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.

 

Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by godspeaker
 


Welcome back Professor. Yes, you just wanted to give me a chance to check their figures, check. How kind.

I was impressed that the paper chose 9.5 mm considering I thought it was closer to the 7 mm, so yes you're right, you got me there. But that's a small consolation when considering how they modeled the wings, isn't it?

Are you just reading the report now? Can you skip to the part where they created their model of the wing and describe how they arrived at their model? In your own words, trying to keep in mind no one here is as smart as you, so keep it simple.

Do you want to go over my rebuttal point by point or all at once? I'm still working on the rest of the rebuttal, so let me know if you're going back to the beginning and I'll switch gears.

EDIT: Dangit gobspanker made me blow my mojo...this was for the Professor, not for Gilligan.

edit on 17-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by godspeaker
 


We all die, and we all do it alone, as I wish you would do with your off topic posts.

Keep on topic or take a hike.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by godspeaker
 


I'm going to report you if you post any more crap here, godspeaker. If everyone's going to die, then there's no reason for you to post here, oh infallible one.

Leave.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


At least we're on the same page there, star for you.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Not unfounded. Not assumptions; observations. Please observe...press CTRL and use the mouse wheel to zoom into the original photo and compare it to the detail below.



Do you deny the direction the sawing motion from 35 degree swept back wings would not create damage from left to right like this, even if they could slice steel columns?

Do you deny that the swept back wings would strike the columns at the corner, which is the strongest and sharpest point of the column?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


It looked like a residential property, maybe brick? I imagine it kept burning because the gas ignited the contents and, since there was no building left there was plenty of oxygen and . I'd have to know more about it, but if your point is that the fires kept burning, why didn't they keep burning inside the tower in the picture I posted?

I was looking mostly at what looks like missile damage...missile coming from the lower left hitting the tower from a slight angle...a glancing blow as it were. See how the wing of the missile (or some projectile) started clipping columns and bending them to the right before it plowed a big hole in the building? See how the hole is oblong? See the broken columns below the hole and how they're bent to the right and a couple look like they shattered out?

The shape and direction of the bends do not support a 35 degree swept wing slicing from the inside of the hole, out.

I'm not sure they've got their floors labeled right by the way, still checking on that. I thought it was a floor connection based on the floor numbers, but now I'm not sure...looks like a spandrel plate but I thought all of them had floors behind them, and the person's face poking through the hole looks like they could be standing on the floor below that. I have some measuring to do.

Got any better images of the right slice?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I'm not sure I understand what you mean by swept back wings. Every image I have seen of the plane entering the building show it going straight through, the main portion taking out entire sections of the perimeter, and the wings doing mostly facade damage toward their edges. Essentially, because the perimeter columns are like a grid, the wings shredded right through, and that's also what released the fuel, which then ignited into the fireball.

Here's a decent quality video that can show it from a street angle. You can even see flaming debris being ejected from the opposite side of the tower, which indicates (due to it only being on one side) that there was a directional force going that direction. It would imply that the parts exiting the building (due to their velocity) are in fact parts of the plane that weren't captured by the columns, floors, and explosion.




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
And here's a decent image of the hole. I found it here.



Hope it helps.
edit on 17-3-2011 by Varemia because: made the image scrollable



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Swept back...they didn't stick out at right angles from the fuselage. They were at a 35 degree angle...meaning the engines would strike first, and then like an angled carpenter's saw, they would strike the columns sequentially.

See the top down view here:

www.airliners.net...

That's a great video from Evan Fairbanks, because it's one of the easier ones to prove is a fake. He took the video of the plane and flipped it upside down and pasted it on a layer to make it look like he caught the reflection of the impact in the car windshield.

www.youtube.com...

Look, I know this stuff is hard to swallow...but it's worth the effort to watch both parts of September Clues.

septemberclues.info...



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Cool, thanks for the collaboration.

Give a look and critique my work...these are simply my impressions of the images, so you've got nothing to lose to state what your impressions are.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I know that the video edits can be done. Movies and such are proof of that. But being able to replicate reality does not make reality fake. Just my 2 cents.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Yeah...but they created reality, didn't recreate it.

I'm thinking thermate didn't cut those gashes now.

Call me crazy (again), but those gashes...wings can't explain them, but missiles from opposite sides at shallow angles? Still looking for closeups of the right side.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Varemia
 


Yeah...but they created reality, didn't recreate it.

