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: 52
13
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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]


Sure if you like. So since we both have posted evidence, how do we decide who is correct?




posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   


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.


The 767s were carrying an estimated 9000 -9600 gal of jet fuel at impacts
since about 15% was consumed in initial fireball (~1500 gal) and another 15% on fireball exiting building with debris clouds (~1500 gal) leaves
some 6000 gal sloshing around building. In each tower there were several
elevators (freight and passenger) which ran continious from
basements/lobby to 107 floor. This provided pathway for jet fuel to spread
through building Number of people severely burned throughout building
(North Tower),

Here are some names _lauren Manning - lobby, Eleen Duch 86 fl,
Vasana Mututanont -lobby, Manu Dhingra=83 fl, Wai Chung -lobby
(deceased), Jennieann Maffeo -lobby (deceased).

Still think jet fuel didn't spread through building?



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by jfj123
 


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.


Oh, but it is. Provided any civilian commercial jetliner could completely slice through those core supports, which it could not. Nothing is going to come straight down. Unless all the supports are removed, either at the same time or in split second rapid succession. The core supports were the heart of the gravitational load bearing. That is a law of physics. If you doubt that, please test it. It is a very easy experiment you can do in your own home to test toppling vs. dropping straight down.



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


Well, then that is going to drastically cut a bound together foot-pounds of pressure that could have even remotely possibly be exerted on those massive core supports. You have already stated it was not a very pressure filled explosion on the outside. You cannot have it both ways.


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.


How much debris? Because people seem to be under the impression that the laws of physics would allow an outward explosion to react as an implosion at the same time. That is impossible. The only way controlled demolitions act, as a secondary implosive force, is because the explosives are planted inside beams to cut the beams, and not because they are planted on the outside of the beams to explode the beams outward. They are only cutter charges for slicing at 45 degrees and nothing more.

An explosion drastically cuts for foot-pounds of pressure each piece is able to exert. Any plane explosion is not to be assumed to do damage to the center core supports. Internal steel secondary internal supports and layers of sheetrock/drywall sat between the two steel perimeter walls and the center core supports. So much for any plane being able to slice those massive core supports like they are butter. Particularly, when once intact planes had become individual pieces and parts flying forward and sideways.


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.


That is quite condescending for someone remaining so serious continuing to make such statements, which also defy even the most basic laws of physics. 9/11 superficially appears to be the only period in all recorded history, when the laws of physics were able to be completely suspended by humans.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman

The 767s were carrying an estimated 9000 -9600 gal of jet fuel at impacts
since about 15% was consumed in initial fireball (~1500 gal) and another 15% on fireball exiting building with debris clouds (~1500 gal) leaves
some 6000 gal sloshing around building. In each tower there were several elevators (freight and passenger) which ran continious from
basements/lobby to 107 floor. This provided pathway for jet fuel to spread through building Number of people severely burned throughout building (North Tower),

Here are some names _lauren Manning - lobby, Eleen Duch 86 fl,
Vasana Mututanont -lobby, Manu Dhingra=83 fl, Wai Chung -lobby
(deceased), Jennieann Maffeo -lobby (deceased).

Still think jet fuel didn't spread through building?


There were also stairwells, restrooms, and other desinated areas inside the cores, not just elevators. Since the elevator doors were probably shut (sealing them somewhat), the fuel was not simply going to flood into the elevator shafts or any other designated areas of the center core.

How did anyone determine exactly how much fuel was used for explosion? Could you please validate that assertion of only 15% used for explosion?

The amount of fuel is all based on us being told the plane was a civilian 767 carrying passengers and was intended to fly cross country to CA.

I have read reports that at least one of the planes, with the ID and flight numbers said to have flown, was not even scheduled to fly out on 9/11. There was no Flight 11 or Flight 77 scheduled by American airlines. There were other AA flight numbers scheduled later in the day and after the events of the morning of 9/11. But not AA Flight 11 or 77.

www.thewebfairy.com...

