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: 76
13
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Then why did you state this?


So, to be fair, the buildings were either defective in design or they were hit by a force greater than they were built to withstand.


Remember the thread was about the planes getting into the buildings and that's what I was referring to IE planes getting inside the buildings.

There's no suggestion there that the planes knocked the buildings down by sheer force, just that they got inside.

At the rate we're splitting hairs here we'll be needing hats soon




posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
There's no suggestion there that the planes knocked the buildings down by sheer force, just that they got inside.

At the rate we're splitting hairs here we'll be needing hats soon


Not splitting hairs just making sure what you meant.

Also the planes did not really make it into the buildings, mostly little pieces of them made it into the buildings.

They were shredded to pieces as soon as they hit the buildings.



[edit on 3-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Sure. People have to watch that graphite, Kevlar, and fiberglass. It can be so destructive on impact with structural steel, particularly steel rated to be above standards required in commercial construction.

Obviously, some people, relying on and telling other people they did not read the NIST report, did not read the NIST report concerning the ratings on the steel used in twin towers.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Also the planes did not really make it into the buildings, mostly little pieces of them made it into the buildings.

They were shredded to pieces as soon as they hit the buildings.

Yep, by the time all those pieces came to rest we'd have a hard time identifying it as a plane. More like 100000kg of shredded pieces.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by PilgrumYep, by the time all those pieces came to rest we'd have a hard time identifying it as a plane. More like 100000kg of shredded pieces.


Well even the pieces that were left over have no reports to match the part numbers to the planes.

Specially since the FBI and FAA are refusing FOIA request for part numbers.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well even the pieces that were left over have no reports to match the part numbers to the planes.

I found a pic here

I'm not vouching for the reliability of the source but just showing it as it is IE a plane part with a visible number on it.

The FBI must have a lot more such data from the material they removed from the site.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


It might be some plane part with a number, but hardly proves it belonged to any planes alleged to have crashed into any buildings or even the ground.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   
From the same site a pic of a section of the building outer wall in the street which doesn't look exactly 'planeproof' to me. In particular, note the bending of the spandrel sections which indicate how much force was exerted from inside the building possibly by the fuel explosion. Also of interest are the truss seats which indicate the bolts were sheared cleanly.



PS - note that this piece came from the 'downstream' (exit) side obviously.

[edit on 5/1/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


It does not look as if a Boing 767 cut through there either.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Well, then, many, many parts of some alleged planes and many, many gallons of fuel should have been evidenced on the outside of that hole and were not - not one iota of proof any alleged Boeing 767 commercial jetliners made any holes in walls. Too much smoke and fire was media evident, prior to seeing any hole in any walls and no evidence of any planes at that time.

That is your subjective opinion the two steel walls did not look to be
"planeproof" to you.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by PilgrumI'm not vouching for the reliability of the source but just showing it as it is IE a plane part with a visible number on it.

The FBI must have a lot more such data from the material they removed from the site.


Well you are correct about not being able to vouch for the reliablity of the source, just like most of the photos that day.

Yes the FBI has all the data since they are the mian investigating agency, they have not released most of the facts and evidence they have and refuse to release some even with FOIA request.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes the FBI has all the data since they are the mian investigating agency, they have not released most of the facts and evidence they have and refuse to release some even with FOIA request.

If you don't mind me saying so, you seem to have a lot of faith in this yet to be seen FBI report resolving all issues.
What can we reasonably expect it to say?

(insert evil agency here) set the whole thing up, the plane crashes were faked, the buildings were bombed and the passengers are all living it up in the Carribean.
Or
We concur with everything NIST etc had to say (and heavily plagiarised their work in our report) but look here - we found Osama's phone number!

[edit on 6/1/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


So can you prove any alleged planes got inside and disappeared out of sight? How will you prove it when massive smoke and fire cloud blocked all visibility, and left no alleged planes in sight through the holes?

How does one fit a 159'2"L x 153'W commercial jetliner in a depth of approximately 35' or 59'? Please no "vaporization" or "shredding" or "folding like an accordion" allowed for explanation, because it is impossible. The laws of physics are why they are all impossible probabilities. I have already explained why in several posts in several discussions.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


From what you post, the one running on faith is you not your opponents.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
we found Osama's phone number!


NSA was listening to Osama's satellite phone until the media put out a story about them picking up his phone.

He stopped using it the next day.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul the seeker
In a doc i heard that they added sulphur to the explosion so it will basically melt the steel away.

Of course they had detonations in the building.

I've watched video after video and have yet to see any steel actually "melted." I have seen steel that was heat damaged. Steel is tempered and extreme heat applied afterwards weakens the temper. For example, I can't melt a hammer with a propane torch. It doesn't get hot enough, but I can weaken it enough to make it fail. By the way, sulphur melts at 116 C. It wouldn't make a room fire any hotter. It's used in matches, you know? That theory is nonsense.
In those same videos, those "detonations" are pretty clearly bursts of air as it compressed from the buildings coming down. The air has to go somewhere and windows are the weakest. Explosions or detonations would produce darker smoke and those bursts were made by lighter colored concrete dust. If you think those buildings were brought down by controlled implosion, then you need to look closer at the debris field it left. There was debris scattered widely. I've watched implosions and they was always less scattered debris than the towers left. They also implode buildings from the bottom up, not the top down. A good example was an old hotel imploded in Kansas City back in the early nineties. It barely left debris in the street, much less across it.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Infoman
 


That is because when controlled demolitions are legally done, they normally strip the buildings first. There will still be some clouds of concrete, because high rises all have concrete floors. However, those high rises are nowhere as redundantly constructed as the twin towers were nor as many concrete floors.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I am applying for a Patent for my new Aluminum Armor Piercing Rounds. With all the bad publicity arising lately from the U.S. Military using Depleted Uranium Rounds I think this will be a big hit! Not to mention the fact that my new AAPR will be incredibly easy and cheap to manufacture, they are actually GOOD for the environment! Think of all the beer cans that flag waving patriots will be picking up along our highways to help with the war effort. Why mess around around using the hardest heaviest thing you can find like still radioactive "depleted" uranium to punch holes in steel when good old aluminum obviously works so well? Think of the public relations boost. No longer will we have to hear about thousands of people, including our own soldiers , getting radiation poisoning and cancer from using Depleted Uranium Rounds. The only "complaints" will sound more like this: Response to embedded "journalist" from shaken but elated Iraqi bystander after an A-10 attack blowing his neighbors to bits in the family sedan - "I heard the roar of the Vulcan cannon and ducked under my camel. When the dust cleared I quickly ran over to the burning car to pick up the thousands of AAPR bullets because they have a 5 cent deposit on them- 10 cents in Michigan!"



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Moderator note: Post removed due to violation of the site's rules.


1f.) Relevant Content: You will not post messages that are clearly outside of the stated topic of any forums nor disrupt a forum by deliberately posting repeated irrelevant messages or copies of identical messages (also known as "flooding").



[edit on 27-1-2008 by dbates]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 09:27 PM
link   
alright i am not going to go into depth on this because im really tired right know but aluminum can be use as an explosive its actually very commonly used in demolitions and military grade explosives... they dont mean used like a blade



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join