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: 64
13
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.

Welded box steel columns assembled in sections joined by spandrels with an aluminium covering is what I see and the NIST documention goes into great detail on it and I have the photos and cross-sectional drawings. The heaviest (thickest) steel in those columns is on the sides and the inside edge which makes sense due to the floor truss seats being on that side. Any steel on the outside of the columns was insignificant in comparison to the other 3 sides .
So there was a single wall made of assymetrical steel tubes with a little aluminium around it - my interpretation.




posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


I know what the NIST report says and how misleading the description is. That is why you need photos of the actual individual exterior frame and facade sections. NIST has photos of both exterior sections. They can be found on Internet engineering journals, by putting in such key words as "WTC construction steel exterior walls and facade sections". Wiki has pictures of the exterior walls.

I have put the links on so many times. I finally came to the conclusion that when the same people keep requesting the same information, and could not be bothered to look at it the first few times after reqesting it so many times, they obviously were not interested at all.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
So then, can you agree that the 100000kg+ plane moving (under power) at about 200m/s+ had enough momentum to penetrate the aluminium facade and the steel columns as extensively witnessed on 9/11?

KE=0.5 x m.v^2; 0.5x100000x200^2

The plane then came to a full stop in a distance of approx 60m give or take a bit over approx 0.5 seconds giving us a deceleration of about 400m/s.

F=m.a; 100000x400

Sure, there are more factors in it but that's the actual total amount of energy the structure had to dissipate to stop the plane.

That's the crucial thing



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Where did you get that impression? Because you arrived at a highly false impression.

Plus, you have other errors in your statements. Starting with stating the facade was "aluminum". Each pitchfork designed facade section had colored aluminum sheath over steel, to prevent rusting of the steel and make the buildings eye-appealing. Is that from where you got your false impression that every pitchfork looking section was made out of nothing but aluminum?


Did they find any trace of fiberglass shards from the hollow fiberglass noses of those alleged 767s? Should have been something flying outside through the air on those alleged civilian commercial jetliner impacts lacking total visibility. There should would be if that was Corvette body impacting either one of the towers on the upper floors above the ground floor. The nose is not the only fiberglass component on a 767 or 757 or 747 or even the 707, which had much less in fiberglass components, inside or out, than the rest.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Where did you get that impression? Because you arrived at a highly false impression.

Plus, you have other errors in your statements. Starting with stating the facade was "aluminum". Each pitchfork designed facade section had colored aluminum sheath over steel, to prevent rusting of the steel and make the buildings eye-appealing. Is that from where you got your false impression that every pitchfork looking section was made out of nothing but aluminum?


Did they find any trace of fiberglass shards from the hollow fiberglass noses of those alleged 767s? Should have been something flying outside through the air on those alleged civilian commercial jetliner impacts lacking total visibility. There should would be if that was Corvette body impacting either one of the towers on the upper floors above the ground floor. The nose is not the only fiberglass component on a 767 or 757 or 747 or even the 707, which had much less in fiberglass components, inside or out, than the rest.

Sigh
My impression has the statistics in its corner though.
Steel columns, thick on the inside, thick on the sides, thin on the front, wrapped in aluminium for aesthetic appeal.

Why do I get the feeling you're avoiding an absolute answer here and resorting to throwing up a smoke screen again to squirm out of it?
No-one reported any corvettes on the 80th floor which I suppose doesn't totally rule it out


It was a simple question:
Do the figures I gave above indicate that the plane delivered enough force to do the damage we've been discussing?
And consider the plane as a total mass of 100000kg - we don't really need to get down to the diameter of individual rivets do we.

If it's No - please show some figures to the contrary or highlight my errors (I know I'm not perfect)

PS: you can use a KC-767 for this calc if you like



[edit on 30/12/2007 by Pilgrum]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
You say NIST is wrong, but you aren't giving any correct numbers. :


NIST even admitted in the report that they could not tell if some windows were missing or covered with smoke.

I have already porven in other threads that NIST had made mistakes.

