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: 51
13
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Robertson remains deeply affected by the towers’ collapse. “The World Trade Center was a team effort, but the collapse of the World Trade Center is my responsibility, and that’s the way I feel about it,” he told a New Yorker reporter in a Nov. 19 article, “The Tower Builder.”



It was a team effort as was stated above. What did the rest of the team have to say about it? Do they agree?




posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Basic laws of physics weren't violated there either if we consider the source of the explosion which strongly indicates jet fuel (no surprise) and no sign of high explosives. A large part of the fuel from the ruptured tanks was atomised so what we see is a crude fuel-air explosion ignited by the flames from the smashed engines although, I'm sure, there were plenty of other sources of sparks in all that chaos.

As to why the explosion seemed biassed in the direction of plane travel, how fast was the fuel moving? IE it was far from stationary and if it was travelling at say 400mph forward and the explosion propagated omnidirectionally at 400mph then the rear end of the explosion would have a net speed effect of exactly zero, effectively stopping any debris behind it without blasting it in a reverse direction (and out of the entry hole).

The design and construction of the buildings lived up to claimed capability by not immediately falling even partially on initial impact allowing many people to escape. I still suggest that the size (energy) of impact exceeded the design considerations by a factor of at least 4x the hypothetical slow moving 707 lost in the fog scenario. It doesn't really matter what model of 767 it was or how it was flown or even if it was a 767 at all. If it was the size and mass of a 767 moving as fast as a 767 it would do the same amount of damage as the supposed 767 wouldn't it? Bernoulli effect, Coanda effect, lift & drag, thrust factors, air density & pressure are all redundant considerations if the objective is to hit a building at max speed.



Are you seriously claiming principles of explosions change because it happens from kerosene and not from something like dynamite? If so, why?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Basic laws of physics weren't violated there either if we consider the source of the explosion which strongly indicates jet fuel (no surprise) and no sign of high explosives. A large part of the fuel from the ruptured tanks was atomised so what we see is a crude fuel-air explosion ignited by the flames from the smashed engines although,


But as the photos, videos and reports show, the intial fireball of jet fuel was OUTSIDE the buildings causing little if any structrual damage.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Are you seriously claiming principles of explosions change because it happens from kerosene and not from something like dynamite? If so, why?


Well, actually they are very different and that's related to the detonation velocity of the explosive used but that's not the point I was implying because all the signs of that explosion say crude fuel-air explosion (far lower velocity than HE) just like we'd expect to see in any catastrophic plane crash. The point was the bias due to forward velocity of the centre of the blast affecting the rearward propagation of the forces in relation to a stationary object like the building which goes some way torward explaining your observation of what appears to be less than expected amount of debris being blown out of the entry hole. It's just Newton doing his thing again.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But as the photos, videos and reports show, the intial fireball of jet fuel was OUTSIDE the buildings causing little if any structrual damage.


Agreed (we wouldn't have had a very good view of it otherwise)

Just going by how far the 'blast' propagated outside the building it's obvious that it was a relatively very weak explosion. If there had been any HE involved, enough to cause severe structural damage, it would have taken out every window in a large radius around the building.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Well, actually they are very different and that's related to the detonation velocity of the explosive used but that's not the point I was implying because all the signs of that explosion say crude fuel-air explosion (far lower velocity than HE) just like we'd expect to see in any catastrophic plane crash. The point was the bias due to forward velocity of the centre of the blast affecting the rearward propagation of the forces in relation to a stationary object like the building which goes some way torward explaining your observation of what appears to be less than expected amount of debris being blown out of the entry hole. It's just Newton doing his thing again.


What about the backward force? What about the sideways force? Those occur also in explosions.

Less than expected debris? How about no identifiable plane debris seen flying off outside at the side of impact? Certainly nothing one should expect with that massive an explosion. There should have been identifiable chucks, including engines, wing parts, fuselage parts, tail parts, luggage. etc. Anything to identify an exploded plane. Nothing. Not part of a plane ID number. Not a letter or even part of a letter identifying the airline. Not a painted part of the fuselage with airline colors. Nothing.