I'm thinking thermate didn't cut those gashes now.

Call me crazy (again), but those gashes...wings can't explain them, but missiles from opposite sides at shallow angles? Still looking for closeups of the right side.


I'm just meaning that you can't really tell. We have eyewitnesses who saw the plane with their own eyes, implying that the videos weren't forgeries. It's especially supported by the fact that after the first tower was hit, there were a lot of cameras on the towers.

Reality can be created as well as mimicked through video, but sometimes a video is just video of reality, however much a person may not believe in the reality. Just think about the impossible basketball shot videos. You've got a guy who managed to throw a ball backwards through the air from the front of his house landing it in a basket on his garage. Video editing, or just something really unlikely taking place?

You know, it could be that the reason both towers fell from the same cause is that they both had the same flaw, as engineers point out in every paper they release (and no, releasing a paper that supports the official is not automatically a cover-up). The engineering advances made for skyscrapers have been utilized in the current Trade Centers as well as in skyscrapers across the world. Why would they change their building designs if there wasn't actual engineering merit in changing the design?

But yeah, as for the impact damage you are analyzing, I can't comment further, since I have never witnessed tests of airliners or otherwise against the perimeter columns of a building like the WTC. I can't tell you whether it reflects an airplane or a missile or whatever, since I have no references whatsoever on what it 'should' look like.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
Correct. Now, go GOOGLE what a eutectic reaction is. It's an ACID attack. It takes LOTS of time for this to occur. This is NOT something that occurs in 10 seconds.


You have no clue what you're talking about. A eutectic reaction is not an "acid attack." There is not a chance in hell I'm going to believe you over credible academic authorities on the definition of a term.

Here is a definition from an online glossary provided by the University of Southampton, England:


A eutectic reaction is a three-phase reaction, by which, on cooling, a liquid transforms into two solid phases at the same time. It is a phase reaction, but a special one. For example: liquid alloy becomes a solid mixture of alpha and beta at a specific temperature (rather than over a temperature range). The eutectic solid is commonly lamellar (stripy) in form.


www.soton.ac.uk...

I expect to see something at least as credible from you defining a eutectic reaction as an "acid attack." You are thinking of something completely different, and I have no idea how in the hell you confused yourself so bad, let alone became so confident of it.


And before you say the definition above doesn't apply to the WTC:


Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.


www.tms.org...

Also appendix C of FEMA's report shows a eutectic reaction consisting primarily of molten iron (I believe those are the exact words) formed on WTC steel, at only 1000 C and well below iron's normal melting point by the use of a material that included sulfur penetrating its grain boundaries and melting them.



Did Cole do a metalurgical analysis with a microscope to see if inner-granular melting occured? No, he did not.


This is hilarious. Do you even know what inter-granular means? Cole melted holes through the steel exactly like you see in FEMA's report, and you think there was no melting between the grains? What happened to the steel that was completely melted away then? If it didn't melt, what happened to it?
edit on 17-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


Ahem.

Feel free to also read his article that was published in JOM.

In the experiment that Cole did, the steel melted WELL above 1,000 deg. C. WELL above!

Like, around 3,000 deg. F.

You claim that COle's experiement produced the same results as the steel found in the rubble. Please back this up. Show us the metalurgical analysis that backs up this claim.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You missed my insinuation. I have friends that could hack that website and make it say whatever they want. And you think it's more credible than video testimony straight from the hospital bed. You would sooner say victims are lying. That is disgusting.


Did I ever say that the victims are lying? Never. Don't put words into my mouth, or assume what I would say. You don't know me kid.

And yes, I feel that data directly from the doctors at the hospital, analyzed by other doctors, is MORE credible than people who are not doctors, that say "it was an explosion" and you automatically think explosive.

I'll address the rest of your assinine post tomorrow.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
Look at the gash to the left now...note the damage to the steel. See how the gash appears to have come from the left? The wing's sawing motion would have started from the middle and moved outwards, what can explain the opposite?


No, what is seen in the picture is the more robust part of the wing, hit and created severe damage. Towards the tip, less damage.



Originally posted by Yankee451

Incidentally, look to the right of the lower right arrow...how hot were those fires?
edit on 17-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)


Well, in the picture, there is no fire there. Maybe that is because anything that WAS there at some point, has now been relocated to another part of the building, and anything that was flameable that was there, is very minimal at best.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join