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: 58
13
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Unless someone can prove any aluminum skinned plane actually penetrated two exterior steel walls of either twin tower, the question"How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?" is a moot point. It has not been proved any alumunim skin cut through two exterior steel walls of either twin tower.


And you said you didn't lie...

I've posted the calculations for the force of the impact. Fred T posted links to pages showing the comparative strengths of the materials involved. Both of them do, indeed prove that the plane was more than capable of penetrating the single box steel column wall and aluminium cladding facade of the tower.

You have simply chosen to ignore it, and yet its all there.




posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by MikeVet
 


I am curious to know from where you took your NIST information of counting 1300 broken windows before collapse. I found nothing to that effect when I searched what you presented.

Do you have any idea how many windows each twin tower had? Because if you did, 1300 would not really be a significant figure for broken windows during a fire in either twin tower.



Well then, you didn't look in the right place. Keep looking. Try here, page 292 ish. Second page from the last.

wtc.nist.gov...

And yes, there are 232 windows per floor. 1312/232= 5.65 COMPLETE floors worth of windows were broken out. Since the fires involved, what, 10 floors or so, that means that around half of the windows in the fire zone were missing. And you call that not really significant..... whatever. And something like 238 were broken from just the impacts, so 900 or so were heat broken.

Gee, that was pretty easy to find. I guess you really aren't all that interested in fact finding.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


Yeah, nice way to back out when you've been owned...


Owned? By .... you? Bwahahahahhahahahaha.

And sorry but you do joke around with 911. Your research is not valid and you ignore evidence. Typical of many truthers. "Ask Questions, Ignore Answers."



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

And you said you didn't lie...

I've posted the calculations for the force of the impact. Fred T posted links to pages showing the comparative strengths of the materials involved. Both of them do, indeed prove that the plane was more than capable of penetrating the single box steel column wall and aluminium cladding facade of the tower.

You have simply chosen to ignore it, and yet its all there.


I do not lie. Obviously, you do not understand what it takes to verify any aluminum can cut any steel. It also takes observation of it happening to prove all variables. Without observation and calculation of known material specs and exact speed, among other factors, it is still a moot point.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


You said NIST observed the windows breaking. Observed means counting windows as they break. When you stated it, I had no idea how they would do that, without surrounding the buildings and counting breaking windows. I am confident NIST was not pre-set up at the scene when it happened. Therefore, no observation, just assumption, based on how many windows on each wall on each floor fire was said to have been. Otherwise, known as a guesstimate based on non-measurable exact factors. That is no way to report with any accuracy anything official. Assumption, based on what people think happened, never is.

There have been so many different statements from official sources, it became impossible to know who was right or wrong or if anyone was right. That is based on education and experience others of us have had, related to those officials giving so many versions of what happened. That is how we knew they were not accurate or being truthful.

Education is a firm foudation, but experience is the best teacher of all.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Unless someone can prove any aluminum skinned plane actually penetrated two exterior steel walls of either twin tower, the question"How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?" is a moot point. It has not been proved any alumunim skin cut through two exterior steel walls of either twin tower.


I'm also keen to find out how these buildings developed an extra wall of steel that wasn't put there during the initial construction.

Why is the building growing extra walls while the plane gets reduced to the status of 'aluminium skin'?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by MikeVet
 


You said NIST observed the windows breaking. Observed means counting windows as they break. When you stated it, I had no idea how they would do that, without surrounding the buildings and counting breaking windows. I am confident NIST was not pre-set up at the scene when it happened. Therefore, no observation, just assumption, based on how many windows on each wall on each floor fire was said to have been. Otherwise, known as a guesstimate based on non-measurable exact factors. That is no way to report with any accuracy anything official. Assumption, based on what people think happened, never is.

There have been so many different statements from official sources, it became impossible to know who was right or wrong or if anyone was right. That is based on education and experience others of us have had, related to those officials giving so many versions of what happened. That is how we knew they were not accurate or being truthful.

Education is a firm foudation, but experience is the best teacher of all.




Here's the quote of what I actually said: NIST counted 1300-odd heat broken windows in the North Tower by the time of its collapse.

So your assertion that I stated that NIST watched them break live is a lie. Man, what a target rich environment you provide. Thanks......

But if you want to do some research and learn a little, actually go to that link I provided and actually read it. They give their methods of determining how they got that number. If you want to dispute their methods or have a plausible theory of an alternative how they got broken, please post it here so that I can own you some more.....



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

You mean the broken windows caused by the planes impacts.

Please show me the videos you have of the fires on the floors inside the buildings, becasue most videos and photos i have seen of the outside of the buildings show no large flames coming out of the floors.