"The Bureau of transportation website contains search pages, where one can pull up detailed statistics about the history of which flights have been scheduled for which airports on any given day. Go to
www.bts.gov...
and click on "detailed statistics" where one can search records of scheduled and actual departure times, arrival times, diversions and cancellations by departure airport, arrival airport, airline and flight number. Searches for Sept 11 2001 reveal that the flights AA 11 and AA 77 did not exist. They were not scheduled that day. Here are the search results which I encourage everyone to check for themselves.

A search for UA flights from Newark on Sept 11, 2001 shows 0093 to SF was scheduled at 8.00 and actually departed at 8.01. It is listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination.

A search for UA from Boston on that day shows 0175 to LA was scheduled for 8.00 and actually departed at 7.58. Also listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination.

The term "diverted" does not specify any differentiation between legally diverted, hijacked or crashed, so the data gives no indication one way or the other as to truth of the official story about what happened to them, but it does confirm that they departed as per the official story and did not arrive at their destinations.

A search for AA flights from Boston that day does not list 0011. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA that day was 0181 at 11.00

A search for AA flights from Dulles that day does not list 0077. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA was 0135 at 11.15."


I can see why the perpetrators could not afford to have those planes positively ID'd. Their own records refute their contention in the "official" report. Did they seriously believe no one would investigate any further? Why would they seriously believe that? I can also see why some of the highest federal bureaucrats, including the FAA, diverted any touchy questions by the 9/11 Commission or refused to answer them.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   
thats kind of interesting i like your ideas keep questioning and obseving one doay youll figure it out man good work



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Well, then that is going to drastically cut a bound together foot-pounds of pressure that could have even remotely possibly be exerted on those massive core supports.


Cluster bombs and frag grenades must be useless then, right?

I mean...all those IEDs that seem to blow holes through armoured vehicles and tanks in Iraq... they must defy your laws of physics huh?



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by OrionStars
Well, then that is going to drastically cut a bound together foot-pounds of pressure that could have even remotely possibly be exerted on those massive core supports.


Cluster bombs and frag grenades must be useless then, right?

I mean...all those IEDs that seem to blow holes through armoured vehicles and tanks in Iraq... they must defy your laws of physics huh?


For symmetrically 45 degree angle slicing of twin tower core supports, at the same time or in rapid succession, sure is.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
In each tower there were several
elevators (freight and passenger) which ran continious from
basements/lobby to 107 floor. This provided pathway for jet fuel to spread
through building


Well the biggest problem with your post is that you are very wrong about the elevators.

No passenger elevators went from basement to the upper floors.

people.howstuffworks.com...

First, they would take an express elevator from the main lobby directly to a sky-lobby on the 78th floor. From there, they could go to their destination floor directly. To keep things orderly, all the 55-person elevators had doors on each side -- you would enter on one side, move to the front, and exit on the other side. This way, the passengers could keep their place in line all the way up.

Essentially, each tower functioned as three buildings stacked on top of one another. The system turned out to be a great success -- with 99 elevators total per tower, each serving only specific floors, occupants could get around quickly and easily. Most super skyscrapers built after the WTC used the same basic system.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Express to WTC2 78th floor? hmmm very interesting

That's mighty close if not right in the impact zone so it's not so unreasonable to suggest that fuel could have entered those express shafts and taken an express route to the basement. I doubt that elevator carriages themselves fitted the shafts like pistons so little to no impedance there would be encountered. It also increases the chance of a fuel air blast affecting the basement levels.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Express to WTC2 78th floor? hmmm very interesting


BUT the elevator is from the lobby to the 78th floor. The elevator does not go down to sub basement.

Also the plane that hit the North tower hit on the 93rd floor. I would say thats far above the 78th floor.

