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: 59
13
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

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.


You seem to have completely misread my post where I said that my handling of AK-47 has nothing to do with the 9/11 expertise. Likewise, ULTIMA1 is touting his 12 years in law enforcement as a certificate to dismiss the kinetic energy role in the impact.

You don't seem to posess acuity in your reading skills.




posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
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.


So your stating that the agencies quoted were wrong or lying ?

How many more quotes would it take for you to admit that the fires were oxygen starved ?


Originally posted by buddhasystem
You seem to have completely misread my post where I said that my handling of AK-47 has nothing to do with the 9/11 expertise. Likewise, ULTIMA1 is touting his 12 years in law enforcement as a certificate to dismiss the kinetic energy role in the impact.


Then why bring up guns and bullets at all if has nothing to do with what we are talking about ?

You never did post a side by side comparision of a 767 and crusie missile with the stats asked for.


[edit on 28-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   
double post


[edit on 28-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


General statements do not accuracy or truth make. Calculations need exact material specs and accurately simulated conditions per the material specs, not general material specs and guesstimated conditions.

Otherwise, the calculations are simply guesswork based on general specifics, which could apply to any aluminum, any steel, and any design of construction, not the specifics needing calculation for accuracy and truth of specifics. Specifics are what research lab work entails before releasing anything for use - specifics not generalities under the closest of variable simulated conditions.

Generalities would be this. Taking a piece of aluminum foil and some piece of steel or other. Setting any speed of human desire and sending a piece of aluminum foil to impact some piece of steel. But how does that truthfully and accurately tell anyone what a Boeing 767 impacting specific material steel spec and construction will do upon impact, considing all variables are not actually known for accuracy and truth? Answer obviously is - generalities and guesswork will not tell anyone anything with any accuracy or truth.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Wants oxygen starved fires? Fires are quite capable of becoming oxygen starved all on their own. The natural laws of chemistry are why.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You apparently misinterpreted my point. I was referring to various posters relying so much on logical fallacy. Your comment was simply a prime example of people using tangent baiting logical fallacy. You were attacking the poster not the poster's argument. You used tanget baiting for those ad hominems (personal attacks). You are not the only poster doing the same but you offered an excellent prime (exceptionally clear) example.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Then why bring up guns and bullets at all if has nothing to do with what we are talking about ?


Because you said that the 767 was traveling at speeds very much lower than that of a revolver bullet, whereas they were comparable. So I had to compensate for your apparent lack of firearm expertise.


You never did post a side by side comparision of a 767 and crusie missile with the stats asked for.


I obviously need to quote my own post:


OK, here's the recipe:

you take the estimated weight of the craft at the time of impact. You also take the estimated velocity (700-770 ft/sec or something like that). You use the m*V^2/2 formula for the kinetic energy. You divide by the energy density of the popular explosives such as TNT or C4. You divide by the typical mass of the warhead on a US cruise missile.

You see how much can be done with little effort? The effort that you elected not to afford.


With you remarkable experience in "real research", there shouldn't be troo much trouble in following this chewed-up prescription, with all the numbers from right sources.


[edit on 28-12-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem[/i
With you remarkable experience in "real research", there shouldn't be troo much trouble in following this chewed-up prescription, with all the numbers from right sources.


I see you cannot read. I asked for the following.


You never did post a side by side comparision of a 767 and crusie missile with the stats asked for.



So please post a sided by side comparision between a 767 and a cruise missile. With the stats for each.

Size
Speed
Structure (what they are made of)






[edit on 28-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
You were attacking the poster not the poster's argument.


I attacked the posters apparent lack of argument. He keeps touting his considerable expertise in "real research" without having the most basic qualifications for doing simple physics estimates. Then he states that he at least has 12 years in law enforcement. Go figure.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by buddhasystem[/i
With you remarkable experience in "real research", there shouldn't be troo much trouble in following this chewed-up prescription, with all the numbers from right sources.


I see you cannot read. I asked for the following.


You never did post a side by side comparision of a 767 and crusie missile with the stats asked for.



I won't be operating a hand-held calculator for you, pal. Seriosuly. I gave you the formula, go do it.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
[I attacked the posters apparent lack of argument. He keeps touting his considerable expertise in "real research" without having the most basic qualifications for doing simple physics estimates. Then he states that he at least has 12 years in law enforcement. Go figure.



