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: 63
13
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


They would have had to do what they did when it was put in. Make sure all the security cameras were shut down and work fast to clear it out. Rather than putting it in. Fake a brown out on the WTC part of town. NYC is used to brown and black-outs.

Nothing would happen until someone hooked up the electric to the detonator.




posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
Therein lies the problem for me if the buildings didn't come down as a result of the planes hitting them. I've experienced military ordinance from just far enough away to not be damaged by it and that's a variety of things like 500lb bombs, FFARs, napalm, cannon so I know what I'd expect to see if HE was used to bring down a building. Trouble is I saw no evidence of such things there so, for me, it still appears to be the planes that did it.

I remain open to any convincing evidence that there was more to it but it has to be damn good evidence after all this time to overturn what I've seen or, more importantly, haven't seen so far.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


You are talking explosions not implosion created using cutter charges to pull buildings down into their own footprints. The cutter charges are only used to cut the supports. Then nature takes care of free fall at least resistance and a lot less clean-up expense.

Controlled demolitions experts legally do the same so often in NYC, few pay any attention to it. It is the safest way to drop a high rise building in tight urban areas.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Implosion has a couple of meanings though
In the CD industry it applies to the effect of precisely failing enough critical elements in the right sequence to cause the structure to fall in on itself so it *looks* like an implosion although there isn't necessarily any negative pressure involved. The individual blasts are unmistakable if you watch a real CD.
A true implosion can be created by a blast large and hot enough to create superheated air which rapidly expands away from the centre and it's going to be a monster blast. Once the blast pressure (omnidirectional) gets down to near atmospheric pressure, the cooler outside air rushes back to fill the void and everything not knocked outward by the initial blast gets knocked inward by the rush. For obvious reasons this implosion technique isnt suitable for a clandestine CD as half of Manhattan would have been smashed by it and we wouldn't have any doubts as to what it was.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Implosion meets pulling in or down. Explosion means pushing out and up. Which is why the construction industry, based on controlled demolition terminology, calls it pulling a bulding. It literally means pulling a building in on itself. Hence, the word implosion as opposed to the word explosion.

Gravity, momentum weight and mass literally create vacuum effect from the ground up, as the weight and mass is increasing in momentum velocity speed impact. decompressing all air and any loose insignificant resistance outward, as the buildings are dropping.

That means pulverizing anything but the steel from weight, mass, momentum and velocity, aided by no significant supports in the way. Thus, free falling down path of least resistance. It can violently push out all insignificant loose resistance once the supports are symmetrically cut at the same time or in rapid succession. Does this all the way down into its own footprint. What is decompressed and thrown from the exterior outward can be quite violently flung.

The fact the facade and exterior primary load supports were attached to the outside of the towers, is why so much of the two exterior steel walls were flung away from the buildings and quite violently so. Along with all that loose internal debris (pulverized concrete dust) being violently blasted out as well. through decompression from above and pulling from below by gravity.

There is an easy experiment to test it with aluminum cans.

Make certain the cans are empty of liquid in both case - just to clarify.

Seal off any air that can escape in one can. Stand it on its end, and use force to attempt to crush the can straight down into it's own "footprint" (base of the can).

Put air holes at levels on another can. Do the same as above.

Which one crushed straight down into its own "footprint" with least resistance? Did they both end up looking the same after crushing?

Air always presents resistance.

A note on legal controlled demolitions. They normally strip the inside of buildings and windows, to avoid dangerous flying projectiles being decompresse outward, as the building is dropping straight down. They strip copper plumbing. They strip anything that can be used or resold for scrap. I am not certain who gets the money for anything salvageable.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars

Sorry, but I think you just partially rewrote my 7-8 years of studying physics there


Gravitational vacuum - I'll need to research that sometime



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by MikeVet
You're so clever. I am in the presence of greatness.....


Just learned from you, like being clever to leave out the other catagories of widows in your count. As stated NIST was making a guess at bast onthe number of windows, and most were due to impact not fire.


Open
Window

Glass in
Place

“Can’t
See”





Oh, so NIST is "guessing" but you have the scoop, eh? So what methods did you use to determine the accurate count?

What the heck's up with this linked bs? Where's the numbers?

I'll fill the blanks for ya-

172 "glass in place" (unbroken) at the time of collapse
375 "can't see" (obscured) at the time of collapse

and per our debate:

238 "open" (broken) just after the time of impact.
1312 "open" (broken) at the time of collapse.

So that's a difference of 1074, broken by the fires.

Last time I checked, 1074>238. So again, your statement that most were broken by the impacts and not by the fires is garbage. As usual with the "research" that you post.

So have you figured out yet how NIST determined this? Do I have to tell you, or are you actually going to read the report I linked so that you can come up with a counter argument? Here's a hint - they weren't guessing about what was happening with the windows, since they are located on the exterior and can be SEEN.

Notice that all caps word, there's hint how they got their numbers. Let's see if you have the integrity to admit you're wrong and render an admission that you're a koolaid guzzler....



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
Oh, so NIST is "guessing" but you have the scoop, eh? So what methods did you use to determine the accurate count?



