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.

 

WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

page: 13
160
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

I get that collapsed structure fires, among others, can smolder for quite some time. There is a coal seam fire in Australia that's been burning since before recorded history. Not to mention the numerous ones that have been going for decades in the US. I was just wondering how much of a part you think iron oxidation played in this one in particular.
edit on 29-7-2015 by pfishy because: Squirrels make terrible cartographers.




posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion



I don't use satellites to measure the temperature in my basement, do you? Besides from that - I'm amazed that you can see anything on this crappy picture at all, the quality is miserable.


Once again, temperatures did not reach the melting point of steel.


And the numerous metal-rich spherules (found in the dust) are just good enough to ignore them completely?


We can ignore it because you can find metal-rich spherules in other steel frame buildings around the world as well.

The spherules are produced during the welding process during construction of steel frame buildings and it is impossible to remove all spherules complelely from a steel frame building after construction. It would have been expected to find such spherules, which were left over from construction of the WTC buildings.

Furthermore, spherules were produced as clean-up crews used torches and high temp wands to cut the steel structures.

Ground Zero Photo

All too often, I have seen conspiracy theories concocted because the authors were unaware of the rest of the story.
edit on 29-7-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

edit on 29-7-2015 by pfishy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy




One more question, if you will bear with me. What was the source of the Molybdenum? It just kind of jumped out at me from the quoted text you posted. Wasn't an element I was expecting to see, I guess.


That's a very good question! Yes, I will bear with you.
USGS mentioned said Mo as metal or metal-oxide:

pubs.usgs.gov...

An Aluminium molybdenum-rich particle then.
edit on 29-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Oh, ok. Thanks.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy



I get that collapsed structure fires, among others, can smolder for quite some time. [.quote]

That is correct. Rusting, or should I say, the oxidation process, produce heat, and there was a lot of steel in the rubble. Let's take a look.

[quote
here is a coal seam fire in Australia that's been burning since before recorded history. Not to mention the numerous ones that have been going for decades in the US. I was just wondering how much of a part you think iron oxidation played in this one in particular.


Let's take a look here.

Smouldering

Smouldering is the slow, low-temperature, flameless form of combustion, sustained by the heat evolved when oxygen directly attacks the surface of a condensed-phase fuel.

Many solid materials can sustain a smouldering reaction, including coal, cellulose, wood, cotton, tobacco, cannabis, peat, plant litter, humus, synthetic foams, charring polymers including polyurethane foam, and some types of dust. Common examples of smouldering phenomena are the initiation of residential fires on upholstered furniture by weak heat sources (e.g., a cigarette, a short-circuited wire), and the persistent combustion of biomass behind the flaming front of wildfires.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 29-7-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: DerekJR321
People seem to forget a simple thing called Newtons 3rd Law. The structure above the impact zone simply did not have enough energy to destroy 70+ floors of the towers. This is simple physics.


So simple truthers have trouble understanding physics! The structure above the impact zone had more than enough energy to destroy one floor, then had more energy to destroy another floor, then had enough energy to destroy another floor etc.
youngausskeptics.com...


Explain to me how human remains ended up on top of the Deutsche Bank roof?


They could have been ejected when the plane hit the building, we know undercarriage, a engine, documents etc were ejected then...
911research.wtc7.net...


Sigh.. okay..

Energy usage can not generate NEW energy. The force used to crush the floor below uses up the momentum and energy. It doesn't create NEW energy to continue down 70+ floors.

Here is an explanation of the conservation of energy. I'm sure you already know this so I am including it just for reference for others viewing.



The conservation of energy is a fundamental concept of physics along with the conservation of mass and the conservation of momentum. Within some problem domain, the amount of energy remains constant and energy is neither created nor destroyed.


Let's just look at WTC1. The impact was between the 92nd and 98th floors. The total height was 110 stories. So if we start at the highest point of impact (the 98th).. that leaves us 12 intact stories. If we were to completely remove floors 98 to 92, and drop the remaining 12 stories down onto the structure.. at BEST we can expect that only up to the 80th floor would be destroyed, along with the impacting 12 stories. Mass was also ejected away, thus taking away any added force. There was minimal resistance per floor. Thus implying that every truss, every brace, every support column, every rivet failed at the same exact time, floor by floor, in order to allow for a 10-12 second collapse. Also, the first tower to collapse began with a tip. Meaning the force downward was not center mass. One would have expected the top of the tower, radio antenna and all, to continue its tip and fall over. Yet instead it tipped, then collapsed straight down. This goes against physics. The simple physics that you pointed out.

Here is a simple example. Two cars are traveling at 60mph in opposite directions. They collide head on. They will both crumple and then stop their momentum. One car will not continue to travel through the other.

This isn't the same for WTC7, which.. according to NIST had a single column fail due to fire, which then trigger a complete collapse vertically down. It didn't tip.. it didn't fall partially. The entire structure compressed itself.


