It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Page 102 : The central core of the WTC consisted of 47 rectangular steel box columns. These measured 36 by 90 centimeters and had a wall-thickness of 10 cm (LT : 4 inch) at the base, tapering to 6 cm (LT : 2.5 inch) at the top (400 meters above).
Page 93 : Misc. seismic notes :
The highest amplitude of seismic waves detected occurred at the beginning of the seismic signature, arising from nowhere. This amplitude peak is 20 times as high as the rest of the seismic signature.
The energy in a wave is proportional to the square of the amplitude. Therefore, this peak pulse contained 400 times as much energy as the other energy pulses recorded. --snip--
But for a building falling like this, if a noticeable seismic wave was produced, we would see the seismic wave build up to a crescendo as more and more rubble hit the ground and then tail off over some period of time. We would not see the strongest impact right at the beginning and then see it fall off.
The conversion efficiency of m.g.h - that's potential energy - is very inefficient, even if we had a controlled experiment set up in the laboratory dropping a steel block onto the bench to then measure the acoustic energy produced. Only an inﬁnitesimal portion of that “potential” could be expected to be converted into seismic or acoustic waves. It is not credible that the impact of the buildings falling on the ground could produce such enormous seismic spikes at the beginning that are 400 times as energetic as the other waves recorded. The key point is - what energy source that lasted 5 to 6 seconds produced these two seismic pulses of local Richter magnitude M (L) 2.1and 2.3? The seismograms recorded at Lamont-Doherty have exactly the same pattern as underground nuclear blasts.
Page 94 : The Seismographic Evidence
We summarize here the key points:
1. The timescale of the impulsive event which produced the seismic waves was of the same order as an explosion, 5 to 6 seconds.
2. The seismogram itself is identical with that produced by an underground explosion and the time scale was similar.
3. The Surface Waves produced were High Frequency Waves, typical of an explosion and similar to those produced by a quarry blast or seismic surveying charge, not the Low Frequency Waves associated with an impact.
4. The source of the seismic energy was at or not far below the surface.
5. Collapsing rubble is an impact source that would produce Low Frequency Surface Waves, not the High Frequency Waves detected that are typical of an explosion.
6. Another explosion in the vicinity, at a Newark petroleum depot did produce P and S Body Waves. But the 1993 explosion under the WTC did not produce any measurable P or S Body Waves. The collapse of the WTC on 9th September 2001 did not produce any measurable P or S Body Waves. This is consistent with the lack of P or S Body Waves in 1993 and we therefore have an explanation for why the Newark explosion did produce Body Waves but the WTC collapse explosions did not.
7. The towers had insufficient Potential Energy to produce seismic waves of the intensity detected.
8. The large spikes of M(L) 2.3 and 2.1 are equivalent to at least 2 to 5 tonnes of TNT with good coupling and definitely much more at the WTC, maybe tens of tonnes of TNT, given the already known poor coupling of an explosion in the WTC basement cavity to the surrounding earth.
9. Five other impulsive seismic events were measured by the observatory between 08:46 and 11:30. What was their source?
To conclude, the seismograms of the seismic waves produced by the WTC collapse are consistent with the hypothesis that they were produced by a nuclear explosion. By themselves, they show that a very large underground explosion took place. The only seismic waves detected from the WTC on the 9th September 2001 were High Frequency Surface Waves. These can only be produced by an explosion. It would not be possible to say whether that was a nuclear explosion without other evidence, but we can say it would have had to have had a TNT equivalence of at least 5 tonnes. Indeed, it must have been much more, due to the known poor coupling between explosions and the ground at the WTC site. The effect of this much TNT on a concrete structure would be to pulverize it into dust and gravel. This will be discussed in a later section.
Page 95 and 96 : --snip-- The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31. However, the Palisades seismic record shows that -as the collapses began- a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.--snip--
Page 116 : By his (Cahill’s) assessment, the superheated core of the building, buried under a giant pile of rubble with little to no oxygen, created a pressure cooker that broiled the concrete, glass, computers and everything else into inﬁnitesimally small particles that were exuded in a gassy, lingering haze.
