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: 48
13
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

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


Thank you.




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.


Without knowing the complete methodology and all specifics involved in lab tests, it is folly to take a lab test, without specifics and methodology, and judge any other incident from those. I realize laypersons do not realize that. However, professionals do. Reputable scientists will not even take the word of other scientists, without testing themselves using the same methodology and specifics to see if they arrive at the same result.

The only words I have located from the designers is that the twin towers could take an impact of a 707 and still stand without severe structural damage. Then I had to research everything I could find on the structure to understand why. The plane may have gotten inside to some footage but it would not have been swallowed completely whole, and without having at least a large part of the back half of the fuselage hanging outside the hole. That is what I would have expected knowing as much as I do about the center cores and finished interior of the buildings, plus, other construction of the buildings.

Plus, knowing the 707 has more top speed and lighter, which gives more kinetic energy availability to impact and penetrate - if it could even penetrate the two exterior steel walls. That would depend on the thickness of the tube walls in both the facade and exterior primary load bearing walls. As the abstract stated, if the thickness of the steel was 20mm (78% of an inch) the 767 would not have penetrated. I have not located the gauge of the tube walls of either the facade or the external support frames.

If a plane cannot penetrate, chances are it would impact and fall down the side of the building or possibly explode. Whereby, if it explodes chances are the debris will land on the outside of the building. Then again, it could partially penetrate leaving a large balance of the fuselage with tail hanging over the outside edge, which is what I would expect when the front met up with the all that high intensity dense steel at the core. That is because I know how far it had to go before it met up on the core length or width sides.




posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Without knowing the complete methodology and all specifics involved in lab tests, it is folly to take a lab test, without specifics and methodology, and judge any other incident from those.


So if we leave the lab for a bit and take another look at the photographic & witness evidence it seems the *entire* plane did indeed go through that wall like the proverbial hot knife through butter with litle evidence of slowing down even as the tail disappeared inside so what are the possible reasons for that:

1. ALL witness testimony and video evidence faked - highly unlikely

2. Defective building design IE it wasn't really up to the event it was claimed to be capable of handling - possible (they never actually did a 'live' test on the structure for obvious reasons)

3. The actual plane was going faster than the speed the designer had in mind for a 707 lost in the fog - big possibility here (remembering that just a 41% speed increase doubles the kinetic energy)

I'm open to any other suggestions that fit the evidence but please let's not get into the collapse which happened about an hour after the event being discussed here.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
why do you have 2 member names?

Refer to the NIST reports for my evidence.


I do not have 2 member names

The NIST reports have been proven to be not a very good source. Do you have any other real evidence?


Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
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.


Please do not misquote me. I have never stated there was a ton of wreakage at the Pentagon.

I have stated the opposite, there is little debris at the Pentagon and no official reports of the parts found matching Flight 77.



[edit on 22-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
why do you have 2 member names?

Refer to the NIST reports for my evidence.

I do not have 2 member names

OK sure. Just curious, no big deal if you want 1 or 2 names.


The NIST reports have been proven to be not a very good source. Do you have any other real evidence?

You mean the ones you have cited as evidence to support your position in many cases in the past? Since you now have changed your stance and say the NIST reports are not a good source of information, please tell me why they are not a good source and cite example so I can see what you are referring to. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
[OK sure. Just curious, no big deal if you want 1 or 2 names.

You mean the ones you have cited as evidence to support your position in many cases in the past?


Either show me proof that i have 2 member names or be curtious (mature) enough to admit you are wrong.

As i have stated many times but it seems that you have refused to read or need help with reading comprehension, i was only using the NIST quotes to porve to others that use NIST that they were wrong.

I SUGGEST YOU PLEASE READ MY POSTS BEFORE POSTING.



[edit on 22-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
[OK sure. Just curious, no big deal if you want 1 or 2 names.

You mean the ones you have cited as evidence to support your position in many cases in the past?


Either show me proof that i have 2 member names or be curtious (mature) enough to admit you are wrong.

As i have stated many times but it seems that you have refused to read or need help with reading comprehension, i was only using the NIST quotes to porve to others that use NIST that they were wrong.