In regards to the body parts found on top of surrounding buildings.. some were DNA identified as firefighters. So that takes care of you "bodies from the planes" theory.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Ok, I do appreciate the definition. But that's not really an answer. All the items it mentioned are carbon-based, and carbon oxidation in the presence of a heat source is known to be faster and more exothermic than iron oxidation during rust formation. At least typical rust formation.
As much as I hate to say this word in this thread, Thermite is far more exothermic, and iron oxide is one combustion product of it. But I'm not trying to get off on a tangent. I just don't quite get where you were going with the point about iron oxidation. We're you speaking of some specifically energetic form of it, or just general rusting? And to what degree do you believe that it played a role in the debris smouldering? Not trying to attack you, really. I just want to figure out what you were saying.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I've quickly read the thread (holiday) and have some notes about a couple of points I saw while traveling.

-frame 23 edited?

If this is really true then perhaps disinfo. There is no reason to hide a plane. If truth is becoming dangerous videos showing the plane will be released and 911truth will be damaged. The safe the best for last principle I guess.

- The fire cannot melt/weakening is sufficient argument

Everyone knows that, that's why there is fireproofing. In the case of wtc7 the collapse is believed to be a cascade failure triggered by a single point of failure due to thermal expansion. This means the weakening argument does not hold. It is irrelevant.

-Jowenko

We can no longer ask him, but he always was convinced wtc7 was a demo. After all those years he could easily change his mind and say he was wrong, not completely informed or correct himself etc. but until his dead he did not do that because he still believed in his expert opinion.

-freefall/penthouse

The total collapse time is of course irrelevant because there is a pre-weakening phase just like a demolition. Freefall is even part of the NIST report, their artificial fitting function even has a period in which a(t)>g.
The penthouse collapse is even mentioned by explosive loader Tom Sullivan as a typical feature of a demolition which he recognizes as a former CDI employee. Simply adding seconds to the global collapse is desperate nonsense that does not make to collapse slower but the average collapse smaller than g

-David Chandler's youtube videos

He is not the most mathematically rigorous teacher. His (2/3)g acceleration impossibility is really something that is easy to debunk with setting up a simple ordinary differential equation, but that is maybe beyond his capabilities. It amazed me that a high school teacher came with that. I assume he should have at least a M.Sc. which you need in my country. At other areas he is much stronger. I have some interest in his sound analysis video (which he probably did not create himself completely) and there is a discussion about it on
the911forum and metabunk. The first one is a forum I recommend.

-Thermite

There are debunkers that believe the Harrit et al paper is flawed, i.e. sphericals are to be expected and the chips are no thermite. Harrit later said it could be no primer paint etc. Personally I know nothing about it and am only scanning the threads about it once in a while. Even if the paper does not really prove that thermite was found it also does not prove that it is impossible to use for demolition. Jonathan Cole did it with some homegrown ingredients. Of course the burden of proof is the key in science and I'm wondering what the future is for that paper. The problem is that we are talking about a blast from the past. Time machines don't exist. We have only some videos and testimonies and no idea how much material is left.

- TU Delft

I also visited it, due to a PM of a debunker who also wanted to visit Gage. I didn't know it first. There was no news for me although I expected a more critical voice and a more in-depth discussion. Some people think Gage is simply a money maker, some think he is a disinfo agent. I don't think he is because there are more efficient ways to discredit the movement than stacking some cardboard boxes. Further I'm no fan of his presentation. There are better truthers out there I think but he is of course a kind of leader. It's amazing that almost all people who I saw there (university related) agree that wtc7 was a CD but after this you see a few threads on internet and after that it fades away. I guess a full stomach (that we all have in the Western world) doesn't lead to a revolution.

edit on 29-7-2015 by drommelsboef because: double < bug

edit on 29-7-2015 by drommelsboef because: last edit. it's never perfect



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




The spherules are produced during the welding process during construction of steel frame buildings and it is impossible to remove all spherules complelely from a steel frame building after construction.


That still doesn't explain why it was found in this size and in the dust, not on the steel.


5. Sphere formation and size
Not only is it necessary for the material to have achieved extremely high temperatures to melt and so be able to form small spheres, it is also necessary that some violent physical disturbance occur in order to shatter the molten material into the sizes observed, 1.5mm down to about one micron diameter. Then surface tension in the liquid droplets brings about spherule formation. Various explosive chemical reactions will (for example) result in formation of spherules in the end products. The NIST report states that “no evidence” for explosives was found [15] but it is clear from these data that this issue should be addressed again.

www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

Come on dude, give me something to work with and stop the gibberish.
edit on 29-7-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

The spheres were the result of welding processes during construction and during clean-up operations as crews used high temp wands and torches.