Page 119 : "If the ﬁrst event was the falling of a ﬂoor, how did that progress to the severing of hundreds of columns?"
Asked if the vertical support columns gave way before the connections between the ﬂoors and the columns, Ron Hamburger, a structural engineer with the FEMA assessment team said,
"That's the $64,000 question."
Since it is a principle (law) of materials science that an explosive can destroy a material only if it has a detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material, where the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s and in steel 6,100 m/s, while the highest detonation velocity that has been attributed to nano-thermite is 895 m/s, it should be obvious: You can’t get there from there!
Page 7 : A note on pulverization.
Along with others, I examined the sample obtained by Janette MacKinlay at 113 Liberty Street, just across from the South Tower. The windows of her apartment were blown in during the
collapse of this tower on 9/11/2001, and her apartment was filled with dust and debris. She collected a sample of this material in her own apartment in a plastic bag – which is good procedure – and the chain of custody went directly from her to me. (In the presence of other researchers, I collected more samples from her large plastic bag, while visiting in her home.)
As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces
of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder
(as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form.
Page 6-7 : All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials, as the neutrons penetrate building materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided. Much of the induced radioactivity remains for decades. Moreover, the fall-out from even small nuclear weapons is highly radioactive. So we measure the level of radioactivity as proof (or disproof) of the use of nuclear bombs.
Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples (from an apartment at 113 Liberty Street, NYC ) and a solidified metal sample (from the Clarkson University WTC monument ) for
radioactivity using a Geiger counter. (Daedalon Corp., model EN-15.)
I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY (meaning nothing above background).
This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since measured radioactivity was simply at background levels.
Page 5 : Iodine concentrations were LESS in the upper debris layers associated with the WTC dust! And Iodine-131 ( produced in fission reactions ) was only found in very low-level trace amounts anyway. These data provide strong evidence against “mini-nuke-caused-WTC-destruction” hypothesis involving fission reactions, including a “small” fission bomb to set-off a fusion bomb.
Page 2 : Tritium from a thermonuclear (fusion) bomb would be way above these trace levels of a few NANO curies per liter. (A nanocurie = nCi, 1 billionth of a curie. That is a very tiny amount of radioactivity.) A major fusion reaction in hydrogen bombs is
deuterium + tritium Helium + neutron.
Many millions of curies of tritium are present in even a small thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb.
(Note that tritium can be generated during the blast from the reaction of neutrons on lithium deuteride.)
Yet the observed tritium levels at GZ were minuscule, in the billionth parts of ONE curie range.
Note that “atomic” or fission bombs, are based on the fissioning of heavy elements such as uranium and plutonium, rather than the fusing together of light hydrogen isotopes ( such as deuterium and tritium ) in the hydrogen or fusion bomb. But to date, all known hydrogen bomb-explosions have been started (“ignited”) by fission bombs. Our technology is not yet sufficient to have a “pure” fusion device of any significant size. We struggle to ignite small d-t pellets in a laser-bombardment environment.
(LT : d-t = tritiated deuterium)
Indeed, this problem of igniting the fusion reaction explains why we do not yet have hydrogen-fusion reactors producing power. Furthermore, the fission-fusion bomb is designed to release enormous amounts of energy by combining effects from fission and fusion -- see, for example,
Page 6 : These very low levels of radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) in the WTC
dust are by themselves sufficient to rule out the use of atomic bombs
(even as triggers) at the WTC, which could be construed as an absurd
notion as it confronts the empirical facts.
OneWhiteEye : -- snip -- How many core column pieces were recovered from the collapse initiation zones of WTC1 and WTC2? -- snipped table --
One from WTC2 and 2 from WTC1.-- snipped 2 core area diagrams --
Of the 94 (47x2) column sections which pass through the crucial 98th floor of WTC1, NIST managed to recover only one and you are looking at it: From WTC1, Column HH:
OneWhiteEye : These columns are interesting but it is the absence of the other 195 core column segments from the steel collection and the investigation which is much, much more interesting.