I SUGGEST YOU PLEASE READ MY POSTS BEFORE POSTING.
[edit on 22-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


Although I do appreciate your recommendation, I have read your posts and you have indeed used NIST reports as factual evidence in your posts many times. Thank you for your post.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Although I do appreciate your recommendation, I have read your posts and you have indeed used NIST reports as factual evidence in your posts many times. Thank you for your post.


Yes, to prove others wrong that use NIST for thier evidence.

I noticed you did not prove i have 2 names. Can you admit you are wrong?

[edit on 22-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Although I do appreciate your recommendation, I have read your posts and you have indeed used NIST reports as factual evidence in your posts many times. Thank you for your post.


Yes, to prove others wrong that use NIST for thier evidence.

I noticed you did not prove i have 2 names. Can you admit you are wrong?

[edit on 22-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


I am not interested in proving you have 2 names. You say you don't so whatever. I don't really care if you have 1 or 12, I was just a little curious that's all.

And once again, you have cited NIST reports as credible evidence.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

So if we leave the lab for a bit and take another look at the photographic & witness evidence it seems the *entire* plane did indeed go through that wall like the proverbial hot knife through butter with litle evidence of slowing down even as the tail disappeared inside so what are the possible reasons for that:

1. ALL witness testimony and video evidence faked - highly unlikely


Video and photo is what I used to determine there was no way 9/11 happened as the "official" version stated. That is hardly the same as saying it was all fake. I did not see any 767 penetrate anything because of lack of visibility. I cannot prove planes were 767s. Therefore, I cannot prove any buildings inhaled any planes. If people choose to believe everything they were told, that is entirely up to them.

I do know the military has the KC-767 drone. However, I cannot truthfully say the planes in the air were any 767s because I cannot tell one plane model from another up close and personal. If I wanted to know for certain, I would have to research it to know.

All logic tells me that when that massive ball of orange flame and carbon smoke erupted on what very well may have been impact, I should have then seen plane parts and contents flying off the building and landing outside the building. There should have been fire still attached to them because of fuel tank eruption showing fire happened. If something is exploding on impact, it is not going to have any velocity force to knock out any of those massive cores.

Unless there were explosives set in the exterior walls, I have no idea how any plane exploded on impact, and still managed to completely penetrate into the building. I cannot fathom a plane penetrating and then exploding, without still sending parts of itself and contents to the outside of the building, through what was a very large hole on the North Tower.

Someone is going to have to scale replicate what did happen that day as written by the "official" report, and prove it happened the way the "official" version states, before I can believe what currently goes completely against logic and everything known about plane crashes and explosions.




2. Defective building design IE it wasn't really up to the event it was claimed to be capable of handling - possible (they never actually did a 'live' test on the structure for obvious reasons)


A "live" test? Could you explain your concept of a "live" test? I have my concept of what you mean. However, I would rather ask your intent and meaning first.



3. The actual plane was going faster than the speed the designer had in mind for a 707 lost in the fog - big possibility here (remembering that just a 41% speed increase doubles the kinetic energy)


I have already stated several times the 767 did not have the top speed of the 707. Therefore, the 767 could not be going faster than the designers planned with a 707 at top speed under any conditions not just fog.

Cruise speed in the 707 was 607 mph compared to the 767 at 530 mph. 767 carries more weight and mass making it the slower of the two for very good reason - more weight and mass to carry and pull without breaking apart the plane with speed the engines cannot handle.

I recall reading that the closer to sea level the more drag on (resistance to) maintaining velocity. Something to do with air pressure change and being closer to gravity. Which, if what I stated is correct, would hinder any sudden acceleration of a plane, particularly on a short distance at sea level.



I'm open to any other suggestions that fit the evidence but please let's not get into the collapse which happened about an hour after the event being discussed here.


If the US bureaucrats had not had 99.9% of the evidence rapidly removed from the crime scene, without thorough investigation being done, we would very likely have far more answers. Everything the US bureacrats have done concerning 9/11 has left them looking highly suspicious for guilt. They did that to themselves.

9/11 was a crime scene. One of the most massively destructive heinous crime scenes in US history. Yet, the Bush administration did everything they could to hinder investigation. Only guilty parties do that. Innocent parties do not have to do any type of cover-up because they are innocent.