You have failed to show how NIST got the numbers. (beside guessing)

You have failed to debate the fact about the fires burning out before the collaspe.

Face it you have failed.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Are you saying that gravity working with vertical weight, mass, momentum, and velocity is a gravitational vacuum?

Are you saying there is no such physical occurrence in physics as gravitational vacuum, such as that in quantum physics? Vertically, that is what sets a building into free fall with least resistance once the most strategic vertical supports are removed.

Never studied black holes? Because implosion of buildings works on the same quantum physics principles as black holes. Black holes are created by stars imploding and pulling themselves into themselves aka gravitational implosion.

goodfelloweb.com...

"NON SPACE
Since this paper is chiefly concerned with the verification of gravitational induction, only a brief summarization of 'Non Space' will be presented here.

On a rudimentary level, non-space behavior can be compared to a vortex, which is a 'low energy' example of this phenomenon. Milk added to a stirred cup of coffee outlines a vortex, which consists of a high pressure exterior and a low pressure center. The vortex behaves in a manner identical to that of the planets orbiting the Sun, in that both phenomena obey Kepler's Second Law of Planetary Motion(1). Objects placed closer to the center of the vortex orbit at a greater speed than objects further out from the center, in accordance with Kepler's Laws. The depression in the center of the fluid is thus a relative absence of matter producing an effect characteristic of gravity.

No observable space in the universe is a vacuum.(2) It is notable that most dictionaries describe a vacuum as: " A space devoid of matter." This definition is no longer sufficient description of a vacuum, since it appears that all known space contains some measure of mass/energy. Perhaps a more accurate description would be: " A vacuum is a volume devoid of space."

Since a higher pressure attempts to nullify a lower pressure, a hypothetical volume of absolute vacuum (non-space) will attract space.

Non-space is an absolute vacuum which induces gravity. This causes the exterior mass/energy space to gravitationally implode upon non-space. Any given volume of non-space has a temperature of absolute zero and is without time.

I believe that a magnetic field can exist in non-space, because it is a manifestation of mass/energy, but is not mass/energy in itself. In the following chapter I shall discuss how Non-space can be brought about by high energy plasmas in magnetically unified configurations."



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by MikeVet
Oh, so NIST is "guessing" but you have the scoop, eh? So what methods did you use to determine the accurate count?



You have failed to show how NIST got the numbers. (beside guessing)





Ha, I know how NIST got their numbers because they state exactly how they did their analysis. And since I've done my own research, something you've failed miserably at, I know that they're accurate. Again, this is something that YOU can do, independently, to check some facts on your own, because the windows can be SEEN. Seen, as in seen in photos and video.

It's also plainly obvious that you, on the other hand, don't do any of your own independent research. Rather, you rely on unreliable CT sites for your info. So sad. Too bad. You'll never get to the truth relying on such methods.

Again. tell me how you got your numbers. You say NIST is wrong, but you aren't giving any correct numbers. Do you know what they are? If you don't know what the real numbers are, then logically of course, you can't say that NIST's numbers are wrong.

Try again, oh great magnificent one.......



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


So do I know how they got the numbers. In the world of statistics, it is called arriving at a guesstimate or playing the odds of what, if anything, is known variable(s). Then throwing in potential unknowns as well.

For example, if each floor had so many windows, and any type of fire was on those floors, they guessed high in calculating how many potential windows were broken, by impact and gas pressure from thermal/kinetic energy enveloping smoke breaking out windows. They went high on the assumption that is what happened. Based on the smoke they saw pouring out of the holes, and assuming the same amount of smoke was filling those floors looking for an exit as well.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by MikeVet
 


So do I know how they got the numbers. In the world of statistics, it is called arriving at a guesstimate or playing the odds of what, if anything, is known variable(s). Then throwing in potential unknowns as well.

For example, if each floor had so many windows, and any type of fire was on those floors, they guessed high in calculating how many potential windows were broken, by impact and gas pressure from thermal/kinetic energy enveloping smoke breaking out windows. They went high on the assumption that is what happened. Based on the smoke they saw pouring out of the holes, and assuming the same amount of smoke was filling those floors looking for an exit as well.


I'll just cut to the chase here for you and Ultima's benefit.

NIST got their numbers not by guesstimating, but by looking at video and photographic evidence.

No guessing involved. They had photos and video from just after 1's impact and counted the open windows. These are from the impacts. They looked at how many were open at collapse. These are from the fires breaking them.

They even have a time line throughout the period saying when the various windows broke. They did a similar analysis for 2.

Simple and direct observation. Something that YOU can do if you're so inclined. If you believe they're wrong, feel free to challenge their numbers.

Uhhh, what do you mean by gas pressure? There is no measurable gas pressure present inside a building during a fire. Buildings aren't sealed that tight unless they're gonna be used for some special purpose. An office building wouldn't qualify as special purpose. The windows were broken by the heat. Ultima posted a link with a statement that windows break at 600C. That is correct.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


That is impossible. There was too much black carbon smoke pouring out of what was opened and hiding the windows. When other walls were exposed, NIST employees could not have seen behind all that facade. Each window was only 18" wide. The steel facade hid them from clear view from the outside. People, working in the buildings, would complain because of the window design closing off a good portion of outside light and view beyond the tinted tempered glass. The designer did what he did because he had a fear of heights.