Add to the fact that thermite burns out after a few minutes and not capable of bring down the WTC buildings. Ever wonder why thermite is not used by demolition companies to demolish steel frame buildings?

Here is another example that debunked Steven Jones false thermie claim.

What National Geographic has to say about thermite and 9/11/2001
edit on 29-7-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy



Ok, I do appreciate the definition. But that's not really an answer. All the items it mentioned are carbon-based, and carbon oxidation in the presence of a heat source is known to be faster and more exothermic than iron oxidation during rust formation. At least typical rust formation.

As much as I hate to say this word in this thread, Thermite is far more exothermic, and iron oxide is one combustion product of it. But I'm not trying to get off on a tangent. I just don't quite get where you were going with the point about iron oxidation. We're you speaking of some specifically energetic form of it, or just general rusting? And to what degree do you believe that it played a role in the debris smouldering? Not trying to attack you, really. I just want to figure out what you were saying.


Thermite reaction is relatively short and not capable of bringing down the WTC buildings and thermite is not used to demolish tall steel frame buildings by demolition companies.

Secondly, it would have been impossible to place thermite on the steel structures of the WTC buildings and not attract a lot of attention, and the process would have been unsuccessful and taken many, many months of preparation. There is no evidence that thermite was used in the 9/11 attack.

During an experiment 1000 pounds of thermite was unable to burn through a vehicle.
edit on 29-7-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: scottyirnbru

For those with an open mind, I suggest you watch some of the '9/11 hidden in Hollywood' videos in the internet.

There is shocking evidence that there have been warnings in TV shows and movies years in advance (from the Lone Gunman to Fight Club to the Simpsons) and it is extremely blatant if you catch on to the clues.

It's more than just coincidence, it's more than just synchronicity. Hell, there is even a video where Prince was shouting 'Osama Bin Laden getting ready to bomb!' at a concert while the 2001 theme was playing in the background. Makes me wonder if some of these guys knew somehow.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

That's why I said I hated to mention Thermite in this thread. I wasn't saying that I thought it was used. I was just citing it as an example of an extremely exothermic oxidation reaction involving iron, among other things.
I'm well aware of the nature of burning thermite. I've experimented with it before. I'm not putting forth any theories about it either way in regards to 9/11. I just want some clarification of your earlier post about iron oxidizing.
edit on 29-7-2015 by pfishy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy



That's why I said I hated to mention Thermite in this thread. I wasn't saying that I thought it was used. I was just citing it as an example of an extremely exothermic oxidation reaction involving iron, among other things.


There are those who were unaware that Steven Jones was lying about thermite at ground zero and he got caught when it tried to convince people that reflection from a flashlight was molten steel. Simply amazing!



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Ok, one last try, then I'm just going to give up.
Earlier, you mentioned 'problems with stored iron causing fires'. You then went on to explain that this is due to excess heat from iron oxidizing. And that it was a contributing factor in the latent heat of the rubble of the collapsed towers.
What I have been trying to ascertain is exactly how much of a factor do you believe this was in that instance. I'm not trying to discuss thermite, or Jones, or Shanksville, or Pluto. I just want a bit of clarification on your earlier statements regarding iron oxide and latent heat.
I very much appreciate you responding to my numerous posts, but I have been repeating the same question in all of them, and I have to admit that I am getting a bit frustrated with the whole thing.

And look, if you misspoke, or realized that I am misunderstanding what you said earlier, that's fine. Just let me know one way or the other.
edit on 29-7-2015 by pfishy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy



What I have been trying to ascertain is exactly how much of a factor do you believe this was in that instance. What I have been trying to ascertain is exactly how much of a factor do you believe this was in that instance.


Quite a bit because steel rust and rusting generates heat. Some steel beams pulled from deep within the rubble were red hot, yet not in a molten condition.
edit on 29-7-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Ok, thank you for your answer.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: PublicOpinion

The spheres were the result of welding processes during construction and during clean-up operations as crews used high temp wands and torches.


Wouldn't we see a difference in their size and mainly iron(-oxide), if that really would have been the case? How did the molybdenum or the aluminosilicates come into our equasion? Cutting would rather produce iron oxide whilst binding it in the slag and welding (during construction) wouldn't require such high temperatures. Coincidence? I just don't get it, care to elaborate on that?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: DerekJR321

Here is a simple example. Two cars are traveling at 60mph in opposite directions. They collide head on. They will both crumple and then stop their momentum. One car will not continue to travel through the other.



You have left out the force of gravity. Take the road the cars are on and turn it vertical. Run the experiment again and see if momentum stops after impact.

The force of gravity is constant. It never stops.



In regards to the body parts found on top of surrounding buildings.. some were DNA identified as firefighters. So that takes care of you "bodies from the planes" theory.



Show us some evidence that DNA from firefighters was found on top of the Deutsche Bank Building.



new topics

top topics



 
160
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join