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.

 

Explosives in the WTC 7 bought it down...I believe now...

page: 18
2
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


You said: "they cut (COUGH) 4 inch thick box beam made from 2 inch thick aluminum that made up the facade so thats 2 inch thick front and back , mind you flat side of the box beam then all the way through the two 2 inch thick 4 inch deep other side that make the box complete so total = 8 inches of 2 inch thick aluminum and there where not just one remember

then had to cut through a 14 inch by 14 inch box beam that was 2 inch thick steel (the outer columns ) ( ill forget about the sheet rock and office fileing cabinets and concrete floors for now ) total 2 inch front side 14 inch deep on both sides of the box beam and 2 inch back side total 18 inches of 2 inch thick steel"

The steel box beam was made from 1/4" steel. It was thick at the BASE of the building but not at the top. The aluminum facade was not structural and was not 2" thick plate. You may have a decimal out of place.




posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


sigh at the impact site the core beam where still 4 inches thick they didnt taper down below 2 inches until th 87th floor and then the smallest being 5/8 inch thick

and the outer columns at impact ranged depending on placement

they where 2 inch to 1/4 inch but regardless ok ill make it even easier for ya

and my bad the aluminum facade was not 4 inch by 4 inch sorry i was wrong they where 12 inch by 8 and 1/8 inch sorry

lets say the facade was only 1/4 thick for simplicity dosent matter to me so thats a min. of 16 and 1/4 inches of 1/4 thick aluminum

and all of the box beams measured 2 inch think only thea L and I beams that where welded together to make a box beam was 1/4 inch to 13/16 but ill go with just 1/4 thick for simplicity dosent matter to me

and they where 14 by 14 so thats so thats 24and 1/2 inches of 1/4 thick steel

and the core columns where 12 by 36 so thats 24 inches of 4 inch thick steel l

is that better for you ???

show me any information on an airplane wing that that is made from thin gage aluminum that can cut that and the thickest air caraft aluminum used is .125 thick



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff, Anok, and Lycopersicum please note.
The aircraft had more than enough energy to shear the columns. See the following paper in the International Journal of Impact Engineering; abstract below.


Titre du document / Document title
How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
WIERZBICKI T. (1) ; TENG X. (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Department of Ocean Engineering, Impact & Crashworthiness Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 5-218 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139-4307, ETATS-UNIS

Résumé / Abstract
The problem of the airplane wing cutting through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center is treated analytically. The exterior columns are thin-walled box beam made of high strength steel. The complex structure of the airplane is lumped into another box, but it has been found that the equivalent thickness of the box is an order of magnitude larger than the column thickness. The problem can be then modeled as an impact of a rigid mass traveling with the velocity of 240 m/s into a hollow box-like vertical member. The deformation and failure process is very local and is broken into three phases: shearing of the impacting flange; tearing of side webs; and tensile fracture of the rear flange. Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column. It was also found that the energy absorbed by plastic deformation and fracture of the ill-fated column is only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing.
Revue / Journal Title
International journal of impact engineering ISSN 0734-743X CODEN IJIED4
Source / Source
2003, vol. 28, no6, pp. 601-625 [25 page(s) (article)] (25 ref.)
Langue / Language
Anglais

Editeur / Publisher
Elsevier Science, Oxford, ROYAUME-UNI (1983) (Revue



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


no it didnt dude it lost 75% of its velocity when it enterd it didnt have enough to go throuth the building and pop out the other side

you are just flatt lieing no ands if or buts physics is physics



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

show me the article dude shoe scientific information

show me your physics

.125 thin alumnium caant cut through all that steel and aluminum with out destroying itself

it could not have come out the other side

it even state in the formula it losses its velocity

it didnt have enough energy

en.wikipedia.org...

show me your information

you are just stating hearsay or dreaming show us your data or shutt up

SHUTT up or putt up as i see it you are just disinformation helping the people who did this get away with murder

show us some data we have shown you plenty en.wikipedia.org... this right here proves it cant be done

show us you math formula that proves your statement

i know for a fact you cant do it all you are doing is lieing or guessing show us !! please i beg you



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


All box member columns above the 89th floor were constructed of 1/4 inch steel.

