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: 66
13
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But the official story states there were jet fuel fires on LOWER floors.

Also that jet fuel ran down to the basement and casued the explosion in the basement.

was there some aspect of the design of the core that would prohibit this from happening? just cuz the elevators dont go basement to top floor doesnt mean that there are any floors in the core that im aware of.

also as six once pointed out, unless the firefighters stopped on each floor to check they may not have seen any fires lower than 78. not sure if the firedoors to the stairwells had windows in them but arent firedoors typically absent of windows?

i mean i dont know. if i was to say i had a point it would be that just because the fire was ONLY radioed back from 78 doesnt mean it was the only floor on fire and i think that would be obvious just from any number of videos.

the only actual question should be IF there were other fires, how bad were they? sadly we just dont have any boots on the ground intel for that




posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But the official story states there were jet fuel fires on LOWER floors.

was there some aspect of the towers design that would have prevented the fuel going down the elevator shafts to the ground? i find it unlikely that there were any floors in the core but thats just me.


The wing hit on the 78th floor, fuel tanks are in the wing.

given, but, and you'd know more about this than i would as youve more aviation experience than i do but, isnt there also a tank in the other wing and the belly of the plane? so wouldnt THAT fuel have been free to also go anywhere it wants? just asking, this isnt my area.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
was there some aspect of the design of the core that would prohibit this from happening?

isnt there also a tank in the other wing and the belly of the plane? so wouldnt THAT fuel have been free to also go anywhere it wants? just asking, this isnt my area.


Yes, elevator shafts not going from the upper floors to the basement. Floor areas sealed to prevent fires from jumping floors.

But the question is, Where were the jet fuel fires the official story talks about?

The wing hit the 78th floor, there are fuel tanks in the wing.

The firmen reported only small isoloated fires.

Yes there are tanks in the wings and in the belly, but i do believe that fuel would have ran down not up.

So the question is, Where were the jet fuel fires the official story talks about?





[edit on 31-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes, elevator shafts not going from the upper floors to the basement. Floor areas sealed to prevent fires from jumping floors.

well i knew the elevators didnt go top to bottom but i was unaware that the core/shafts were sealed at given intervals.



But the question is, Where were the jet fuel fires the official story talks about?

The wing hit the 78th floor, there are fuel tanks in the wing.

right, but let me make sure im being clear, this was the impact where he did a kind of a bank maneuver to hit at an angle yeah? so one wing hit lower than the other one right? so if the tank on the lower wing ruptured and started a fire (of any size) then wouldnt it be a good guess that the other wing tank and belly tank might do the same on higher floors?



The firmen reported only small isoloated fires.

yes, on 78. do we KNOW they checked up to 78? we dont have reports they checked HIGHER than 78. (or did i miss something?)

also, what was on floor 78? was it vacant? was it one of the sky lobbies? what was typically found in a sky lobby floor? was it pretty much just an observation deck or was part of it offices or storage?

i mean, a vacant floor with pretty much just the carpet isnt going to burn as long as an occupied floor full of desks full of paper etc right? so if there wasnt much on 78 then once the fuel burned off (which everyone seems to agree wasnt a significantly long time) the fire would have dwindled regardless of anything else (as im sure no one is suggesting that the steel and concrete actually burned as fuel are they?)



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Yes there are tanks in the wings and in the belly, but i do believe that fuel would have ran down not up.


i thought there was and i really hope you dont think i was suggesting that the ruel ran up lol.

i guess i sometimes get confused which tower was hit by which plane at what angle...if this is the one that the guy banked before it hit then the tanks in the belly and opposite wing would have been higher than the wing that struck the 78th floor right?

and by even saying that one wing hit the 78th floor that in and of itself implies that the otehr 2 tanks were higher so what didnt end up outside stayed primarily on those floors until it was consumed, but yeah i suppose its pretty common sense that some of that fuel would have flowed downward so the question of fires on lower floors or basement levels is a fairly good one.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
yes, on 78. do we KNOW they checked up to 78? we dont have reports they checked HIGHER than 78. (or did i miss something?)

also, what was on floor 78? was it vacant? was it one of the sky lobbies? what was typically found in a sky lobby floor? was it pretty much just an observation deck or was part of it offices or storage?



