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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by ANOK
Yeah, nice way to back out when you've been owned...
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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...
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).
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.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I have been doing real research, you should try it sometime.
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
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.
Its just too bad that we are discussing a plane hitting a builidng, not a gun firing a bullet.
Still have not seen any comparison between a 767 and a cruise missile.
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.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Only thick black smoke showing the fires have been burning out, since the thick black smoke means oxygen starved fire.
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.