Then there is Operation Northwoods devised in the 1960s to be used against Castro, and was never used. However, it is exactly what happened on 9/11. JFK stopped the use of Operation Northwoods. After complete study of the those in the Bush administration, I know that none of them would have had any qualms about using it, and falsely convincing the US people bin Ladin and Hussein were responsible.

We have proof through declassified records Hussein had nothing to do with it. Yet, the Bush administration had no qualms about lying and saying he did. That is how the US ended up in Iraq and never should have. Because of lies.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by OrionStars]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



I have already stated several times the 767 did not have the top speed of the 707. Therefore, the 767 could not be going faster than the designers planned with a 707 at top speed under any conditions not just fog.

Maybe you already posted this but I was wondering what the exact speed the designers planned for regarding the 707?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars
 



Maybe you already posted this but I was wondering what the exact speed the designers planned for regarding the 707?


Yes, I have several times - top speed. Cruise speed in the 707 is 607 mph as opposed to cruise speed in the 767 at 530 mph.

I know for a fact one cannot have an impact explosion and still have a completely intact plane to completely penetrate anything. I also know for a fact explosions send everything on and in an object in all directions, including, in this particular case of 9/11, outside the hole. Short of causing an implosion from the front at the same time of explosion, no plane parts or contents are going to be completely inhaled, when explosion takes place.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars
Yes, I have several times - top speed. Cruise speed in the 707 is 607 mph as opposed to cruise speed in the 767 at 530 mph.

Would you mind showing me your source for the specific speed? Did you get the iinfo from the original/approved plans? Thanks.



[edit on 22-12-2007 by jfj123]

[edit on 22-12-2007 by jfj123]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



I also know for a fact explosions send everything on and in an object in all directions, including, in this particular case of 9/11, outside the hole.

Would the explosion be able to overcome the force of the plane debris? In other words, the plane was flying in 1 direction at a certain speed, some of the explosion would be going in the opposite direction the plane was flying. Which force was greater? The force from the explosion or the force from the plane debris?

[edit on 22-12-2007 by jfj123]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars
 



Would the explosion be able to overcome the force applied to the debris? In other words, the plane was flying in 1 direction at a certain speed, some of the explosion would be going in the opposite direction the plane was flying. Which force was greater? The force from the explosion or the force from the plane?


What you are asking are hypotheticals. At least, two of your questions are best left to lab testing for the answers you desire.

An explosion occurs in a 360 degree circumference. So it stands to reason some of what is exploded would be going in the opposite direction a plane is .ed when impacting. If parts could not penetrate a wall, they would literally bounce off the wall and fall outside the building.

Are you trying to justify why there was no evidence of any planes, when there was definitely an explosion, which should have sent plane parts and contents, particularly luggage, outside the building, by every known documentation concerning explosions vs implosions?

Explosion always pushes out with high force. To know how much force, one would have to know for certain the type and amount of explosives being used - i.e. a firecracker vs a stick of dynamite. Implosion always pulls in with high force. Standard explosives can be used to cause implosions, but only when placed in a certain way to cause that effect. Standard explosives are not planted on the outside of beams to create implosions so buildings pull into themselves, because it would never happen.

Now pure fission principle, in the A-bomb, is designed on the principle of using implosion. At the same time, A-bombs are hardly standard explosives.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



Are you trying to justify why there was no evidence of any planes, when there was definitely an explosion, which should have sent plane parts and contents, particularly luggage, outside the building, by every known documentation concerning explosions vs implosions?

Not justify but mearly suggest.


Now pure fission principle, in the A-bomb, is designed on the principle of using implosion. At the same time, A-bombs are hardly standard explosives.


A-bombs also have radioactive fallout, EMP, etc...



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by OrionStars

Not justify but mearly suggest. [qupte]

I am not one to stop hypothesis. I wants definitive answers that are logical, and based on all known scientific documentation. The "official" report does not even begin to agree with all know scientific documentation directly related to what occurred in all four cases of 9/11.



A-bombs also have radioactive fallout, EMP, etc...