The clearest external view of windows, in either tower, were at the base.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Are you saying that gravity working with vertical weight, mass, momentum, and velocity is a gravitational vacuum?

Are you saying there is no such physical occurrence in physics as gravitational vacuum, such as that in quantum physics? Vertically, that is what sets a building into free fall with least resistance once the most strategic vertical supports are removed.

Never studied black holes? Because implosion of buildings works on the same quantum physics principles as black holes. Black holes are created by stars imploding and pulling themselves into themselves aka gravitational implosion.


I got the concept from your earlier post:


Gravity, momentum weight and mass literally create vacuum effect from the ground up, as the weight and mass is increasing in momentum velocity speed impact. decompressing all air and any loose insignificant resistance outward, as the buildings are dropping.

It just looks a little tangled to me. A falling mass will behave like any moving object by compressing air ahead of it (in this case below it) and the evidence of this is some windows seen popping out of their frames. Yes I know it's claimed the 'squibs' did it but I don't believe there were any 'squibs' required. The air behind the moving mass (above it in this case) gets lowered in pressure by the good old slipstream effect and the evidence of that is seen in how the dust above the collapsing building gets pulled down faster than dust outside the slipstream. Not enough negative pressure to aid the collapse by far and remember it's actually behind (above) the collapsing area at all times until motion ceases.

We don't really want to see a 'Black holes brought down the WTC!' thread even if it's maybe the only theory we haven't seen but I mean - really

Coupled with the fact that black holes are still only theoretical and they were only hypothesised in an attempt to explain the behaviour of galaxies I feel very safe in completely ruling them out of this.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


That is correct. Gravity pulling weight and mass straight down the path of least resistance - the center core - where the center of gravity was located in both towers.

The weight and mass was decompressing out all the air as it was dropping straight down the center path of least resistance, aided by gravity pulling on it much faster, without stratgic intact center supports offering far more resistance than air, all the way down into each building's footprint. Thus - free fall resembling that in a vacuum.

Those buildings fell, with human input releasing the center core units on well more than one floor, using the same quantum principle used by nature to cause stars to implode into themselves and become black holes.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Gravity always acts straight down - it's a fairly well accepted principle and it's source of the concept of what 'straight down' actually is.

Don't you think your tin can experiment contradicts the proposal of a vacuum below the collapsing area somewhat?

It should be confirming that air below the collapse front was actually being raised in pressure (compressed) if you do it right and the holes in the 2nd can allow that pressure to escape which is exactly what the popping windows were doing.

Please - no more mention of black holes - it might give someone ideas



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


The only "squibs" (small white smoke puffs) anyone could possibly see, from the exterior, had to be on the exterior walls. Those, I have seen in photos were white indicative of explosives. Pulverized concrete is quite apparently gray of some shade, depending on the color of the gray concrete, when not mixed with a large quantity of pulverized white asbestos and sheetrock/drywall dust.

Since both walls were attached to the buildings, I have no idea why anyone would put explosives in the exterior facade, exterior primary load supports, or finished exterior walls. I have no idea where in all those support tubes they would find correct planting places, on the exterior of either building. I did not note any bundled explosives being attached to any parts of the exterior walls. How anyone would have gotten them between the two exterior walls, is something I never waste my time contemplating.

No one needed any exterior controlled demolitions, directly due to the fact the twin towers had no corner supports. Only with corner supports would explosives be used for cutting. Plus, as I stated above, the two steel exterior walls were attached to the buildings.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Not when air holes are put in, allowing decompression (removal of air resistance) pushing air out through the holes when crushing straight down.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Since both walls were attached to the buildings, I have no idea why anyone would put explosives in the exterior facade, exterior primary load supports, or finished exterior walls. I have no idea where in all those support tubes they would find correct planting places, on the exterior of either building. I did not note any bundled explosives being attached to any parts of the exterior walls. How anyone would have gotten them between the two exterior walls, is something I never waste my time contemplating.

No one needed any exterior controlled demolitions, directly due to the fact the twin towers had no corner supports. Only with corner supports would explosives be used for cutting. Plus, as I stated above, the two steel exterior walls were attached to the buildings.

There was no sign of explosives doing what explosives do IE explode
Especially on the outside of the building. That leads me to the crazy notion that there weren't actually any explosives.

You mentioned the two steel exterior walls again which goes against all available information on the construction. Like I (& others) said several times - evidence of that would have a significant bearing on this thread about aluminium cutting steel so I'll ask again, do you have evidence of the two steel exterior walls?

[edit on 29/12/2007 by Pilgrum]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


What construction literature have you read? The facade was steel tubes. The exterior primary load supports were steel tubes. That is two exterior steel walls. I have posted this information in discusions quite a number of times. Those links had pictures of both the exterior primary load tube supports and the facade tube design. NIST also has photos of both on their website.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join