Now the plane that hit the South tower hit about the 78th floor, but the elevator shaft still does not go to the sub basement.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Express to WTC2 78th floor? hmmm very interesting


BUT the elevator is from the lobby to the 78th floor. The elevator does not go down to sub basement.

Also the plane that hit the North tower hit on the 93rd floor. I would say thats far above the 78th floor.

Now the plane that hit the South tower hit about the 78th floor, but the elevator shaft still does not go to the sub basement.


There's a considerable space above the elevator's highest stopping floor required for the motors, cable spools etc.
And the lowest normal stopping level of the carriage is not necessarily the lowest level accessable either and many have 'service' levels accessible via key only. The shaft wouldn't necessarily end at the normal limit of travel for that matter. What if that void under the express shaft at basement levels was lined with the ubiquitous sheetrock and used as storerooms for some volatile materials - totally guessing here of course but let's leave no stone unturned.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
totally guessing here of course but let's leave no stone unturned.


Yes you are guessing, you should do some research.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:05 AM
link   
After seeing so many point-blank denials of any possibility of jet fuel accessing the lowest levels I now see evidence of the opposite being fact in the case of WTC2 at least. I wonder how many other firmly asserted 'facts' will turn out to be invalid assumptions.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:19 AM
link   


In addition to the passenger elevators, there were seven freight elevators in each tower; most served a particular zone, while Car 50 served every floor.
* Car #5: B1-5, 6, 9-40, 44
* Car #6: B1-5, 44, 75, 77-107 wtc.nist.gov... (PDF pg. 72)

For an elevator’s cables to be cut and result in dropping the car to the bottom of the shaft, the cables would need to have been in the aircraft impact debris path, floors 93 through 98 in WTC 1 or floors 78 through 83 in WTC 2. Inspection of the elevator riser diagram and architectural floor plans for WTC 1 shows that the following elevators met these criteria: cars 81 through 86 (Bank B) and 87 through 92 (Bank C), local cars in Zone III; car 50, the freight elevator, and car 6, the Zone III shuttle. … Cars 6 and 50 could have fallen all the way to the pit in the sub-basement level, and car 50 in WTC 1 was reported to have done so. wtc.nist.gov...(PDF pg. 160)


If we can accept the NIST data for this information that's a lot of holes leading to the basement I believe. That jetfuel is making better progress all the time.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Excellent find about the elevator shafts !! That's one more nail in Ultima's fact coffin.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
In addition to the passenger elevators, there were seven freight elevators in each tower; most served a particular zone, while Car 50 served every floor.

If we can accept the NIST data for this information that's a lot of holes leading to the basement I believe. That jetfuel is making better progress all the time.


So your stating that the jet fuel juist happened to make it down the only elevator shaft that goes to sub basement level 6 ?

Please tell me, how much fuel would it take to get to the elevator banks and down over 80 floors ?


Originally posted by jfj123
Excellent find about the elevator shafts !! That's one more nail in Ultima's fact coffin.


So you also believe that the fuel happened to maek it to the only elevator shaft that when to the basement ?

Maybe you cna tell me how much fuel it would take to get the shafts and donw over 80 floors ?

Just too bad there are so many nails in the coffin of the officail story, its getting down to tthe last few.




[edit on 24-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



So you also believe that the fuel happened to maek it to the only elevator shaft that when to the basement ?


Why not? And at the bottom of the shaft would have been a service door so the fuel could have easily dumped out the service door.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:37 AM
link   
it wasn't the aluminium that cut the steel structure..it was the explosion. have you seen places that have been bombarded? usually, any type of explosion takes everything out.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:37 AM
link   
double post.

[edit on 24-12-2007 by jedimiller]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Why not? And at the bottom of the shaft would have been a service door so the fuel could have easily dumped out the service door.


Gee, there was some miracles going on that day.

Not only did the fuel happen to make it to the only elevator to go to the basement but there was enough to get there after being sprayed everywhere, burned off, soaking into the carpents and furniture. WOW


[edit on 24-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join