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.

 

World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

page: 23
135
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Did the owners get an insurance payment for the loss of their building?


Yes, but will probably make a loss.
www.911myths.com...




posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Indeed. How very convenient. I still believe the alien ray is the far better explanation

(where did all the thermal energy come from?)


The fires. Jeez. Look at the pictures.


Ever heard of Edna Cinton?



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Did you take in account the money they still had to put up to renovate the builing? It was full of asbestos which had to be removed / replaced. A very costly business.
edit on 4-7-2015 by ForteanOrg because: his keyboard lost an 'y'



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
using your alien ray theory what are the thermal differences between the various construction components used in the building? Considering metals expand and contract at different temperatures, depending on the metal composition, what metal components failed first and how did those failures affect the overall structural integrity?


I did not assume a heat ray. A heat ray would have burned the building down, would indeed, if you had that much energy at hand, vaporise the building (literally). I assume a ray type that shatters any material (and humans too). Ever watched the remake of War of the World? Something like that.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: hellobruce

Did you take in account the money they still had to put up to renovate the buidling? It was full of asbestos which had to be removed / replaced. A very costly business.


What asbestos ??? It was banned in buildings starting in 1971. Only asbestos at WTC was in North Tower (WTC 1)
and then only in lower floors. Much was removed over the years as floors renovated
Other encapsulated by coating by impermeable covering.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: Xcathdra
using your alien ray theory what are the thermal differences between the various construction components used in the building? Considering metals expand and contract at different temperatures, depending on the metal composition, what metal components failed first and how did those failures affect the overall structural integrity?


I did not assume a heat ray. A heat ray would have burned the building down, would indeed, if you had that much energy at hand, vaporise the building (literally). I assume a ray type that shatters any material (and humans too). Ever watched the remake of War of the World? Something like that.


Ah. Right. Sorry. I thought you had some kind of reasonable debating point. You genuinely advocating for some form of energy ray?



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
Ever watched the remake of War of the World? Something like that.


Ah, one of those....

"I saw it at the movies so it must be true"!!



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 05:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
So many replies and no one has yet attempted to debunk the deep explosive caught on tape that help bring down world trade center 7 in a controlled manner.

The owner and the secretary of state both have said that they building was pulled and brought down in a controlled fashion.


In this case I think it is plausible that "controlled" can also mean a perimeter large enough at the base was established so should the building collapse there would not be anyone in the area that could get caught in a collapse.

As for secstate he stated numerous times he didn't have all the info and would need to look for info.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 05:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Sure however my question still stands.

Buildings are not made where only one type of metal is present and in use. Different metals have different temperatures at which point they can become damage / destroyed / warped / etc.


Melting Points of Various Metals

Melting Points


Metal Fahrenheit (f) Celsius (c)

Aluminum 1218 659
Brass 1700 927
Bronze 1675 913
Cast Iron 2200 1204
Copper 1981 1083
Gold 1945 1063
Lead 327 163
Magnesium 1204 651
Nickel 2646 1452
Silver 1761 951
Steel 2500 1371
Tungsten 6150 3399
Wrought Iron 2700 1482
Zinc 787 419

Just because steel melts at high temperatures doesn't mean it could be damaged / compromise by lesser heat. Also wind speeds at the upper levels of the WTC can be higher than at the lower levels. We see this by see how the smoke is being carried away prior to the collapse. We also saw it to a lesser extent for wtc7.

Skyscrapers are also designed to account for wind speed by flexing.

anyways thought id give it a shot to answer your question.

As an example -
Helicopter pads on roof tops (not all but you get the idea) use light weight metals for the pad itself while the structure holding the pad up on the roof are steel. C clamps are used to hold the pad to the structure. During summer time the pad and structure heat up and the temperature difference for expansion / contraction causes the C clamps to pop from their mounts.


How was the construction of the World Trade Center unique?
edit on 4-7-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Indeed. How very convenient. I still believe the alien ray is the far better explanation

(where did all the thermal energy come from?)


The fires. Jeez. Look at the pictures.


Ever heard of Edna Cinton?


I thought we were talking about 7. Yes. I have heard of her. No it's still not relevant. This is one particularly weird truther fascination. Ghoulish in fact.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
Ever watched the remake of War of the World? Something like that.


Ah, one of those....

