuselage outside wall to the opposite horizontal outside fuselage wall.





Wow welcome to 2005, Loosechange. The hole was plenty big and there were all kinds of plane parts, landing gear, black boxes, PASSENGERS , all inside the Pentagon.. It is cognative dissonance to deny this FACT and spin it into some support for your theories on the WTC failures.


What did I write that was not known or easily ascertainable for information? What do you think is there that is not proved? Please explain rather than just making some irrelevant comment.




Heck even Ultima admitts there was a ton of Boeing 757 wreakage at the Pentagon...but now he wants to see serial numbers.. just wow.



Why are you bringing up another poster? If I want to know what another poster thinks, I will ask that poster rather than accepting hearsay.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Simply saying it doesn't prove it did not happen is logical fallacy. What can you prove about it happening as you say it happened? Do you have evidence that people can see a plane actually entering a wall on either tower? That would say it was able to break through.

For probably the most extensively witnessed and recorded disaster in history, are you claiming that the aircraft involved did not pierce the outer walls of the buildings?

After all it's what this thread is all about and a large amount of presented info about the energy, applied pressure, UTS of materials involved strongly indicates that the outer columns being breached is not an impossibility in the physical world.

I'll have to admit I'm assuming the planes were destroyed totally but there is a *slim* chance they remained intact and I can't prove they didn't. But shredded or not, the concentrated energy was delivered.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

For probably the most extensively witnessed and recorded disaster in history, are you claiming that the aircraft involved did not pierce the outer walls of the buildings?

After all it's what this thread is all about and a large amount of presented info about the energy, applied pressure, UTS of materials involved strongly indicates that the outer columns being breached is not an impossibility in the physical world.

I'll have to admit I'm assuming the planes were destroyed totally but there is a *slim* chance they remained intact and I can't prove they didn't. But shredded or not, the concentrated energy was delivered.


This is exactly what was witnessed on the outside:

Two planes flying toward two buildings

Two massive balls of dense carbon smoke and orange flames

Two holes and no planes

Exactly what was witnessed that could tell anyone exactly what happened on impact and inside the twin towers? Exactly what proof if there that it was 767s in the air? Even experts have a problem positively identifying various models when the models are too far away. The US bureaucrats ordered 99.9% of the evidence shipped out to India and China for recycling before it could be properly investigated.

I did not see anything pierce anything. Did you? If so, please present that certified substantiation.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
This is exactly what was witnessed on the outside:

Two planes flying toward two buildings

Two massive balls of dense carbon smoke and orange flames

Two holes and no planes

Just for clarification, are you taking the stance that all the eyewitnesses had an induced mass hallucination, the multiple videos were faked and there were, in fact, no planes involved? If so, there are other threads better suited to that point of view.

The videos of the WTC2 strike show a plane remarkably similar to a 767 in size and form penetrating the outer wall with apparent ease which prompted the question posed in this thread.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Just for clarification, are you taking the stance that all the eyewitnesses had an induced mass hallucination, the multiple videos were faked and there were, in fact, no planes involved? If so, there are other threads better suited to that point of view.

The videos of the WTC2 strike show a plane remarkably similar to a 767 in size and form penetrating the outer wall with apparent ease which prompted the question posed in this thread.


No, not the way you are stating it. Witnesses could not identify the model of plane they saw. After the media told the public two 767s hit the twin towers, witnesses interviewed then used the model number 767.

If the media had not informed you of the model number, would you have known from the distance and angles videos were filming plane shapes? If you did, you are probably the only person capable of doing that, including the experts.

If would be like standing 500 feet from a 1960 Chevy Impala and a 1960 Chevy Belair and knowing exactly which model was which. Even experts on those vehicles cannot do that. Those planes were certainly further away than 500 from those of us on the outside of WTC.

Are you going to become civil with your remarks? If so, when?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Are you going to become civil with your remarks? If so, when?


Apologies for any perceived lack of civility, it's not intentional

Exact make and model numbers aside, fast moving flying objects presumably made of aluminium and associated alloys matching the size and form factor of 767's were documented and recorded puncturing the steel exterior of buildings. The issue here is whether that behaviour, however counter-intuitive it may appear at first, is possible. In my opinion it has been shown that it is possible.

It would be interesting to see how the designers of the structures intended them to cope with the possibility of a 707 impact. IE was the 707 supposed to splatter on the surface or was the building designed to absorb the impact by structural deformation and 'catch' the plane without being fatally compromised.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join