Well we do not have reports of them going above 78 but i hope the would not have missed burning jet on the floors on the way up to 78.

78 was a skylobby, with machinery and equipment for elevators.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well we do not have reports of them going above 78 but i hope the would not have missed burning jet on the floors on the way up to 78.

well id have hoped that too honestly. but i can also understand if they were just rushing to the 78th floor vs stopping on each floor but its kind of a moot point. the facts are that the firefighters didnt report any other fires to the IC, so whether they were there or not, you know as well as i do taht in that field if its not written down it didnt happen.



78 was a skylobby, with machinery and equipment for elevators.


which could explain why the fires there would have subsided faster than a fire on a floor that had corporate offices on it. hell, how much paper does a typical company go through a year between fax machines, copy machines and printers?

if there wasnt much for the jet fuel to set ablaze then yeah, the fire wouldnt get as hot or burn as long (hot being relative of course, im not making any speculation about how hot it actually was)

or is it just me?



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The wing hit on the 78th floor, fuel tanks are in the wing.

Also that jet fuel ran down to the basement and casued the explosion in the basement.

You could be onto something there by finding a way to to achieve the observed effect without the need for a planted 'device' of some kind.

I'm still seeing an overwhelming consensus that a lot of flammable liquid was delivered to the inside of the building from the outside so doesn't that imply that it went the through the observed hole created by its container?

I note even you said it 'barely made it in' which to me is more in favour of 'in' than 'out'.

I'm still open to proof that it didn't happen that way but it will have to be good and we don't really need to count windows for that.

Of Orionstar's suggestions there's the corvette, black holes and gravity vacuums to consider but only one of those is likely to contain liquid fuel.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
We are talking about an airframe and wings that are made from thin aluminum that even the animation from Purue shows is being shredded by the steel as soon as it enters the building.


Its too bad we're not talking solely about an airframe and wings made from Thin Aluminium.

Instead we are talking about a 200,000lb + mass hitting a hollow box steel wall in speeds upwards of 400mph

That mass is comprised of an airframe made out of extremely light aluminium with a very high tensile strength specifically designed to be used in aircraft construction, a huge load of fuel, and the engine components and landing gears not to mention the poor people who were on the plane and their luggage etc.

But hey, you be selective and play with words to promote your argument.

Lets not let the facts stand in the way, shall we?



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'm still seeing an overwhelming consensus that a lot of flammable liquid was delivered to the inside of the building from the outside so doesn't that imply that it went the through the observed hole created by its container?


But if there was a lot of flammable liquid inside the building , i would have thought the firemen would have reported more fires then just the 2 small isolated fires they found.


Originally posted by neformore
Its too bad we're not talking solely about an airframe and wings made from Thin Aluminium.


Yes we are talking about thin aluminum. Thin enough the small birds can put holes into the wings and airframe. As shown before.

Thin enough that hitting 1 light pole can shear off a large section of wing. As shown before.

Thin enough that hitting any obsticle even small trees will tear open the airframe and shear off wings. As shown before.

Those are the facts.

[edit on 31-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes we are talking about thin aluminum. Thin enough the small birds can put holes into the wings and airframe. As shown before.

Thin enough that hitting 1 light pole can shear off a large section of wing. As shown before.

Thin enough that hitting any obsticle even small trees will tear open the airframe and shear off wings. As shown before.

Those are the facts.


Hi Ultima-

Here are some questions/possibly comparable facts as well;

Spread the KE produced by the bird strike over a compilation of all the "leading edges" of the plane. Does it still make a hole?

Spread the KE produced by the 1 lightpole over a compilation of all the "leading edges" of the plane. Does it still shear off one wing?

Spread the KE produced by any obsticle even small trees over a compilation of all the "leading edges" of the plane. Do they still tear open the airframe and shear off wings

I agree the wings of the plane did not carry as much KE, ( hit slightly later than nose with less mass & velocity ), and were shredded much sooner than let's say the engines, etc.. BUT-

Your above statements prove that a concentrated force on the airframe can breach said material even by something not as dense as the airframe itself.

The concentrated KE of the incoming aircraft was enough to punch holes into the buildings. BUT-

Spread the KE produced by the aircraft over an entire single face of the WTC towers, (415m x 63.5m), & they may have mostly "bounced off" I don't know??? There's a big difference.