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

so what i gave you that to make it easier


lets say the facade was only 1/4 thick for simplicity dosent matter to me so thats a min. of 16 and 1/4 inches of 1/4 thick aluminum

and all of the box beams measured 2 inch think only thea L and I beams that where welded together to make a box beam was 1/4 inch to 13/16 but ill go with just 1/4 thick for simplicity dosent matter to me

and they where 14 by 14 so thats so thats 24and 1/2 inches of 1/4 thick steel

and the core columns where 12 by 36 so thats 24 inches of 4 inch thick steel l

is that better for you ???

show me any information on an airplane wing that that is made from thin gage aluminum that can cut that and the thickest air caraft aluminum used is .125 thick

so show me the article dude shoe scientific information

show me your physics

.125 thin alumnium caant cut through all that steel and aluminum with out destroying itself

it could not have come out the other side

it even state in the formula it losses its velocity

it didnt have enough energy

en.wikipedia.org...

show me your information

you are just stating hearsay or dreaming show us your data or shutt up

SHUTT up or putt up as i see it you are just disinformation helping the people who did this get away with murder

show us some data we have shown you plenty en.wikipedia.org... this right here proves it cant be done

show us you math formula that proves your statement

i know for a fact you cant do it all you are doing is lieing or guessing show us !! please i beg you

add

here is the forumula for shear

The formula is Perimeter times thickness times shear

www.anvilfire.com...



[edit on 23-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 23-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 23-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


Lyco,
I just showed you the reference and abstract to the paper from MIT. Read the abstract. The abstract is a summary of what is in the paper, it is not the paper. The math is in the paper. You and Anok are rewriting physics with every post so you should be able to read the paper and understand the math, even though you are unable to add, don't have any idea of what you are speaking about, and can't write a coherent sentence. The Nobel committee is probably following your threads closely and hanging on every word and deep physical insight.
I note that you do seem to have some anger management problems. Perhaps your complete lack of communication skills is frustrating you and causing you to rant and call everyone who proves you wrong a liar. This condition also afflicts some of your fellow travellers. Now that I have put up, you may shut up.




[edit on 1/23/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


show me the actual article quit beating around the bush

what you typed is hear say only untill u show the article and data backing it up agin

this

en.wikipedia.org...

and this

www.anvilfire.com...

and this prove you wrong

www.roymech.co.uk...

show us the actual article that proves a airplane wing made from .125 aircarft aluminum can generate the force needed and maintained to sever the facade outer coluns and core coloumns twice

you cant do it thats why you just typed it you a BS artist that is it



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


Ah, Lyco, I hope that by the time you graduate from high school you will be able to spell, write a complete sentence, and will refrain from using the word "Duuude." I will try again to explain this to you. This discussion centers on the ability of an airplane to cut through the exterior columns of the WTC. They are box members made of 1/4" steel plate whose dimensions are roughly 14" x 14." They are clad, on their exteriors with 1/8" aluminum, a non-structural coating.
I have given you the reference and the abstract to a paper in an Elsevier technical journal. You may find what I posted by copying the reference into google or scirus. I cannot post a full paper from one of Elsevier's journals because they are copyrighted. Ask the ATS moderators and they will tell you why they won't allow me to post it. This is a refereed journal with an international readership, an editor, and a bunch of assistant editors. You have to pay to read the journal or you can go to a library where they have subscribed to the journal and read it for free. A library, in case you are unaware, is a place where they have books and technical journals, among other things. Occasionally, they have books with pictures, so you should be able to cope.
Your calculation of how much metal the airplane has to cut through is mind boggling. Arithmetic should also be added to your graduation goals.
Try to work on your writing.

[edit on 1/23/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



show me the actual article quit beating around the bush

what you typed is hear say only untill u show the article and data backing it up agin

this is all you need it all proves you wrong
en.wikipedia.org...
www.roymech.co.uk...
www.anvilfire.com...
www.calculatoredge.com...

show us the actual article that proves a airplane wing made from .125 aircarft aluminum can generate the force needed and maintained to sever the facade outer coluns and core coloumns twice

you cant do it thats why you just typed it you a BS artist that is it


still hearsay nothing but

you cant produce any article to back your statement up at all

li dont care what you think i have given you all the info you need to try and prove your self right you cant do it

and i could careless what you think of me or say about me

the info i posted proves you 100% completely wrong

just show us the real info that proves you right

YOU cant do it dude can you

you havnt should any info NONE

you can type what you want but physics proves you wrong

its all in black and white in this post
enter your data in the calculators show us the data where you get what you are typing (jost copy and paste it its very simple )show the article THE actual article