Are you assuming a plane had already broken through the two exterior walls? Because assumption is all that can be done. There was no visibility to see what was actually happening behind that massive ball of orange flame and dense carbon smoke.

The principles of explosion do not change, regardless of type of explosion. It depends on how much of one has to be used, to equal the same explosive foot-pounds of pressure of another explosive being compared. For example, how many gallons of kerosene does it take to equal the same foot-pounds of pressure as 4 sticks of dynamite? The question is just an example and nothing more.

If someone or something is moving toward an explosion, either will be blown backward. If someone or something is moving toward an implosion, either will be pulled in. Are you saying kerosene can cause an implosion? If so, could you substantiate that as to exactly how that would happen?

[edit on 22-12-2007 by OrionStars]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
What about the backward force? What about the sideways force? Those occur also in explosions.


They certainly do and you'll have to agree (I hope) that the radiation of force (the blast) from such an explosion is omnidirectional in relation to the centre of the blast as that is what you're implying and you're correct in that regard. But factor in the velocity of the source of that explosion which was a fast moving mass of atomised fuel (Newton again) and work out a vector plot of resultant forces around that source in relation to a fixed point like the building. The weakest direction of force will be to the rear. Then work out the speed of debris behind the blast centre (assuming any hadn't actually overtaken the centre of the blast by then) in relation to the (still) forward momentum of that debris and you'll have your answer. Small pieces of debris most likely were ejected on the side of the jet impact but there wouldn't be much of it with the majority being concentrated on the opposite side of the building.



There should have been identifiable chucks, including engines, wing parts, fuselage parts, tail parts, luggage. etc. Anything to identify an exploded plane. Nothing.


You mean like the engine, landing gear and other bits & pieces that exited through the opposite side of the building in the direction of travel?



Are you assuming a plane had already broken through the two exterior walls?


The plane, as a whole, only went through 1 wall from what I saw with a few major pieces managing to get through the other side of the building.



The principles of explosion do not change, regardless of type of explosion. It depends on how much of one has to be used, to equal the same explosive foot-pounds of pressure of another explosive being compared. For example, how many gallons of kerosene does it take to equal the same foot-pounds of pressure as 4 sticks of dynamite? The question is just an example and nothing more.


I doubt the stoichometric air/fuel ratio was anywhere near that required for a perfect fuel explosion there so it would be relatively weak in force but definitely sufficient to break the windows on the affected floors which allowed the fireball to be seen propagating outside the building. And note what I said above about resultant vectors due to motion and propagation of forces - then compare that info to the nature of the fireball outside the building whiich was far greater in the direction of the plane's motion just as Newton would have predicted


Explosives vary greatly in terms of how much you need for the job and jetfuel is not a very good one at all even at the perfect temperature/mix.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
I do not lie. Never again deliberately attempt to impugn my intergrity by calling me a liar.


I see.

Concrete filled steel tubes in the outer walls? - you stated that as a fact.

Extra second steel wall? - you stated that as a fact.

But hey - you go argue with Boeing on it. Its why I put their sites in the links. I mean, they built the planes, its their website. I didn't say you were lying, I said Boeings website said you were. Subtle differences there.

And this is 9/11 so its all about interpretations and subtle differences, isn't it Orion?



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

They certainly do and you'll have to agree (I hope) that the radiation of force (the blast) from such an explosion is omnidirectional in relation to the centre of the blast as that is what you're implying and you're correct in that regard. But factor in the velocity of the source of that explosion which was a fast moving mass of atomised fuel (Newton again) and work out a vector plot of resultant forces around that source in relation to a fixed point like the building. The weakest direction of force will be to the rear. Then work out the speed of debris behind the blast centre (assuming any hadn't actually overtaken the centre of the blast by then) in relation to the (still) forward momentum of that debris and you'll have your answer. Small pieces of debris most likely were ejected on the side of the jet impact but there wouldn't be much of it with the majority being concentrated on the opposite side of the building.


That is the $64M question. Where is the debris that should have been on the impact side? There was none. What liittle we have been told was found was reported to be on the opposite side of impact areas of both towers. A landing gear here and there and one or two other non-identifying plane pieces. No debris of any significance from 1 or 2. One part from 2, and a couple or three from 1. That is it.



