Aluminium will not cut through steel even at 500mph...

[Ignatz]

[Eckyboy]

Personally I believe that planes hit the WTC but that does not mean I have closed my mind to any other theories and I believe that the only way we can hope to find out what really happened is to check all angles and exhaust every possible avenue no matter how absurd it may seem.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[wickywoowoo]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

And you are as stupid as your name

[wickywoowoo]

Is that supposed to be an insult from someone substiting the word "free" with "3"?

Grow up for christ's sake.

[Fallious]

Hello poppet. How are you today?

This thread looks like a prime candidate for controversial corner. The entire thrust of the thread is discussion of NPT.

Either that, or the title should be changed to "Aluminium will cut through steel at 500mph...". Because the only physics calculation published in this thread proves it does.

[alfsevic]

Aluminium will cut through steel at 500mph.

Anyone who believes this has really only half a brain. I´m quite sure that our weapon specialists would have built a hollow core aluminium bullet for steel piercing purposes by now.
alfsevic.

[Bushwacker]

[rodin]

[Headhunter]

[seatnineb]

[alfsevic]

bush wacker said
It fired hollow lead slugs. They would pierce tin cans. Tin cans are made of steel.

and what if your tin can was about four inches thick, what do you think would happen then? Also the speed of an aeroplane compared to that of a bullet is worth considering. Just to mention, I was a squaddy for 6 years, I have seen a full brass jacket go through a 10 mm steel plate, but this argument is rather pointless, I don´t believe the official version and that is that.
alfsevic.

[Bushwacker]

seatnineb, nevertheless the fire-proofing to the core columns and elevator shafts was provided by plasterboard, wallboard as the Americans call it, several thicknesses round the elevator shafts on metal studs and clips, as any research will prove to you. On the photos the dark panels are either a temporary structure or weather protection for the plasterboard.

[Bushwacker]

[Headhunter]

Good point. Yes, I understand all the steel including perimeter framework and core columns were tapered ever thinner the further up you go, to lighten the load.

And the wings didn't have to "saw" through, just break through. We're talking about a Boeing 767 hurtling at over 550MPH for Pete's sake! What, do the no planers think that it would just slam up against the side of the building and break apart. That is obviously not what occured, in reality. No "CGI video fakery" required, which is absurd when you consider the event from all angles and perspectives, including ALL the images and videos and eyewitnesses, and the risk involved in sending in a missile of some kind, or nothing at all, and how did the fireball blow out the other side to the extent that it did? The NPT is absurd.

Instantaneous deceleration and detonation of the aircraft can also be explained in my Boeing Tanker Drone thread.

[seatnineb]

[Bushwacker]

[marky 54]

twsu3,

its the amount of evidence that supports it, and the stuff that does have so called evidence is contridictive of other footage/facts at times making it hard to prove or "believe" for most.

we should stick to exposing the lies rather than proving something that will just turn people away, some of the theorys are wrong and i know 100%. basically because they carnt all be right. so regardless of which ones are wrong theres a fair bit of disinfo being banded about making the waters muddier for potential new members.

all these theorys are burying the things that make it clear 9/11 was an inside job and thus doing what they were created for. we have to stick to what we can prove 100% and concentrate on that. i know 100% if i had seen threads about no planes when i first joined i would'nt of bothered because at the time i knew planes hit the towers because it was drilled into my head on day one and anyone suggesting no planes would of led me think they were barmy and i would of left and never bothered.

so untill no planes can be proved 100% people will not support it. its turning away new members i gaurantee it. "ill just check that website i was told about" "NO PLANES!" "they have to be joking they must just be conspiracy theorists to come up with that i saw them hit with my own eyes" (shuts down the webpage and never questions 9/11 again and believes the "other" storeys are just lies because they believe in no planes and all).

the how isnt as important as the lies of the offical storey. the lies are waking people up the how is mudding the water, and im pretty sure there will be more theorys to join the rest in the near future.

[seatnineb]

[Bushwacker]

That is the only reference I have ever seen to concrete infill panels, but of course he may be the only person who is right! I would not expect them to be as dark as whatever it is we see on those photos. He also talks about the steel melting, but I suppose he really means losing its strength from his later words. I do not think the fire proofing between the exterior columns and their aluminium sheaths was sprayed concrete as he says. All in all, I am rather dubious about the details he quotes.

[seatnineb]

[Bushwacker]

The mystery continues! There are other similarities between the MIT papers and the John Knapton article, so they may be from the same source. There must have been some sort of panel surrounding the core, but there seems to be no other reference to it. If it was a reinforced concrete panel it presumably would not be very thick, so not putting up much resistance to the aircraft and heavy debris.

The elevator shafts are invariably said to be wallboard in multiple thicknesses and it is said the core columns were encased in wallboard except next to the elevator shafts. Spray applied fire proofing material was applied to them.

MIT too says that the perimeter columns were protected with sprayed-on concrete on the outer three faces. NIST goes into great detail and refers to the sprayed-on material as BLAZECOTE, originally type D with asbestos and later type DC/F with mineral fibres. The composition is not otherwise given, so it may have been a concrete mixture.

I give up!

[seatnineb]

[Bushwacker]