How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

reply to post by robertfenix


That has been positively identified as any 767 engine? It does not look as if it is flying out with the front or rear moving forward. Not from what I have seen of engine design on commercial airliners up close and personal. Exactly, which plane had the trajectory angle for an engine to break through all that steel, in order to exit through another wall, not the impact side wall, at the location it exited? Exactly,which wall was it that asserted engine is stated to exit in relation to position of a plane wing?

It looks more like the rounded head of a missile, not a 767 engine front or rear. Is there any more clearer pictures of any of the blue arrows pointing to an object exiting a twin tower?

Without looking again, is that white smoke, from a kerosene burning engine, trailing along behind what is asserted to be an a 767 engine? There is quite a bit of white smoke appearance in the photos, which would not belong to concrete dust or kerosene fuel.

reply to post by robertfenix


With all due respect, photos are only supporting evidence, if they can add substantiation to positively identified physical evidence. That is a given in all forensic science, particularly that presented in a court of law.

Originally posted by robertfenix
None of those are "Police" officers, they are involved in law enforcement activities but they are not "police officers". .

Yes they are. The courses at FLETC are police courses. Most become sworn police officers.

www.policejobsinfo.com...

A federal police officer is tasked with enforcing federal law. There are over 70 federal law enforcement agencies. Some of these agencies employ uniformed police officers who provide security and conduct foot patrols around federal property. Other agencies hire criminal investigators sometimes called special agents who conduct investigations. By law, each agency has certain duties and responsibilities. Any federal law enforcement officer can arrest someone who committed a federal crime.

Please do some research before speaking on something you know nothing about. Go to www.fletc.gov...

Watch the FLETC video.

www.fletc.gov...

Originally posted by robertfenix
cover up.

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

Your comment is nothing more than an insecure tangent ad hominem, because of frustration with my not agreeing with your viewpoint and explanation at face value alone. Photos prove nothing, when not accompanied with physical evidence logically substantiating claims made about photos. In today's world of computer programming, virtual reality creates illusion that seems so very real but is not.

reply to post by MikeVet


You are appearing highly desperate and making some serious logical fallacies.

Who was standing around all four side of either tower to count windows as they were breaking? No one was doing that. Therefore, as I have factually stated, people were using guesstimates based on the number of floors stated to have fires and windows. There is no proof the number you are asserting is correct or even close to correct.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I would venture to say a bullet has a greater chance of beating out a plane in a race under various conditions of both moving, at the very least on a sprint.

Now back to the regualrly scheduled program.

Originally posted by OrionStars
I would venture to say a bullet has a greater chance of beating out a plane in a race under various conditions of both moving, at the very least on a sprint.

Depending on if it is a high or low velocity round.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The courses at FLETC are police courses. Most become sworn police officers.

Yes, sworn Local, County or State Police Officers.

Name one Federal Police Officer with supporting documentation that says specifically they are called Federal Police Officer. And may act in replacement of any Local, County or State Police Officer.

CALEA, such as what the US Capital Police belong to is not FLETC.

And their specific jurisdiction is that of the Congress and Capital buildings in providing security. They are US Capital Police and have the enforcement charge of only their buildings, a US Capital Police Officer may not enforce local ordinance law say in Deluth, MN. Which is what would be implied by a Federal Police Officer, someone who in accordance to the phrase "Federal" may enforce any law or statue in any territory within the "Federation of States".



[edit on 28-12-2007 by robertfenix]

[edit on 28-12-2007 by robertfenix]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Have you ever seen a jetliner taxi down a runway or work so hard trying to get off the ground on take-off? Think a bullet could outrace that jetliner - low or high velocity?

The only value I can see, in such a tangent, is comparison of velocity by amount of thrust it takes to enable increasing momentum to enable increasing velocity.

Originally posted by robertfenix
Name one Federal Police Officer with supporting documentation that says specifically they are called Federal Police Officer. And may act in replacement of any Local, County or State Police Officer.

What is your training in law enforcement ?

Any federal law enforcement officer can arrest someone who committed a federal crime

www.policejobsinfo.com...

Capitol Police - Officer

Central Intelligence Agency - Security Protective Officer

Customs and Border Protection - Officer

Federal Protective Service - Special Agent & Officer

Secret Service - Uniformed Officer

[edit on 28-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 28-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by MikeVet

 

You are appearing highly desperate and making some serious logical fallacies.

Who was standing around all four side of either tower to count windows as they were breaking? No one was doing that. Therefore, as I have factually stated, people were using guesstimates based on the number of floors stated to have fires and windows. There is no proof the number you are asserting is correct or even close to correct.

