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: 61
13
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
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.


Oh i read it and the window counts were more from aircraft impacts. So the window count is from the impact not the fires.

It also states that they could not really tell if some windows were missing or covered with smoke.

Also your site talks a lot about the smokey fires just like i posted.


Well NIST has shown itself not to be too good either, They have made mistakes and keep changing thier reports.

By the way you do know that NIST is not the main investagtiang agency for 9/11?

The FBI and the NTSB are the main investifgating agencies.




[edit on 28-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.

Can I pull the logical fallacy card this time?

Please read my post and show me where I said 767. I actually took great care not to be so specific because the exact make and model of engine the part is from is the subject of other 'debates'.

Practical science experiment: heat up a piece of metal and pour some kero on it.

As to the rest of your reply I respectfully suggest your 'scientific' knowledge is shaky if you're suggesting sea level contrails.


[edit on 28/12/2007 by Pilgrum]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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


FEDERAL CRIME, they are not Police Officers nor can they take the place of Local, County or State POLICE OFFICERS. It clearly says Federal Law Enforcement Officer....

Does it say any Federal Police Officer can arrest....

No its does not, because they are not and there is not any FEDERAL POLICE OFFICERS.







Capitol Police - Officer

Central Intelligence Agency - Security Protective Officer

Customs and Border Protection - Officer

Federal Protective Service - Special Agent & Officer

Secret Service - Uniformed Officer



Again none of those are POLICE OFFICERS that have the same and equal authority to enforce local, county or state laws.


Try again, really its pointless Ultima1. Just admit you are wrong as with everything else, you are wrong. Just admit it.



[edit on 28-12-2007 by robertfenix]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


I am not arguing with myself. I never claimed any hypothesis definitives concerning 9/11, except science fact, as the "official" reports and those adamantly supporting those reports have done, with no science facts. I know the "official" reports are wrong.

Just because someone offers hypothesis, does not mean the person is making definitive statements demanded to be accepted at face value. I have never demanded anyone accept any hypothesis I put forth regarding 9/11. All I have done is logically argue points to build a firm supporting circumstantial case. Plus, used science, particularly the laws and principles of physics and chemistry, to greatly assist in that support.

People can legitimately argue against opinion. But they cannot legitimately argue against science, unless they can prove the laws and principles of science to be wrong.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


If not a 767 engine or part, what engine then? Considering what is being discussed, isn't 767 clearly implied?

Have you an aversion to specifics?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


My science peers say my science knowledge is not shaky. I will take their word for it.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
The use of word salad, false association and general double speak and garbage does not hold water on this forum. You will receive negative contribution points for hindering and falsely presenting or skewing data to manipulate a discussion.

If you want to believe no plane crashed into the towers, fine.

If you want to believe that the steel beams and basic facade of the WTC was impervious to being destroyed by a 500knot speeding 767 crashing into them, fine.

If you want to believe that a mysterious jet actually crashed into the building besides the commercial airlines that account for the loss of life of those on board, fine.

But trying to deceive the readers of this thread by roundabout and inaccurate banter counter to the real, physical world result of this tragic incident is really a shame and a reflection of your low moral character.



[edit on 28-12-2007 by robertfenix]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


NIST went into detail on an engine?

What did you get out of their detail? Can you paraphrase what you imply you did read? How do they explain it? Did it answer my questions?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
All I have done is logically argue points to build a firm supporting circumstantial case. Plus, used science, particularly the laws and principles of physics and chemistry, to greatly assist in that support.

People can legitimately argue against opinion. But they cannot legitimately argue against science, unless they can prove the laws and principles of science to be wrong.


Herein lies the problem.

You haven't used science. You've argued against it.

So I ask again - 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.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by robertfenix
 


Is it an engine part from any engine they would attach to a 767? If so, that does not prove it came from any alleged Flight 11 or 175. All it indicates is that you have asserted NIST examined an engine part, which could fit in any engine on any 767 in an airline's fleet.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by robertfenix
 


There you go again falsely accusing me of what I am not doing.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
If not a 767 engine or part, what engine then? Considering what is being discussed, isn't 767 clearly implied?

Have you an aversion to specifics?

My aversion is to pointless circular arguments and excessive nitpicking.

The way your logic and loose interpretation of science and physics is going, the only conclusion your logic will lead to is that nothing happened.

Now that presents a problem for the majority of us who have a reasonable conviction that something did indeed happen - we wouldn't be discussing it otherwise.