1. They did not do any testing for explosives or chemicles in the WTC 1 and 2 steel.

2. They did not recover any steel from WTC 7 for testing.

3. The 9/11 commission (who tasked them to do reports) did not agree with or publish all of thier findings.

Also NIST is not the main investigating agency for 9/11.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


I gave you an answer. I told you I did not agree. Math is the least of the errors you make. You have not once considered the material components and composites used in manufacturing planes, much less the buildings. Knowing the material specs and construction is highly important, in just trying to caluculate what could have happened combined with all the unknown variables.

What you are doing may be fine for you to convince yourself to use the "official" reports as your guideline. However, that is not the way any reputable science lab would do. I know I have stated the same many times before.

The Corvette was used aa a pertinent analogy, because it has a fiberglass body. So do planes have far more than a few square feet of fiberglass as part of their manufactured bodies inside and out. Fiberglass is not the only composite material besides aluminum just on the exterior bodies.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
I gave you an answer. I told you I did not agree. Math is the least of the errors you make. You have not once considered the material components and composites used in manufacturing planes, much less the buildings. Knowing the material specs and construction is highly important, in just trying to caluculate what could have happened combined with all the unknown variables.


Fred T covered this before.

Its been done.

So prove what you say. Show us. Stop being deliberately obtuse. Its all well and good sitting on your backside saying "it cannot be" and then doing nothing about it.

SHOW us. Show us the extent of your supposed knowledge. If you can so easily dismiss it then you can prove what you say, right?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Why don't you stop being so rude? No one has completely proved anything one way or the other. Just because you wish to accept the "official" reports, does not mean they proved anything beyond any reasonable doubt.

They would never hold up in any court of law. A skilled attorney or philosophy professor would make mince out of the "official" reports. That is how inconsistent they are. That is what happens when people lie, and call those lies "official reports".



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Pilgrum

I gave you an answer. I told you I did not agree. Math is the least of the errors you make. You have not once considered the material components and composites used in manufacturing planes, much less the buildings. Knowing the material specs and construction is highly important, in just trying to caluculate what could have happened combined with all the unknown variables.

What you are doing may be fine for you to convince yourself to use the "official" reports as your guideline. However, that is not the way any reputable science lab would do. I know I have stated the same many times before.

I don't think you've ever given a straight answer here.
And you have quoted from NIST reports yourself or was that a temporary abberation? (being sort of official and all that)

We can get down to materials and characteristics later but what I proposed was a simple go/no go test IE if the plane didn't have enough kinetic energy to exceed the UTS of all the broken columns then it wouldn't matter if was made of titanium or rice crackers - it wouldn't get through.

Problem here is all that evidence of a hole - the one with all the smoke etc
If you can prove the plane couldn't get through then we'd have to consider other possibilities and remember I'm not dedicated to any side here - simply looking for what works and what doesn't.

If you can't answer then perhaps you don't understand the problem which is fine but it would be good if you'd just admit that so we can move on.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
They would never hold up in any court of law. A skilled attorney or philosophy professor would make mince out of the "official" reports. That is how inconsistent they are. That is what happens when people lie, and call those lies "official reports".


Not only would the offiical story never hold up in court but it would probably be laughed out of court.

The official story has been proven so many times to be missing or left out information.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Why don't you stop being so rude? No one has completely proved anything one way or the other. Just because you wish to accept the "official" reports, does not mean they proved anything beyond any reasonable doubt.


Asking for an answer isn't rude.

As I said - its very easy to sit and proclaim "thats not how it happened".

Alot of people on this thread have gone through this subject over and over again to try and explain things to you, and you have summarily dismissed them all.

So now I think its time you displayed exactly why you say that. Not with rhetoric, obtuseness or attempts at diversion, but with the facts.

I conjecture that you can't do it, which is why you haven't, and why you have done everything in your power to avoid the issue of doing so.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
I have put the links on so many times. I finally came to the conclusion that when the same people keep requesting the same information, and could not be bothered to look at it the first few times after reqesting it so many times, they obviously were not interested at all.