You mean like the engine, landing gear and other bits & pieces that exited through the opposite side of the building in the direction of travel?


Please see above. However, what about what should have landed on the impact side? There was nothing.




The plane, as a whole, only went through 1 wall from what I saw with a few major pieces managing to get through the other side of the building.


Do you have something that shows a plane actually penetrating a wall? I have found nothing like that. I have visited many, many websites and viewed many, many videos and photos. There was no visibility to see where any plane impacted, much less penetrated, any wall. I do not remember seeing it either the day it happened. I watched those clips over and over and over........all day and evening long.





I doubt the stoichometric air/fuel ratio was anywhere near that required for a perfect fuel explosion there so it would be relatively weak in force but definitely sufficient to break the windows on the affected floors which allowed the fireball to be seen propagating outside the building. And note what I said above about resultant vectors due to motion and propagation of forces - then compare that info to the nature of the fireball outside the building whiich was far greater in the direction of the plane's motion just as Newton would have predicted


Perfect or not, I can attest only to the fact there was a massive what looked to be a fuel explosion, which should have exploded a plane in every direction. Without debris in every direction, it is uncanny. It is beyond reason and all laws of physics, which dictate what should have happened but did not. That massive ball was blowing out and away from the building. So should some large chucks of plane parts where an explosion would have sent them - outside the building. That ball was not being pulled into the building. It was being pushed out away from the building.





Explosives vary greatly in terms of how much you need for the job and jetfuel is not a very good one at all even at the perfect temperature/mix.



Yes, I did know that, but thank you anyway.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by OrionStars
I do not lie. Never again deliberately attempt to impugn my intergrity by calling me a liar.


I see.

Concrete filled steel tubes in the outer walls? - you stated that as a fact.


Are you still harping on what was already presented to the forum several days ago? Another poster linked in a site describing exactly what I had described several days before that. I had located the same site. The other poster did the post before I did to substantiate my point.



Extra second steel wall? - you stated that as a fact.


Were you the poster who thought the facade was aluminum? The facade was steel, and so were the exterior primary loading bearing supports. That is not one, but two, steel walls. What is your problem with that? All you have to do is research the WTC twin towers yourself. Have you done that yet?



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Where is the debris that should have been on the impact side? There was none.

If we refer back to that video of the F4 hitting a solid object at 500mph, how big can we expect those pieces to be? I suggest confetti is a close analogy.


Do you have something that shows a plane actually penetrating a wall? I have found nothing like that. I have visited many, many websites and viewed many, many videos and photos. There was no visibility to see where any plane impacted, much less penetrated, any wall. I do not remember seeing it either the day it happened. I watched those clips over and over and over........all day and evening long.

I've been seeing exactly that from 9/11 up to the present in relation to WTC2 where all the cameras were pointed to capture a large plane smashing right through the wall of the building from multiple angles. It's what prompted the creation of this thread after all. WTC1 video is scarce because the photographers weren't prepared for that one (being the first).



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
The facade was steel, and so were the exterior primary loading bearing supports. That is not one, but two, steel walls.


All the data I've ever seen on the construction of those outer walls shows a welded box-type steel framework with aluminium windows and an aluminium facade covering the outside of the otherwise exposed steel (makes it more aesthetically pleasing). A vast amount of that aluminium facade was scattered around the ruins.

So, in short, a single steel load bearing outer wall with an aluminium outer covering between the windows.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
So I guess there indeed was "thousands of gallons of fuel".


You might want to sharpen up on your reading comprehension along with your research skills.

My statement was that there were no thousands of gallions that made it into the building. Since most of it was burned off in the intial explosion.



Sorry I misunderstood what you MEANT to say as opposed to what you DID say. I will go ahead and sharpen my comprehension skills. I'll save you a seat so you can sharpen your writing skills. See ya there



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Sorry I misunderstood what you MEANT to say as opposed to what you DID say. I will go ahead and sharpen my comprehension skills.