There you have it folks, OS has no idea HOW NIST determined how many windows were broken. His assumption on how they derived that number is wrong. It's also apparent that a little research and a little reading is beyond him. Is he really interested in truth?

Go back to the link and read some. They tell you exactly how they counted them.

Until you can counter how they did it, all you deserve is a big fat

The way some discussions are presenting alleged planes, those alleged planes could only be operating in a vacuum.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Without looking again, is that white smoke, from a kerosene burning engine, trailing along behind what is asserted to be an a 767 engine? There is quite a bit of white smoke appearance in the photos, which would not belong to concrete dust or kerosene fuel.

That engine, or more correctly a part of an engine, is seen in several videos with the trail of white vapour (most likely from fuel on the hot metal) in its wake. The trajectory indicated by the white vapour leads toward where it was found in the street, still hot and smoking. It looks like the final stage turbines or even the compressor stage of the engine but it was very banged up naturally. The rest of the engine including the 9' diameter main fan never left the building. An undercarriage assembly also left the building and was found on a roof in the same area.

The NIST report goes into that engine part in fair detail, even indicating the exact column it broke through to exit the building.

I'm still puzzled by how the building developed that extra steel outer wall you claimed earlier btw

reply to post by MikeVet


What you do not seem to grasp, is the ones doing all the assuming is you and NIST. I was very clear on why NIST was doing nothing more than a guesstimate, based on what unproved conditions were going on inside the twin towers. NIST had no idea what was actually going on inside the buildings. They had to guess at that as well.

They did not have enough physical evidence from the floors on which fires were reported to be blazing. The US bureaucrats ordered 99.9% of the evidence hauled off to India and China for recycling. They did so before NIST or any other independent peer professionals could forensically examine what they actually needed to examine.

Originally posted by MikeVet
Go back to the link and read some. They tell you exactly how they counted them.

Please show me anywhere in the link you posted about counting windows, becasue i just wnet through several pages 289 top 294 and there is no metion of a count.

So show page and paragraph number or be courtious enough to admit you are wrong.

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.

You are - in your argument here - actually arguing against yourself. If you are saying that conjecture on the matter is pointless, why are you here presenting your own rather weird - and I have to say inaccurate - breed of conjecture into the argument?

So far people have tried to explain to you about mass, inertia, tensile material strengths and the actual construction of the WTC towers - all of which you seem to refute.

So tell us, please, exactly what will it take before you believe that a plane hit, and breached the WTC construction? Its just that everyones wasting their time at the moment trying to discuss it with you.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by MikeVet
Go back to the link and read some. They tell you exactly how they counted them.

Please show me anywhere in the link you posted about counting windows, becasue i just wnet through several pages 289 top 294 and there is no metion of a count.

So show page and paragraph number or be courtious enough to admit you are wrong.

wtc.nist.gov...

It's a chart on page 293 and 294. Or if you're going by the page that Acrobat gives, it's on 389 and 390 of 392.

And when you read it, I assume you'll be courteous enough to admit that you've never read it and have been accepting the garbage spewed by 9/11research.com as the gospel.

reply to post by Pilgrum


First, no one has actually proved that was a 767 engine or any part of one. Undocumented photos are not proof.

Wouldn't white vapor mean an engine is running at high altitude to leave a white water vapor trail? Heat off the engine and burned fuel condensing atmospheric water vapors at cold high altitudes? The twin towers did not even begin to meet the height required to do that. Neither did the weather temperature on 9/11/2001.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by MikeVet

 

What you do not seem to grasp, is the ones doing all the assuming is you and NIST. I was very clear on why NIST was doing nothing more than a guesstimate, based on what unproved conditions were going on inside the twin towers. NIST had no idea what was actually going on inside the buildings. They had to guess at that as well.

What you do not seem to grasp, is that you're sorely misinformed about how NIST counted the broken windows. You have no clue. In the dark.

I'll admit that NIST estimated what was going on INSIDE the buildings. But the windows aren't inside the buildings, are they?

Since you're unwilling to read the link I gave you and inform yourself about how the people who you disagree with came to their conclusions, think about that fact and try to figure out how they did it on your own. If you can.....

Originally posted by OrionStars

That has been positively identified as any 767 engine?

Its the combustion section from a CF6-80A 767-200 engine



It is not a CFM-56 engine from a 737 which I am sure you are trying to tell us.

CFM-56 plausible identification came from a random pilot, not mechanic, based on the photo of the engine section on the street and the close match to the drive head at the end of the coupler. From there Rense ran with it as well as countless other sites.

However the engine section on the street clearly shows the combustion port bolt covers around the exterior of the casing, which is the also shown in the diagram of the CF6-80A Combustion section