I am fully aware of that. However, if no one tests measurement, how would anyone know they are sitting in the middle of high levels of radioactivity, until they become extremely ill from exposure? At which time, they will be tested for radioactivity levels in their bodies.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by OrionStars]

[edit on 22-12-2007 by OrionStars]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



I am fully aware of that. However, if no one tests measurement, how would anyone know they are sitting in the middle of high levels of radioactivity, until they become extremely ill from exposure? At which time, they will be tested for radioactivity levels in their bodies.

Ground, water and air would all be contaminated. Radiation sickness would be found in most individuals at and any where near ground zero.

Just to put the fallout thing into perspective, look at any photo taken at ground zero after the collapses. See the dust everywhere? It would all be radioactive.

Also, all nukes emit EMP and this would wipe out PERMANENTLY all non-hardened electronic devices in a wide area around ground zero so that means, no phones, no lights or motor cars, not a single luxury like robinson caruso, as primitive as can be

There is no evidence of an EMP burst.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
I do know the military has the KC-767 drone. However, I cannot truthfully say the planes in the air were any 767s because I cannot tell one plane model from another up close and personal. If I wanted to know for certain, I would have to research it to know.
[edit on 22-12-2007 by OrionStars]


KC-767 "drone"? There is no such thing as a drone of the KC-767. There are also two minor flaws in your idea here. The first being that the KC-767 didn't even make the first flight until mid 2005. The second being that the USAF doesn't have ANY KC-767s. The first KC-767 to be built went to Italy, and they and Japan are the only countries to have bought them to date. The USAF was PLANNING to lease them begining in 2003, which again puts it well AFTER 9/11, but the deal fell through when it was discovered to have many irregularities.

I CAN state without doubt that the planes that were pictured on 9/11 WERE 767s. I spent 25 years working around aircraft, and continue to study them to this date, and I saw nothing that would make me doubt that they were 767s.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

KC-767 "drone"? There is no such thing as a drone of the KC-767. There are also two minor flaws in your idea here. The first being that the KC-767 didn't even make the first flight until mid 2005. The second being that the USAF doesn't have ANY KC-767s. The first KC-767 to be built went to Italy, and they and Japan are the only countries to have bought them to date. The USAF was PLANNING to lease them begining in 2003, which again puts it well AFTER 9/11, but the deal fell through when it was discovered to have many irregularities.

I CAN state without doubt that the planes that were pictured on 9/11 WERE 767s. I spent 25 years working around aircraft, and continue to study them to this date, and I saw nothing that would make me doubt that they were 767s.


Then would you wish me to state it this way? The KC-767 is capable of carrying missiles and operating by remote control. Which is exactly what a drone is. UAV carrying missiles. I have pictures of many style designs of drones, and learned from an military aviation expert any plane can be turned into use as drone.

Since nothing is made public until someone wants it made public, then going by public announcement is not the same as when it was successfully tested through a number of runs. You can check with NASA. UAV commercial jetliners were being successfully tested as far back as the 1980s at their facilities. That was not the only place they were being tested and not made known to the public. Manufacturers, such as Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, were secretly testing them as well at their facilities per their high security clearance defense contracts.

Then since you say you had no problem identifying them from uncertified photos, many of them blurry when trying to zoom in - fine. Like I said, I cannot tell one plane model from another even when up close and personal.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   
No. It is NOT. An aircraft with "KC" in front of the designation is a TANKER. It carries extra fuel and has a boom and/or refueling pods to refuel other aircraft. They do NOT carry weapons on them at all, unless they are transporting them internally.

Even if they didn't make the KC-767 idea public from day one of the program, they have made it HUGELY public for the last FOUR YEARS. IF they had KC-767s on 9/11, then where are they? Why have the thousands of people that plane watch all over the world, with cameras, NEVER seen one until the first one flew (that was going to ITALY btw), in May of 2005?

The idea that they would keep a tanker program from the public is ludicrous. There is nothing secret about tankers. The KC-135 and KC-10 programs were very public from the start, and there is no reason to keep the KC-767 program secret either. EADS and Boeing both have announced all the major milestones for the KC-767 and KC-30 programs, and the military has announced the Request for Proposals for BOTH companies, with dates for when they expect to award the contract and aircraft delivery dates as well. As well as making the RFP public. I have READ the RFP online.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join