If you would have read the post i was answering you would have known that.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Were you the poster who thought the facade was aluminum? The facade was steel, and so were the exterior primary loading bearing supports. That is not one, but two, steel walls. What is your problem with that? All you have to do is research the WTC twin towers yourself. Have you done that yet?


My problem is that the outer walling of the towers was box steel, with connecting spandrel plates, clad in aluminium, and your "assertion" other wise is wrong.

I suggest you go back and look at the towers construction again. Your version of it is completely and utterly different from everyone elses.

Quite why you want to work that way I'm not sure, but I'll tell you this, while you are talking to "these people" as you and Ultima eloquently put it a few pages back, you need to stop being patronising and start backing up what you say with proof.

So far you plainly have not done that.

[edit on 23/1207/07 by neformore]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



Do you have something that shows a plane actually penetrating a wall? I have found nothing like that. I have visited many, many websites and viewed many, many videos and photos. There was no visibility to see where any plane impacted, much less penetrated, any wall. I do not remember seeing it either the day it happened. I watched those clips over and over and over........all day and evening long.

Obviously there are only 2 options
1. The planes penetrated the walls
2. The planes didn't penetrate the walls

If the plane did not penetrate the wall then all the debris would be on the impact side of the building, on the ground. We'll call this the Wyle E. Coyote theory.
So if the plane debris was not on that side of the buildings, then there is only one conclusion-NO PLANES. This leads us back to the really, hugely, incredibly absurd idea of holographic planes.

So either you believe the planes penetrated the walls or you believe in the, debunked to death, hologram idea. Which is it? Just curious.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But as the photos, videos and reports show, the intial fireball of jet fuel was OUTSIDE the buildings causing little if any structrual damage.


"Less than 15 percent of the jet fuel burned in the spray cloud inside the building. A roughly comparable amount was consumed in the fireballs outside the building. Thus, well over half of the jet fuel remained in the building, unburned in the initial fires. Some splashed onto the office furnishings and combustibles from the aircraft that lodged on the impacted floors, there to ignite (immediately or later) the fires that would continue to burn for the remaining life of the building. Some of the burning fuel shot up and down the elevator shafts, blowing out doors and walls on other floors all the way down to the basement. Flash fires in the lobby blew out many of the plate glass windows. Fortunately, there were not enough combustibles near the elevators for major fires to start on the lower floors.

(p.24 NIST Report) "

Just thought you might want to know what happened to the jet fuel.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
"Less than 15 percent of the jet fuel burned in the spray cloud inside the building. A roughly comparable amount was consumed in the fireballs outside the building.

(p.24 NIST Report) "

Just thought you might want to know what happened to the jet fuel.


Do you want me to post a NIST report that debates the one you posted?

I can post many other reports that debate it too.



[edit on 23-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Sorry I misunderstood what you MEANT to say as opposed to what you DID say. I will go ahead and sharpen my comprehension skills.


If you would have read the post i was answering you would have known that.


I read your post. Thanks for not reposting my entire post. More selective editing I see


Once again, I read your post and understood what was written. In the future, please write what you mean and mean what you write. This will greatly reduce confusion about your posts. This of course is just my humble opinion.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


Regardless of what went in, I know this fact backed by the laws of physics. If supports are not symmetrically cut in split second succession, no building is going to drop down into its own footprints. No commercial aircraft or bomb was big einough to symetrically cut all the necessary supporting core supports in split second succession.

For the building to fall straight down, it's not necessary for an aircraft to cut all needed supports in split second succession as the buildings did not fall immediately after impact of the planes. By the nature of the mass/weight of the buildings, the most likely collapse scenario would have been straight down. The building weighed a lot so it would have taken a huge force to move it laterally.


I also know yet another fact backed by the laws of physics.

Nobody believes they remained completely intact while flying through the buildings.


A plane cannot both explode and remain intact.

Correct


That plane will not be doing much of anything substantial other than sending pieces and parts of a plane and contents in all directions.

Incorrect.
The debris would continue traveling in the same direction the plane was traveling until they run out of momentum.


The spooky part is not any plane parts or contents fell or blew outside either twin tower building on the smoke and flame side, which defies the laws of physics.

No laws were defied here. Move along. Move along.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join