[edit on 28-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


238 windows broken by the impacts. 1074 broken by fire. 1312 total. See the link I gave to Orion for documentation.

Go to youtube. Type in a search for wtc1 + fires. Wade through all the unrelated crap and focus on the videos that are actually of wtc1. Then watch them, noting which side is being filmed and what the time is. Count the number of windows with flames coming out from each side and add them up. Compare your numbers with what NIST arrived at - it's in that same link. This is how NIST arrived at their data - something you would know if you actually did your own research and didn't rely on dubious sources like research9/11.com. Come back here and give us your findings.

This is what REAL research is. Multiple sources that you check yourself, rather than relying on CT sites of questionable reliability. It would also prevent you one from getting owned...



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   


Shredded aluminum, steel framing and other debris being ejected in an almost 180 degree arc from the impact face.




At impact, see the large dust cloud generated by "virtually vaporized" concrete, drywall and other materials from the force of the impact and massive shredding of the aircraft into millions if not billions of high velocity shrapnel which decimated everything in its path.



Notice the white vapor trail departing off vector from the large fireball this is a remnant of the right wing engine as it was ejected out of the building after impact.



Here you can see the impact on WTC 2 was at an angle and was on the short side closest to the core, meaning it was easier to penetrate and hit the vitual support structure of the tower also with the right side engine being closer to the exterior there was less material in the way to impede the aircraft passing through the building, as it was being shredded apart sections of the engine blasted through the exterior of the building still carrying some of the forward velocity from the impact.


were it not for the fact that an engine, purportedly from the plane, was found at the junction of Church Street and Murray Street immediately after the attack.




Part of the engine components found on the street



where the right side engine parts punched through the exterior wall on WTC2





This couple of shots shows, at impact, the right side engine parts punching through the exterior wall of the tower prior to any fireballs, consistent with a high velocity high kinetic impact ie "the impact energy" carried sufficient speed of the engine component to expel it from the building ahead of the blast and impact energy of the exploding jet fuel.



close up of a left wing impact site showing clearly the wing penetrated into the building causing damage below and above the impact floor



you can see the partially collapsed floor at the impact site center and a large cavernous hole where the fuselage impacted into the building.


The plane clearly entered into the building and caused major damage internally, as well as had enough forward velocity to expel parts of the aircraft through and exiting the building. You can see missing columns where steel beams should have been. This was caused by the aircraft impact.

Again the impact of the aircraft had enough velocity and kinetic energy to DESTROY the steel beams linking floor to floor as well pretty much everything else in its way. Molten high temperature Aluminum was observed cascading down the building face and internally from the impact time to time of collapse.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
This is what REAL research is. Multiple sources that you check yourself, rather than relying on CT sites of questionable reliability. It would also prevent you one from getting owned...



I have been doing real research, you should try it sometime.

Funny how this video of the last few minutes shows no large fires showing from the floors. Only thick black smoke showing the fires have been burning out, since the thick black smoke means oxygen starved fire.

www.youtube.com...

More facts for you.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F” (Eagar, 2002).


911research.wtc7.net...

Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse. Seconds before, the remaining pockets of fire were visible only to the firefighters and victims in the crash zone. A thin veil of black smoke enveloped the tower's top. In the wake of the South Tower's fall new areas of fire appeared in the North Tower.

This summary is supported by simple observations of the extent and brightness of the flames and the color and quantity of smoke, using the available photographic and video evidence.

Visible flames diminished greatly over time. Significant emergence of flames from the building is only seen in a region of the North Tower 10 stories above the impact zone.
South Tower: Virtually no flames were visible at the time of its collapse.
North Tower: Flames were visible in several areas at the time of its collapse. A region of flames on the 105th floor is seen after the South Tower collapse.
The smoke darkened over time. While the fires in both towers emitted light gray smoke during the first few minutes following the impacts, the color of the smoke became darker.
South Tower: Smoke from the fires was black by the time it collapsed. At that time it was only a small fraction of the volume of the smoke from the North Tower.
North Tower: Smoke from the fires had become much darker by the time the South Tower was struck, 17 minutes after the fires were ignited. The smoke was nearly black when the South Tower collapsed. Thereafter the smoke appears to have lightened and emerged from the building at an accelerated rate.



[edit on 28-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I have been doing real research, you should try it sometime.


That's a bold statement for a person who
a) didn't know what is the muzzle velocity of a revolver when the argument came to ballistics
b) couldn't calculate the kinetic energy of the 767 in the energy argument
c) could translate energy to the requisite mass of an explosive when it came to the cruise missile comparison

You "reasearch" is just a lot of hot air, Ultima.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
That's a bold statement for a person who
a) didn't know what is the muzzle velocity of a revolver when the



By the way i was a federal police officer for 12 years, so i know more about guns then you ever will. Its just too bad that we are discussing a plane hitting a builidng, not a gun firing a bullet.