But thing is you would say 'this site has pics of the main load bearing walls' or whatever, which is rather vague when we can't figure out what pic you are referring too, or indeed what these 'main load bearing double walls' are you keep talking about.

I asked you a couple of times to be more specific but you keep ignoring this request and being very vague. Please be more matter-of-fact in your argument. Post a pic that is marked with exactly what you are referring to, and maybe we can clear up this 'double wall' confusion, one way or the other. If you are right I'd really like to see this 'double wall'.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
There was a sort of a partial admission of the chance of maybe the possible misinterpretation of something earlier - but I can't be certain of that.

My money is on the 2 walls being the inside and the outside of the tubular columns at this stage. The bookie doesn't look too worried which is a concern for me



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


With all due respect, in several links I provided it was not just photos of the two exterior wall frames. The in-depth technical articles accompanied the photos giving more than adequate material descriptions of both frames, plus, visual aids.

If people repeatedly requesting those links did not bother to read them and compare the photos while reading, when they were presented each time, I had no choice but to conclude they were not actually interested in learning about the buildings. If they missed the information once, I could understand that. But I can not excuse repeated requests for redundantly repeated information.

I am quite familiar with a variety of material components used in both residential and commericial construction. However, the way NIST described the exterior walls, it was completely misleading once I began seriously studying the construction of both towers. With all the time and effort I put into study, it became aggrevating when people repeatedly requested the same information and then ignored it.

It was obvious they were ignoring it, because if they had read the articles and utilized the photos in the same articles, there is no reasonable way they would still be insisting NIST did not make a large number of misleading implications in their report.

I have noted people embedding photos. Copyright laws are very specific on use of others' intellectual property. Unless people have the express permission of the one displaying the photo, it is best not to take someone else's intellectual property without their permission. I am not going to contact every website owner using photos I might wish to embed, when I can stay within the law simply by placing a link, including an article specifically describing the photos.

Under fair use in copyright law, the websites have to give express written permission to use the author's and/or photographer's photos. Fair use covers excerpts from articles but only if due credit is given to the owner of the article. On the Internet, that means the author of the website.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.


I'm not sure of what you're claiming to be impossible.

Are you saying that it's impossible that NIST could have a clear view of the windows from photos and video? They had many angles - people taking video from adjacent buildings, the police chopper, etc. However, if at some point in time there's no smoke and later on there IS smoke and/or flame coming from a window, I'd say that's irrefutable evidence that the window was closed before, but now has been broken open by heat.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


The steel tube-in-tube frames (perimeter support and facade) were both attached to the outside of the building. Links to articles I have placed in discussion, specifically describe that in writing, and show that very clearly in photographs. Each section of perimeter support stood three stories high.

Each steel perimeter wall section was three separated steel tubes fabricated (foundry cast) as part of foundry cast spandrel plates, three stories high for each section. The perimeter side of the trusses were bolted to those sections. Each bolt was a minimum of 2" in diameter.

Each brace on the steel wall support section was also foundry cast to be fabricated as part of the steel, and not welded onto the steel. The bolts holding the trusses were placed vertically into the pre-fabricated (foundry cast) brace of the perimeter steel wall frame.

By using the words foundry cast, that should clearly explain neither of the exterior walls were the gauge of sheets of galvanized steel used in such construction work as HVAC. I have also used the same words when describing foundry casting of the steel pitchforked shaped sections of the steel facade.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


I fully explained what was impossible at least twice. It is impossible NIST employees could know the exact count of broken windows, because they were not there to count every window breaking as they were breaking. That cannot be made any clearer.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by MikeVet
You say NIST is wrong, but you aren't giving any correct numbers. :


NIST even admitted in the report that they could not tell if some windows were missing or covered with smoke.



Yes, NIST admits that they were unable to see some of the windows due to smoke. They give a number for these and don't make any assumptions about whether or not they have been broken or not.

So what is your point? That they are honest when they give their analysis, right?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


reply to post by MikeVet
 


Well, since NIST report admits employees could not determine exact numbers, that means whoever calculated that statistical NIST number is making assumptions regarding the numbers they calculate.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join