"I saw it at the movies so it must be true"!!


I know what you mean. So similar to "the government says the story is true, so therefore it must be true".



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: scottyirnbru

I am genuinely advocating that additional energy (on top of stored kinetic energy) was necessary to make these 3 building collapse as they did. The alien ray is about just as good an explanation as the OS and that theory is supported by other fortean / ATS theories, hence I found it fitting to present and defend it. It is, to me, just as real as your version of the truth is to you.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Nope. "I saw it in the movies and it served as a good example of what I'm talking about". If I had said "And then he hit me like Popeye hits Brutus" you would not assume I wasn't hit either.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: scottyirnbru

I am genuinely advocating that additional energy (on top of stored kinetic energy) was necessary to make these 3 building collapse as they did. The alien ray is about just as good an explanation as the OS and that theory is supported by other fortean / ATS theories, hence I found it fitting to present and defend it. It is, to me, just as real as your version of the truth is to you.


From what then? If you have a decent understanding of structures and materials the the OS is a pretty damn good fit. Why do you believe there needs to be additional energy?



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: scottyirnbru

It is relevant because your statement that the additional energy I'm talking about might have been provided by the fires. Well, if just a short while after impact a person can stand right in the middle of the impact zone unharmed, waving for help, I really don't think the "heat" would have been sufficient to bring the building to its knees.

But you do quite a good job at convincing me that US architects and engineers are quite a lousy bunch, as you seem to suggest that the building was more or less constructed out of plaster, gypsum and light metals, ready to collapse on impact by the same plane the building was DESIGNED to withstand. I always assumed it was a STEEL building with massive cores, cast into solid concrete, as we see on the various films and photos made during and after construction...

I still have not found an answer to the enigma how it was that on the one hand the bolts that connected the trusses to the core and frame were to weak to hold the floors in place and on the other hand these bolts were strong enough to allow the (equal!) dispersion of kinetic energy from the falling floors into/onto the cores, sufficient to rip the entire core to pieces.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: scottyirnbru

It is relevant because your statement that the additional energy I'm talking about might have been provided by the fires. Well, if just a short while after impact a person can stand right in the middle of the impact zone unharmed, waving for help, I really don't think the "heat" would have been sufficient to bring the building to its knees.

But you do quite a good job at convincing me that US architects and engineers are quite a lousy bunch, as you seem to suggest that the building was more or less constructed out of plaster, gypsum and light metals, ready to collapse on impact by the same plane the building was DESIGNED to withstand. I always assumed it was a STEEL building with massive cores, cast into solid concrete, as we see on the various films and photos made during and after construction...

I still have not found an answer to the enigma how it was that on the one hand the bolts that connected the trusses to the core and frame were to weak to hold the floors in place and on the other hand these bolts were strong enough to allow the (equal!) dispersion of kinetic energy from the falling floors into/onto the cores, sufficient to rip the entire core to pieces.


At no point did I say that the building is made of flimsy materials. You've made another leap of faith to that point. Anyone can make a building stand up. Engineers and architects make it stand up in the most efficient manner possible. You've seen the internal construction of 1 and 2. Central tower. Open expansive floor area. Columns on the exterior. Fantastic piece of engineering. Steel columns and concrete floors. Efficient and capable.

I think perhaps you are failing to understand the physics behind your issue. The bolts can be both these things. You seem to be thinking of this in isolation and not considering the dynamic loading applied to the floors and columns as soon as the crucial members failed. As soon as that happens it's loads transferring in many directions at the same time. It's load being applied rapidly to floors and shearing bolts and columns. Lots of material moving in many directions at speed. You seem to want this central section to stay standing while everything slides down like a stripper on a pole. That's a pretty strange belief. The centre is connected to the outside. They brace and support each other. When one fails the loads move to different nodes and transfer in different directions. A cubic metre of concrete weights approx 2400kg. Now imagine dropping that. The load is increased when it hits something.

What do you think the people in these areas should have done? I imagine that seek solace at the window is the only option. People didn't jump because they thought there was no hope of rescue. They jumped because the fires were so intense that they didn't want to die in them. That's my hypothesis. I can't imagine the thought process of being in that situation and jumping or fire being the only options available.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Sure however my question still stands.

Buildings are not made where only one type of metal is present and in use. Different metals have different temperatures at which point they can become damage / destroyed / warped / etc.


