How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

reply to post by buddhasystem


That was an ad hominem and quite off topic on a personal level. You have a right to your opinion right or wrong, but you are not entitled to be wrong with facts, particularly the laws and principles of science facts.

Originally posted by OrionStars
That was an ad hominem and quite off topic on a personal level.

No, please, I'm still waiting for you to produce the numbers for the energy needed to split H2O into monoatomic hydrogen and oxygen (which is in fact the reversal of the process that powers some rocket engines). Then, I would like you to speculate on where this energy is coming from, when a puddle of water is evaporating... And why the resulting gases, H and O, do not explode when somebody lites up a cigarette or flips a light switch.

You have a right to your opinion right or wrong, but you are not entitled to be wrong with facts, particularly the laws and principles of science facts.

Oh, I never wanted to claim such entitlement from you.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Why don't you start a discussion away from any 9/11 discussions, in regards to classic and quantum physics, plus, molecular chemistry, or even molecular biology (positive ID of bodies belonging to specific names of individuals)?

This is a 9/11 forum and moderators have repeatedly warned against engaging in off topic/irrelevant relationships.

Why don't you produce the actual physics and chemistry used in any pertinent physical simulations concerning 9/11?

With my science background, I already know it was impossible to occur as the "official" reports tout it to have occurred. My first indication was the "official" version article in "Popular Mechanics", rather than appearing in a professional, heavily peer reviewed article, publicized in a physics and/or chemistry journal. Had it any validity, that is where that article belonged, and only after heavy peer review was done. That never did happen.

Originally posted by OrionStars
This is a 9/11 forum and moderators have repeatedly warned against engaging in off topic/irrelevant relationships.

Dear Orion, I never dreamt of engaging in a relationship with you, thanks.
I do not want a relationship with you.

Why don't you produce the actual physics and chemistry used in any pertinent physical simulations concerning 9/11?

Oh, you just have to scroll back a few pages to see that all sorts of physics facts were presented to you to counter your strange claims such as: oxygen molecules split upon entering human body due to body heat. Or - the color of the flame depends on the oxygen content. Or -- when I spill a glass of ice tea, and it's drying up -- that's because the water in it becomes gaseous mono atomic oxygen and hydrogen! Wow.

With my science background

You don't have to answer this, but if you cared to share what background you have, you'd satisfy my natural curiosity. Thanks.

Back On Topic Please.

Don't worry about who is and is not posting on topic.

Stick to your discussion, in a civil manner and all is good.

Thank You.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Nor I with you. However, I was clear that I meant relevant relationship to the subject of a discussion.

reply to post by buddhasystem


If that is what you consider "physics facts", that is entirely at your disscretion and not that of science or scientists.

reply to post by buddhasystem


My specialty is population genetics, which involves becoming knowledgeable in the areas of molecular biology and chemisty, plus, classic physics and quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by OrionStars
My specialty is population genetics, which involves becoming knowledgeable in the areas of molecular biology and chemisty, plus, classic physics and quantum mechanics.

Great! Now, since evaporation of water, according to you, involves dissociation of the water molecules, do you care to calculate the amount of energy absorbed in this process? Let's say, if a glass of water evaporated? I do not doubt for a second that you should be able to quickly calculate this, armed with your knowledge.

How about just take my word for it Orion, other then the fact that I was an OSD officer for a Chaparral Steel distributor.

www.chaparralsteel.com...

60' is the longest structural beam certified by the ASTM to be used in civil engineering.

Originally posted by MikeVet JUST after, the impact, as in the first minute or so, it's impossible to tell which were blown out by what.

Unless of course you have another theory to discuss.

So you agree they could not have made a accurate count of the windows.

Well we do have the reports from the firemen and first responders of other explosions.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by MikeVet JUST after, the impact, as in the first minute or so, it's impossible to tell which were blown out by what.

Unless of course you have another theory to discuss.

So you agree they could not have made a accurate count of the windows.

Well we do have the reports from the firemen and first responders of other explosions.

Again, if you're asking me this Q, you're not paying attention.

Other explosions. Fine, that's a theory.But since the additional windows NIST is talking about are seen at or above the impact zones, and the highest reported level reached was 78th in WTC by Palmer and Bucca..... how does this remain a valid theory about why windows "opened" on those floors?

reply to post by robertfenix


They were not one long casted piece over 1300' long. I never said they were casted that way. Each support was one continuous unit from the bedrock to the roof. That does not mean they were casted that way. That is the way the designer requested it, but that impossible to do.

It was the way they were set in place one on top of the other, secured together with connectors and oversized bolts, plus, welding and then secured to the horizontal beams on the interior of each floor.

Originally posted by MikeVet
Other explosions. Fine, that's a theory.But since the additional windows NIST is talking about are seen at or above the impact zones, and the highest reported level reached was 78th in WTC by Palmer and Bucca..... how does this remain a valid theory about why windows "opened" on those floors?

I have already posted evidence of the fires not being that large or hot on several of the floors. Well you do know there is going to be some things exploding on the floors.

Molten aluminun coming into contact with other hazmat.

CRTs exploding from heat

Batteriess exploding from heat.

There are dozens of reasons why the windows were broken out besides fire.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
CRTs exploding from heat

What's inside the CRT? It's vacuum. If you heat vaccum, it's not going to expand and blow. If a CRT cracks, it will implode and not explode.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What's inside the CRT? It's vacuum. If you heat vaccum, it's not going to expand and blow. If a CRT cracks, it will implode and not explode.

As stated there are dozens of reasons for the broken windows, not just fire, as MikeVet states.





[edit on 2-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Molten aluminun coming into contact with other hazmat.

Would the source of that molten aluminium be the planes?
IE inside the buildings

Aluminium burns a very high temperature by itself once it gets started and produces a lot of white 'smoke' in the form of suspended aluminium oxide.

Fire extinguishers explode violently if heated as well

[edit on 2/1/2008 by Pilgrum]

Originally posted by OrionStars
It was the way they were set in place one on top of the other, secured together with connectors and oversized bolts

...which makes them liable to sheer off under vertical impact (collapsing floors) which was not a part of the design spec...

Please supply the number regarding the H2O molecualr dissociation which happens, accorsing to you, every time I dry my cloths on a line.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Would the source of that molten aluminium be the planes?
IE inside the buildings

Yes, Also the plane has the following materials.

Graphite materials

Magnesium

Titanium

Tungsten

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by robertfenix

 

They were not one long casted piece over 1300' long. I never said they were casted that way. Each support was one continuous unit from the bedrock to the roof. That does not mean they were casted that way. That is the way the designer requested it, but that impossible to do.

It was the way they were set in place one on top of the other, secured together with connectors and oversized bolts, plus, welding and then secured to the horizontal beams on the interior of each floor.

You realize this is of course atypical modern building construction right ? No different then almost every other modern high rise built.

A building that is only 20 stories is more rigid having exterior corner supports that divide the load of the building face and use spanner beams and major trusses thus not requiring a "core".

Super tall high rises can not use this method as there is not enough interior support to prevent the massive exterior "walls" from collapsing into the center. WTC were built as a building within a building.

Knock out the beam joints on one side or more within the core building with at least 5 to 10 floors above it and all you need is gravity to bring the whole building down, no fire, no explosion required. Only unsupported mass and gravity.



[edit on 2-1-2008 by robertfenix]