2PacSade-



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes we are talking about thin aluminum.
[edit on 31-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


How about you read the rest of my post and stop being deliberately obtuse?

You are picking on one element - the aircraft skin - to try and justify your story.

A 200,000lb+ mass hit the WTC. Deal with it, because that IS a fact.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Instead we are talking about a 200,000lb + mass hitting a hollow box steel wall in speeds upwards of 400mph

That mass is comprised of an airframe made out of extremely light aluminium


I think that saying it was "light aluminium" and that it was 200,000 lbs. is an oxymoron. Realistically, it doesn't matter if you're talking about 200K of bubble gum, toilet paper, or aluminum. Any 200,000 lb. object impacting a building at 400 + m.p.h. is going to make quite a dent.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Actually, you attacked the poster's capabilities with your tangent.


Well, it's not a tagent. The initial point was about the speed of the impacting airplane. The poster denied the 767 speed on 9/11 was comparable to the muzzle speed of a small revolver. He was flatly wrong about that. He's also repeatedly failed to do math on a 5th grade level, when a simple calculation of KE was required. So while I'm in no position to attack anybody, I indeed question ULTIMA1's capability to generate ANY useful ideas on the subject of this thread.

I never questioned his capabilities as a cop. He was probably a fine cop.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by MikeVet
Yes, there's plenty of evidence. Here's an example -


Do you any other evidence besides NIST? Since NIST has proven not to be the best to quote for evdience.

As stated most of the videos and photos do show the fires burning out well before the collaspe and only black smoke, meaning oxygen starved fire.

Reports from firemen making it to the 78th floor only reported small isolated fires, not the big jet fuel fires we were told by the official story.



1- yes, I've watched videos of 1's fires and have confirmed NIST's data collection methods. You've never proven a thing.

2- Black smoke doesn't mean what you claim. It means that the fuel source has changed. Follow the logic here - you're saying that previously, since there was less black smoke, there was more air going into the building. So what changed to choke off air flow? Do you have a theory about that?

3- There weren't big jet fuel fires. The fuel burned off quickly. There were big office fires on the floors of the impacts. Also, you keep harping about big fires on lower floors. Do you mean the fuel explosions in the basement, etc? These couldn't be considered as fires, in the proper sense. Were these explosions only in WTC1?



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
A 200,000lb+ mass hit the WTC. Deal with it, because that IS a fact.


Yes but it did not cause enough damage to cause or help cause the collapse of the towers, as most reports state.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
The poster denied the 767 speed on 9/11 was comparable to the muzzle speed of a small revolver. He was flatly wrong about that. He's also repeatedly failed to do math on a 5th grade level, when a simple calculation of KE was required.


Problem is why are you comparing a 767 to a bullet in the first place, ther is no comparison?

Your KE theory was pretty much proven wrong with video of the F-4 hitting the concrete wall.

And you have still failed to post a side by side comparison of a 767 and a crusie missile.








[edit on 31-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


six

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


I explained to Ultima, several times, as to why the firefighters probably would not have noticed any fires on the lower floors. He chose not to listen, just twist my words to fit his theory. I gave up a long time ago. He is not interested in the truth unless it fits his version of things. Alot of people here such as, neformore, 2pacsade, yourself, and others have brought up very salient points he just refuses to acknowledge. He cant know if there were floors in the core. No one knows. No one has seen the technical drawings. I doubt very serioulsy if there were. You have to get utilities up to the upper floors some how.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by neformore
A 200,000lb+ mass hit the WTC. Deal with it, because that IS a fact.


Yes but it did not cause enough damage to cause or help cause the collapse of the towers, as most reports state.


Feel free to start another thread corroborating this. As to the topic, you seem to acknowledge right here that indeed the aluminum cut the steel.


six

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


No matter what, Ultima will continue to argue that they were O2 deprived fires. I have provided him with ample proof to the contrary, but since it does not fit his version of events, he chooses to ignore them or engage in a circular argument that leads to nowhere.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by six
reply to post by MikeVet
 


No matter what, Ultima will continue to argue that they were O2 deprived fires. I have provided him with ample proof to the contrary, but since it does not fit his version of events, he chooses to ignore them or engage in a circular argument that leads to nowhere.


Yeah, might be time to put the tro** on ignore, eh?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join