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: 67
13
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by six
No matter what, Ultima will continue to argue that they were O2 deprived fires. I have provided him with ample proof to the contrary,


No, you have not provided any proof just statements.

Are you stating that site stating smoke showed oxygen starver fires are lying, do you have evidence to prove they were lying ?

Please show photos or drawings of subway or other ventalation system that show they were under the debris piles to keep them going.









[edit on 31-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



six

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



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


No...Not really. The mass of the F4 was not even close to that of the 767 so the KE would not be the same. Plus the fact that those are two different building materials. The concrete structure in your video was constructed for a different purpose. You can make any concrete wall strong enough so as a airframe would not penetrate it. But you are trying to compare concrete to a thin steel exoskeleton. You are, again, comparing apples to oranges


six

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



No, you have not provided any proof just statements


Yes I have. You have just chosen to ignore them. I will refer you back to the jet fuel made the fires cooler thread. All you need is there. But you will just ignore it as usual.


Are you stating that site stating smoke showed oxygen starver fires are lying, do you have evidence to prove they were lying ?


Dont put words into my mouth. I have never called anyone a liar. Again, I will refer you back to the above mentioned thread, to which I answered all of your questions.


Please show photos or drawings of subway or other ventalation system that show they were under the debris piles to keep them going.


And this has what to do with fires burning of the 78th through 90th floors?

BTW, you know no one has those drawings. they have not released them. Utilities had to get to the building some how. They were not above ground, soooooo, by common sense , they must have come in from below ground.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by six
Yes I have. You have just chosen to ignore them. I will refer you back to the jet fuel made the fires cooler thread. All you need is there. But you will just ignore it as usual.


Dont put words into my mouth. I have never called anyone a liar. Again, I will refer you back to the above mentioned thread, to which I answered all of your questions.

And this has what to do with fires burning of the 78th through 90th floors?


1. Please repost because i must have missed the links and sites posted by you.

2. So either the sites i quoted lied about the smoke meaning oxygen starved fires or not. Which is it?

3. It has to do with the fact of oxygen getting to the supposed fires in the debris field.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I'm going to be short:

aluminum cuts steel.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by six
No...Not really. The mass of the F4 was not even close to that of the 767 so the KE would not be the same. Plus the fact that those are two different building materials.


But thats not the KE theory that was brought up. I mean its been brought up that it did not matter what the materials involved were it was only the KE involved.

Would you agree then that the thin aluminum wings and airframe would not casue enough damge to cause the collapse?

Also then you would agree that comparing other things to the 767 and the towers are not a very good comparison?

Also, i was comparing the concrete wall the F-4 hit more to the wall to the concrete wall at the Pentagon.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
I'm going to be short:

aluminum cuts steel.


Can you show me any video or photos of thin aluminum cutting steel ?




[edit on 31-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


A consensus is when there is no dissention. There is hardly a consensus of how much fuel ended up in either tower. Because there is no consensus of what happened on 9/11.

There may be a consensus between people still embracing the official reports. I have already presented substantiation the 9/11 Commission Report is useless for attempting to substantiate. That came directly from the US Congressional Record, plus, the two co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission Report.

It is only a matter of time until the other "official" reports are completely debunked. Probably by experts finally willing to live by these words: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." JFK, plus, living up to their professional ethical standards.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Components and construction in planes still have to be considered, as do the components and construction of buildings.

Since I am quite familiar with the properties of a piece of straw, I would certainly be interested in exactly what piece of straw could penetrate what gauge metal type at what speed. That goes for any other materials impacting into any other materials.

Without specifics, there is no way to know any of the probabilities involved in determining such sophisticated data only professionals can properly analyze. That takes actual visual observation not assumption. So far, too many professionals have been either apathetic, or behaving cowardly in upholding the ethics they swore to uphold when they became certified as professionals.

The worst of those, touting themselves as professionals, are those who have deliberately lied by promoting the "official" reports instead of the truth. They swore to uphold ethical standards, of their professions, when they became certified. They have miserably failed to do so for 6+ years since 9/11.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Not only it is light weight aluminum to lighten the plane for more payload. But there are even lighter and more senstive components, such as the fiberglass in the hollow nose and that entending the length of both front wings, plus, the graphite and Kevlar-graphite along the back of the wings.

I would sincerely care about seeing a demonstration re-enactment of that happening slamming into either twin tower. Particularly,when 46% of shattered fiberglass plane nose effects loss of at least 46% of kinetic energy, and explosion can just about wipe out the rest. Thus, preventing anything even possibly penetrating but a few short feet of the cockpit and fuselage front.

Therefore, it was not aluminum alleged to first make contact on impact. It was fiberglass. A 707 only had 200 square feet of fiberglass, most or all in the nose. The 757 and 767 has 10,000 square feet of fiberglass in and on those model bodies, starting at the nose.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Do not attribute implications I did not make. The Corvette was an analogy based on fiberglass bodies relative to the fiberglass components on Boeing commercial jetliners. That is quite the unethical way to argue your points. It is a logical fallacy red herring. That is a sign of desperation an opponent is rapid losing ground in debate.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Can you show me any video or photos of thin aluminum cutting steel ?



Yeah !!




posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by 2PacSade
 


Non-moving light poles produce kinetic energy? How so?

When measuring kinetic energy of two objects, it matters if both objects are moving vs one is and one is not at impact. When two objects are moving then the kinetic energy of both are a consideration before impact.

Or are your referring to the kinetic energy at impact due to resistance of a non-moving object?



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Rather than being rude to others and being wrong in the process, why don't you learn the components and construction of the materials you are wrong about?



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You just did it again. You went off on some unrelated comparison far away from the topic, while still personally attacking the poster by casting aspersions on his qualifications directly related to your personal attack. Red herring and ad hominem do not belong in these discussions.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Non-moving light poles produce kinetic energy? How so?

When measuring kinetic energy of two objects, it matters if both objects are moving vs one is and one is not at impact. When two objects are moving then the kinetic energy of both are a consideration before impact.

Or are your referring to the kinetic energy at impact due to resistance of a non-moving object?


Hi OS-

Ultima was using these as examples to show the plane was not strong enough to cut through steel. He was stating that things like birds & lightpoles were weaker than steel but could still penetrate the aircraft.

The whole point of my post was to show him that he was proving our point by proposing the outcome of these circumstances would be much different if the mass of the objects were dispersed over a greater area. The bird would not breach the plane, the lightpole would not tear the wing off, etc..

I fully understand that a stationary object doesn't possess KE, just a resistance to one, just like the steel of the towers did.

Hope this clarifies things.

2PacSade-



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


Could you please show us all those videos of all fires in either tower? The biggest fire I noted, in any videos or photos, was the one on the outside of the north tower. It quickly disappeared leaving massive clouds of oxygen starved carbon smoke making it extremely difficult to view the inside of either tower.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 11:44 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.


Exactly what is an O2 deprived fire? I do not believe I have ever read or heard about O2 deprived fires. I am quite familiar with O deprived fires, but not O2 deprived fires. How do they react compared to O deprived fires?



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Please prove that very general vague statement. You can believe that all you wish. Unfortunately, it is not true unless visually demostrated to be true.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


That is a fireball and smoke. That is not proof of aluminum cutting steel.

That pale smoke in that video is indicative of explosives. Explosives emit clouds of white or greyish-white smoke.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by 2PacSade
 


A plane cutting through steel is a highly general and obscure statment. To prove that can happen, one would have to take a specific plane and cut through specific components and construction of a particular object. It has to be visually observed doing so or is merely assumption.




top topics



 
13
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join