YOU cant do it nothing but BS thats it

prove the physics wrong dude just try

add
the facade was only 1/4 thick for simplicity dosent matter to me so thats a min. of 16 and 1/4 inches of 1/4 thick aluminum

and all of the box beams measured 2 inch think only thea L and I beams that where welded together to make a box beam was 1/4 inch to 13/16 but ill go with just 1/4 thick for simplicity dosent matter to me

and they where 14 by 14 so thats so thats 28and 1/2 inches of 1/4 thick steel

and the core columns where 12 by 36 so thats 24 inches of 4 inch thick steel

ltotal perimeter of facade is 40 inches total perimeter for outer columns is 56
total perimeter for columns 96 inches
now times them by thier thicknesses and the times them by their Ultimate Shear Strength

is that better for you ???

show me any information on an airplane wing that that is made from thin gage aluminum that can cut that and the thickest air caraft aluminum used is .125 thick

so show me the article dude shoe scientific information

show me your physics

[edit on 23-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 23-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 23-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 23-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
OK

Just a reminder

Courtesy Is Mandatory

Childish Snide Comments need to stop now

Semper



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


Focus, Lyco, focus. We are discussing the ability of the airplane in question to shear the outer columns of the WTC on the upper floors. Damage to the core columns is not known, as they were not visible. The lads at MIT wrote the paper that shows that the airplane could cut the exterior columns. I know that you can prove that aluminum foil flung at an anvil will bounce off but your misapplied physics calculations are not correct, in this case. This is a different situation, altogether.
You can check my honesty by plugging the reference into google or scirus.
As to coming out the other side, parts of the aircraft did just that. An engine and a wheel assembly each went quite some distance and knocked holes in other buildings. [This really makes it tough on the "no plane" conspirators. Planting the massive evidence is tough enough, but planting the holes in the buildings with the correct trajectories was really tough.]
Remember, an airplane is a massive rigid structure travelling at almost the speed of a .38 Special bullet and it will do more damage than you think. Don't conceptualize it as a paper airplane structure made of sheet aluminum.
.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Focus, Lyco, focus. We are discussing the ability of the airplane in question to shear the outer columns of the WTC on the upper floors.

You could have fooled me. The title of this thread is about explosives in WTC 7 and the last few pages have been about two alleged planes shearing outer columns in WTC 1 & 2.

Way to drift the topic...



An engine and a wheel assembly each went quite some distance and knocked holes in other buildings.

Neither of these alleged parts were ever identified by serial numbers. What's your point? How does this relate to explosives in WTC 7?



[This really makes it tough on the "no plane" conspirators. Planting the massive evidence is tough enough, but planting the holes in the buildings with the correct trajectories was really tough.]

Believe it or not, but it actually helps the no-planers. If the alleged wreckage has never been identified, then how can anyone state that the alleged wreckage belonged to AA77 or UA175? Think about it... then respond in an appropriate thread. There's lots of threads about no-planes and unidentified wreckage. Find one and post your opinions in it.

I wanted to read about WTC 7 explosives and all I get is off-topic drift...



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Well, tezza, post something about the explosives you think brought down the towers and we'll get back to it. The argument did wander a bit but we were stalemated on the explosives, or lack of same. Certainly, you have never gone off-topic, so I will refer posters to you as my on-topic example should anyone else ever wander.
You may also consider yourself the savior of this thread as soon as you make a post on topic.

[edit on 1/24/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You may also consider yourself the savior of this thread as soon as you make a post on topic.

Has anyone been able to explain why NIST agree that for 2.25 seconds, WTC 7 fell with a free-fall acceleration?

For 2.25 seconds, WTC 7 offered NO resistance to its collapse - none.

What mechanism could possibly achieve that, pteridine?

Explosives?

[edit on 24-1-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

I think it was gravity. Do you think it had to do with explosives?



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I think it was gravity.

Ah-huh.

Thanks for that answer. It confirms that you really don't know much about forces or gravity in a building collapse.

I should have stayed out of this thread. It's basically troll-baiting from the beginning and hasn't progressed any further after 18 pages. I'm glad that I barely wasted my time to read 6 pages of it.

Here's a hint, pteridine, go and read a physics text book. I'm out of this thread.



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Severely damaging a building across the street is not "in its own footprint".



We are told that WTC 1 collapsed into WTC 7. This building you mention is right smack in the middle of the two. Isn't it more logical that most of the damage was really caused by WTC 1 and not WTC 7?



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The steel box beam was made from 1/4" steel. It was thick at the BASE of the building but not at the top.


The only problem is:

As the column walls got thinner, the steel got stronger. Not all steel was A36 steel.




top topics



 
2
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join