I can do the estimates, but they had nothing to do with a 767 hitting a skyscraper.

And yes i was a federal police officer.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.



if you look at the bottom picture in the photo set with the blue circle and blue lines the object coming out of the building is a section of the right wing engine which after exiting the building flew down the street. In one of the external photo links above showing a close up of the fireball after impact at WTC 2 you will see the white vapor/ smoke trail arcing away from the building and not directly associated to the blast fireball which is rising up the building. This is the trail of smoke from the engine parts. In that photo the engine components are not in the picture having past out of view.

The fact that a large section of the engine, (Photo I posted of on the street) supports the fact that it was indeed a section of the engine that tore through the building.

Unless you think some nefarious government secret agent delivery truck dropped it off on the street corner as part of the cover up.

Honestly you OrionStars are just a person to ignore who brings nothing of value to this conversation.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I won't be operating a hand-held calculator for you, pal. Seriosuly. I gave you the formula, go do it.



Why can't you post what i asked for ?

You cannot post a side by side comparison of a 767 and a crusie missile, I thought you knew what you were talking about?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You cannot post a side by side comparison of a 767 and a crusie missile, I thought you knew what you were talking about?


Right. I do know what I'm talking about. And I won't be plugging numbers in the formula I gave you. I leave it up to you to whip out your calculator, this way you might have a chance to believe the numbers that come out.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I can do the estimates, but they had nothing to do with a 767 hitting a skyscraper.


Apparently so.


And yes i was a federal police officer.


I'm sure you did great. It probably didn't involve having to actually calculate anything.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

And yes i was a federal police officer.



What is a Federal Police Officer ?

The only police departments we have are local, county and state, there are Federal Agencies that are part of the Federal judicial system, such as the FBI, IRS, US Marshal's or Military Police, but we do not have "Federali's" as a component of "police" enforcement.

If you were a US Marshal, such as Air Marshal, Prison Guard, Prison Transportation, Asset and Recovery Officer or Fugitive hunter I find it hard to believe any of your on the job experience gives you credibility in the way of a forensic crash scene investigator.

But nice try another reason why your contributions to this discussion are lacking credibility.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
What is a Federal Police Officer ?


A Federal Police officer is a Police officer for a Federal Agency

Like,
Department of Defense
Border Patrol
ATF
US Marshalls

Just to name a few

Also look up the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). It is for training Federal Police officers. I can post the site if you cannot find it.

I have a certificate from FLETC.



[edit on 28-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Actually, you attacked the poster's capabilities with your tangent.

That is two logical fallacies in debate - tangent and ad hominem.

If people were aware of what constitutes logical fallacy, they may become able to recognize when they make them. All credible debaters are capable of recognizing logical fallacies they and their opponents make. Credibility for points of argument are the heart of debate. Otherwise, it resorts to free-for-all flame war arguing for the sake of arguing.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

A Federal Police officer is a Police officer for a Federal Agency

Like,
Department of Defense
Border Patrol
ATF
US Marshalls

Just to name a few

Also look up the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). It is for training Federal Police officers. I can post the site if you cannot find it.

I have a certificate from FLETC.


[edit on 28-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


None of those are "Police" officers, they are involved in law enforcement activities but they are not "police officers". Military personal can not be used either as deputized Marshal's or in the commission of policing domestic "police" activities.

Border Patrol as a component of DoHS are not police officers but are there to enforce the Federal immigration laws as mandated by the Federal Court System.

ATF "Agents" are a sub department of CJS and FBI and are not "police officers" they do not enforce local "police" ordinances. ATF may be used by the District Attorney's office (Court/Judicial) to serve and or recover articles pertinent only to their departments specific duty. They are not charged with the authority to "police" anything.

This is why they are called Federal Agents, not Federal Police Officers, because as an agent that are working from a specific mandate from another office, such as serving a court order, or inspecting cargo or protecting a Federal witness etc.




[edit on 28-12-2007 by robertfenix]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.




Run Forest Run !!

Your desperation to exclude video and photographic evidence that exposes your beliefs to be crap is duly noted.

I guess the same should apply to you now too. So any video or photographic evidence that you would like to talk about shall be excluded from this point on. We'll just rely on totally unsupported opinion.

Agreed?




top topics



 
13
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join