[edit on 28/12/2007 by Pilgrum]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Then you will have to explain how that was done. You made a statement proving nothing. Exactly, what have I stated that went against science according to you? Do you have science proof of that statement? If not, then it is only your opinion.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
Try again, really its pointless Ultima1. Just admit you are wrong as with everything else, you are wrong. Just admit it.


No, i am not wrong. I still did not see your creds in the law enforcement field. What academy did you go to ?

I am am not wrong in anything else i have posted, i have posted facts and evidence to support what i post. Something you seem unable or unwilling to do.

Please see add for NSA police officer.

www.mdchiefs.org...

[edit on 28-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Oh i read it and the window counts were more from aircraft impacts. So the window count is from the impact not the fires.

It also states that they could not really tell if some windows were missing or covered with smoke.

The FBI and the NTSB are the main investifgating agencies.

[edit on 28-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


Wow, it takes a special person to lie as easily as you do. You should be proud of yourself.

238 broken by the impacts. 1312 missing by the time of collapse. 133 in place at the time of collapse. 376 obscured at the time of collapse. Those are the numbers given by NIST..... To make up this kind of a lie puts you in a special category. Congratulations.

Yes FBI and NTSB are the main investigating agencies for a criminal event. What's your point? Oh wait, I know the answer already.

Since I just owned you, you feel the need to obfuscate and deflect your lack of knowledge about the subject.

Nice.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Then please avoid them in future. The circular argument was started by others.

What other engine would be connected to the WTC buildings, if not an alleged 767 as pointed out by assertion, in the one photo claimed to be an engine part, flying out through another wall not impacted?

How is the above circular argument from me? I did not start the discussion on that photo nor present it for discussion. I merely stated my observations and asked legitimate questions.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
238 broken by the impacts. 1312 missing by the time of collapse. 133 in place at the time of collapse.


How many could not be counted as missing becasue of being smokey?

Do you really want me to post quotes from your site, to prove to everyone here how wrong you are?

And how much i have owned you?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

All it indicates is that you have asserted NIST examined an engine part, which could fit in any engine on any 767 in an airline's fleet.



Where was I quoting from an NIST report regarding the engine section ?

Trying to make a case for the argument (yes its a CF6-80A combustion section but how can you specifically link it to that specific airframe vs any other 767 airframe) is simply ignorant.

Simply the fact that it is a component of a CF6-80A engine is enough to assert that it was either a 767-200 or the equal Airbus model (only 2 specific airframes use this engine) is enough to disprove that some other mysterious aircraft struck the tower.

As a rule FAA guidelines for parts maintenance records maybe obtain by the proper investigating authorities. These however are not subject to public record release requests. The tag log for the engine in question going back to GE were obtained by the NTSB for positive identification but were not required as part of the report to to the NIST board because the cause of loss was a direct, intentional impact into a structure of a normally operational airframe at the hand of a terrorist.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
How is the above circular argument from me? I did not start the discussion on that photo nor present it for discussion. I merely stated my observations and asked legitimate questions.


OK then - if we get back on track which was to do with an aluminium plane breaking into a steel walled building.....

The evidence is there that some components of that plane managed to break out from the opposite side of the building. Now, to a reasonable observer, the suggestion is quite strong that the plane had to get through the building from the other side first for that to happen or am I missing something here?

A potential problem is this 'double steel wall' you claimed more than once which would have made it more difficult (not necessarily impossible) for the plane to actually get through to the building interior. As that double wall claim contradicts the available building construction information, can you provide info to support it as I'd consider clearing that up to be a move in the right direction (I'm sure I wouldn't the only one)

Sidenote:
I was trying to imagine the peace talks to end WWIII being conducted here... hundred+ year war? lol



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Then you will have to explain how that was done. You made a statement proving nothing. Exactly, what have I stated that went against science according to you? Do you have science proof of that statement? If not, then it is only your opinion.


Explain how it was done? Why don't you re-read the whole thread from the start and then it will save everyone having to explain it to you again?

As for what have you stated that goes against science - I'd say denying that a 200,000lb + mass travelling at over 400mph can't penetrate the hollow box steel columns that made up the walls of the WTC is fairly unscientific.

I mean, if you can prove thats not possible then please do - its just that you haven't so far. You've skirted the issue, and the reason that you've skirted it is because it appears you are incapable of proving its not possible. Instead you have resorted to non-sequitors, diversionary tactics, unsubstantiated claims and deliberate obtuseness.

All I - and a number of other posters in this thread have asked from you right from the start of your outlandish claims is to prove what you say. We have proved our argument - show us the proof of yours. Give us the maths and science behind it.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join