Thank you for participating in the discussion without attacking anybody, refreshing

I know that buildings are made of many types of materials and yes they differ wildly w/regard to melting point, structure etc. However, that is also known to the engineers that design these buildings. They specifically construct buildings in such ways that the resulting mix of materials is sufficiently capable of supporting the building within its design criteria. In this case, the building was designed such that it should have been capable of withstanding the impact of the plane without collapsing. Yet, the building magically collapsed. Either the engineers are quite incapable, or they lied when they said they designed these buildings to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Sure however my question still stands.

Buildings are not made where only one type of metal is present and in use. Different metals have different temperatures at which point they can become damage / destroyed / warped / etc.


Thank you for participating in the discussion without attacking anybody, refreshing

I know that buildings are made of many types of materials and yes they differ wildly w/regard to melting point, structure etc. However, that is also known to the engineers that design these buildings. They specifically construct buildings in such ways that the resulting mix of materials is sufficiently capable of supporting the building within its design criteria. In this case, the building was designed such that it should have been capable of withstanding the impact of the plane without collapsing. Yet, the building magically collapsed. Either the engineers are quite incapable, or they lied when they said they designed these buildings to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707.


Yawn. That's been answered numerous times in the past.

www.nist.gov...

Question 7. A pretty full answer.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: scottyirnbru



the NIST impact analyses

www.nist.gov...

... is no scientific study with regards to the core. Prove me wrong, please!


The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NIST NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors.


Again: the core was still intact, then?
Ok, last try: where is the evidence for your claim?



the engineers are quite incapable, or they lied when they said they designed these buildings to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Exactly.
edit on 4-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
I think perhaps you are failing to understand the physics behind your issue.


Maybe I am, I can't exclude that possibility. It's just that I fail to see how - indeed - a bolt can have opposite qualities at the same time: fail to hold a floor (weak) and ripping a concrete and steel core into shrivels (strong).


The bolts can be both these things.


Clearly, that must be so. I simply fail to understand it, so I will read on to learn!


You seem to be thinking of this in isolation and not considering the dynamic loading applied to the floors and columns as soon as the crucial members failed. As soon as that happens it's loads transferring in many directions at the same time. It's load being applied rapidly to floors and shearing bolts and columns. Lots of material moving in many directions at speed.


So, what you seem to suggest is that at one point, some bolts ripped, and the floor they held up dropped down. We can, I hope, agree that in that case the core would still firmly be standing there, as only that floor dropped down, right? Do we agree that the kinetic energy stored in the floor would not be transferred to the core but mostly would be transferred to the floor below?


You seem to want this central section to stay standing while everything slides down like a stripper on a pole.


Well, more or less, yes. And that, originally, was also what NIST suggested when they brought up their pancake theory, so, assuming that NIST employs at least half-decent engineers and scientists, I'm in good company here.


That's a pretty strange belief.


Mmm.. Perhaps. NIST seems to think so too nowadays, but .. they did not for years. So, why is it a strange belief? I'll read on..


The centre is connected to the outside. They brace and support each other. When one fails the loads move to different nodes and transfer in different directions.


But .. nothing fell for hours. The outside mesh was only damaged at the point of impact and firmly stood (until the aliens switched on their ray, of course). The core may have been damaged (probably) at the point of impact, but also firmly stood (until same). Yes, forces shift if the construction collapses (that's the point of a collapse). But as long as the forces do not shift, we have status quo. Even if the forces shift, the building does not collapse like we saw, it sags and topples, for instance, but it does normally not sink into its footprint at near freefall speed. The same "strong" bolts that ripped the core apart (according to your theory) would suffice to hold the downfall of the upper floors for just a short while - the building would not have collapsed as fast as it did. That required the additional energy applied when the ray was switched on


A cubic metre of concrete weights approx 2400kg. Now imagine dropping that. The load is increased when it hits something.


Yes. And simple physics dictate that that force be met with an equal and opposite force. Hence free fall speed (or near free fall speed) is quite unexpected.


What do you think the people in these areas should have done?


I fail to see the relevance of that question. I can not even begin to image what these poor souls went through, but that's besides the point I made: that these people WERE standing there and hence the temperatures there were not that high.



new topics

top topics



 
135
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join