I have not seen you post any real facts and evidnece to support your theory or the official report.

Still have not seen any comparison between a 767 and a cruise missile.

[edit on 28-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by robertfenix
 


What is all that white smoke appearance where you say engine parts penetrated exterior walls outward? Where are the engine parts clearly seen in your photo? Perhaps others see them clearly but I do not.

Is that is supposed to be concrete from ruptured concrete floors giving a smoke appearance? It is too light for concrete. It should be more gray in appearance. White indicates explosion from explosives.

Concrete does not "vaporize". It pulverizes into dust and flies all over the place. The greater the force of pulverization and stronger the wind, the more and further it flies all over the place.

The way you have misinterpreted what I did indicate above, also strongly indicates you have misinterpreted the other photo examples you present.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by buddhasystem
That's a bold statement for a person who
a) didn't know what is the muzzle velocity of a revolver when the



By the way i was a federal police officer for 12 years, so i know more about guns then you ever will.


Well, to face the evidence, you simply don't.
And speaking of gun qualifications, I can strip an AK-47 in 8 seconds and put it back together in 14. Not that it's relevant... But so isn't your law enforcement background.


Its just too bad that we are discussing a plane hitting a builidng, not a gun firing a bullet.


Sure, and a chef could complain that we are not discussing the right way to prepare homestyle pasta sauce. If you don't have qualifications, which you obviously don't, stay out of the kitchen.


Still have not seen any comparison between a 767 and a cruise missile.


I posted it for you and you started asking pretty silly questions as to where I took the cruise missile class. Do you have a selective memory as well?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by robertfenix
 


Could you please show us a clear view of alleged Flight 11 (not even scheduled for flight on 9/11/2001 per BTS) or alleged Flight 175 entering either exterior wall of either tower?

I certainly have not been able to locate any through many, many hours over 6+ years of searching at least a hundred, very likely many more than one hundred, websites with photos, of what is alleged to be a civilian Boeing 767 passenger jetliner impacting the WTC twin towers.

Do you a certified photo or video showing a clear view of that happening as it was happening? Thank you in advance for any validated proof you are willing to share with us.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
I do not lie. Obviously, you do not understand what it takes to verify any aluminum can cut any steel. It also takes observation of it happening to prove all variables. Without observation and calculation of known material specs and exact speed, among other factors, it is still a moot point.


I see.

So what exactly was going on when Fred posted links to the strengths of Aircraft Aluminium as opposed to structural steel, and myself and a number of people worked out the total impact force then?

As for observation - check the web. You can see several videos of 9/11 showing planes hitting the buildings. I'd say thats a damn good observation point, wouldn't you?

I mean, as far as observational science goes, the sight of a plane hitting a building and leaving a sodding great big hole in it is acceptable by 99.9999% of the population that, in this case, a 218,000lb mass can indeed punch a hole in the side of a building.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Only thick black smoke showing the fires have been burning out, since the thick black smoke means oxygen starved fire.


It would seem that's only true to someone who wants the fires to be oxygen starved to support some personal agenda. The reality is quite different and black smoke does not an oxygen starved fire make, the smoke colour is an indication of what's burning in the fire.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



Thick black smoke.

Coming out of what again? 1312 broken windows. And how did they get that way again, when your link confirms that windows typically break when temps inside reach 600C? Or perhaps you have another theory that I can drop some serious ownage onto you with.

From a 600C+ degree fire perhaps?

Which therefore invalidates the assertion that the fires weren't very hot.

Owned again, sir....



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Well, to face the evidence, you simply don't.
And speaking of gun qualifications, I can strip an AK-47 in 8 seconds and put it back together in 14. Not that it's relevant... But so isn't your law enforcement background.


I am commenting on the above assertion, because the very same illogical fallacies transpire so often, from those adamantly touting the "official" reports of 9/11, without provide any valid substantiation those reports are accurate and true.

So could any number of people do what you tout to do, if someone showed them how or they figured it out themselves, and practiced, practiced, practiced...... for speed. But how does that prove they or you have any other expert knowledge of the AK-47, including muzzle velocity? The obvious answer is - it does not.

Are some people adamantly touting the "official" versions so insecure in what they tout, they feel compelled to take every discussion off into such tangent baiting, and to name only a few I have clearly noted, logical fallacy tangents of red herrings, ad hominems, and appeals to authority? If not, why do it?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


Since NIST did not stand there and actually count breaking windows as they were breaking, the figure you continue to assert is not proved accurate. Therefore, it is untrue until proved accurate. That is impossible to do at this point.




top topics



 
13
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join