It is pretty obvious that for WTC1 careful examination of the 47 column sections spanning floors 98 to 101 and the 47 core column sections spanning floors 98 to 95 would show investigators all they need to know about the collapse initiation processes. Likewise, for WTC2, careful examination of the 47 core columns spanning floors 80 to 83 and those spanning floors 77 to 80 are very important to understand the WTC2 collapse initiation process. For example, if these columns were pretty straight on the whole, lacking significant signs of visco-plastic creep and buckled hinges, that would tell investigators that there was little collective core buckling.
James G. Quintiere, professor, Dept of Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland :
Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?
Created on 10/15/2010 07:09 AM by admin.
Updated on 03/21/2013 09:37 AM by admin.
NIST noted in NCSTAR 1-3 that the core columns recovered from floors where fires were known to have occurred represent 1 percent of the columns in those areas. NIST did not find any evidence that any of the recovered columns experienced temperatures in excess of 250 degrees Celsius.
a reply to: stosh64 So, let's see, where were we.. Ah, yes. Folks in here convinced me - by providing evidence thereof - that the exoskeleton was pulled inwards and so it MUST have been the core that collapsed, pulling the exoskeleton in over the trusses. We can see the North Tower's antenna sink into the roof, while the edges of the roof haven't moved yet. So the first thing that went were the core columns. To be honest, I'm puzzled by it, as the antenna was supported by a special truss that spanned the building (the hat truss). What amazes me is that the antenna almost exactly went down vertically and did not fall over. That means that the hat truss that was connected to it also went down almost vertically. I'd expect the antenna to fall over to one side as one wall (the impact wall) had been damaged so you'd expect the antenna to topple over in that direction. But it did not. Anyway - we can clearly see the core collapsed, can we all agree on that? And we also can see something strange: the part of the building above the impact floors collapsed into itself. So, we have a core that collapses, but only the upper half (the part above the impact floors). Then something else happens: magically the rest of the core also collapses, part by part, until nothing is left. Let's investigate a theory that may explain this. Please note that I'm not saying this gentleman is correct (he might be, I don't know). But he presents some materials of interest. Maybe we can continue our civilized conversation and maybe come to some kind of conclusion.
PROVE that a WTC floor can fall 3 meters in 0.15 seconds and unbolt on 8 sides and have air eject out of 1 window when 20+ are open. While still connected to those perimeter walls, but not anymore to the core columns.
Virtually all media outlets and individuals featured in part 6, framed arguments in terms of 2 distinct groups, the NIST - vs arguments put forward by STJ911, AE911T, Jim Hoffman, Jim Fetzer or those of a similar viewpoint. Interestingly, both point and counterpoint describe the global mass flow incorrectly. Neither viewpoint recognizes evidence of progressive floor collapse within each tower.
Meanwhile, the actual initiation mechanisms remain unidentified, without any serious investigation or explanation, yet few people notice.
How can a very small number of independent researchers map and identify the collapse movements of the WTC towers better than the NIST?
This may be the biggest mystery of the collapses. This in itself should serve as a huge wake-up call to an impartial reader.
Where did the technical records of the collapses go?
The main thesis is that there is no fact-based historic record of the collapses. The true collapse modes of the Twin Towers are not accurately determined within any academic, professional or government literature. It is described incorrectly within history as it is being written. There are, however, millions of people that are falsely certain they know what happened because they believe verifiable incorrect authoritative statements and their own pre-conceived beliefs.
Direct measurements extracted from the visual record of the collapses grossly contradict history as it is generally presented. A record of measurements and documented observables of all 3 collapsed buildings on a level far more intricate than that which previously existed has been presented. These records are verifiable superior to, and grossly contradicted by the records provided by U.S. Government agencies.
In reality there is no scientific approach and, therefore, no technical history of the collapses at all. This is a verifiable statement.