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.
I have provided you with more than enough time to come up with those time lines and seismic data and you failed to measure up.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb
Well, here I go again.
Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
April 09, 2006
After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).
I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.
The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.
Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.
D. Allan Firmage
Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU
Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper
The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."
The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
Figure 2. We will be showing this "Plan View of Collapse Progression" graphic in three installments of this series of articles, starting with this installment, where we have labeled it "A." The identical graphic will be labeled "B" and "C" in the next two installments. NIST's 2004 Progress Report depicts a mythical hole supposedly "scooped out" of the center of the bottom 10 floors of Building 7. Figure L-31 in Appendix L of the report refers to the hole as the "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris." Since this damage did not exist in reality, NIST backpedaled and did not include its discredited Figure L-31 in the final 2008 report.
In its infamous 2005 article, "Debunking the 9/11 Myths," Popular Mechanics quoted NIST director Shyam Sunder asserting that falling debris from the North Tower poked a huge "gouge" in the front of WTC 7: "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7." Sunder went on to say, "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom ― approximately 10 stories ― about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." [Emphasis added]
Remarkably, Sunder made this definitive statement despite having no solid evidence to back it up. In fact, a careful reading of its 2004 preliminary report reveals that NIST simply cherry-picked one eyewitness statement, even though other witnesses refute this dramatic, specific, and provably false claim of damage.
Specifically, the statement about the 10-story gouge appears on page 18 of NIST's 2004 report, but NIST conveniently ignored two other comments on the same page that are in conflict with its conclusion:
"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed." This is no small detail. A 10-story gouge created by external debris being thrown into the building at “the bottom” would have left a huge pile of rubble in the lobby. Any legitimate investigator would go back and check to see if the lone witness reporting a 10-story gouge was perhaps referring to other damage to Building 7 or even to another building entirely.
"[D]ebris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium ([which] extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact." This, too, is no small detail. The witness described damage to the south face, but placed the damage higher up, and the intact glass on the bottom five floors certainly contradicted NIST's placement of the claimed 10-story hole at “the bottom” of the building. Tellingly, this statement didn't place the damage at the center of the south face, so this witness was probably describing the collective damage west of center and above the fifth floor, as shown in NIST's Figure 5-92 below (see our Figure 3 below).
In sum, these two statements strongly suggest that evidence known to NIST at the time contradicted the statements it made in its own report in 2004 and via Popular Mechanics in 2005. NIST has since abandoned the story about the center of the bottom 10 floors being "scooped out" its final 2008 report. Yet it remains, as myths are wont to do, in the minds of most who read the NIST-sanctioned PM piece.
originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
The same outcome, and that is, no evidence of demo detonations at ground zero. Now, have you found those video time line references and seismic data depicting demo detonations? If so, post them here for everyone to see.
1. OMISSION OF GIRDER STIFFENERS SHOWN ON FRANKEL DRAWING #9114
2. OMISSION OF THREE LATERAL SUPPORT BEAMS ON THE 13TH FLOOR G3005 BEAM
3. WTC 7 COLLAPSE AT FREE-FALL ACCELERATION IS NOT EXPLAINED
4. VIDEOS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7 BETRAY NIST’S COMPUTER MODEL
5. CLAIMS OF INVESTIGATING CONTROLLED DEMOLITION WITHOUT TESTING FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUES
6. CHANGES OF STATEMENTS ON COMPOSITE BEAMS AND SHEAR STUD USE BETWEEN DRAFTS
7. REFUSING OF FOIA REQUESTS
ALL THREE BUILDINGS
8. NEGLIGENCE IN SALVAGING STEEL
9. IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C
10. INVOLVEMENT IN NOT SAVING STEEL FOR INVESTIGATION
11. FIRE SIMULATIONS AND DURATIONS ARE EXAGGERATED
12. NO DISCUSSION OF THE MOLTEN METAL FOUND IN THE RUBBLE OF THE THREE COLLAPSED BUILDINGS.
13. REFUSAL TO TEST FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE
14. FAILURE TO FOLLOW STANDARD FIRE INVESTIGATION PROTOCOL
THE TWIN TOWERS
15. STRIPPING OF THE FIRE PROOFING IS EXAGGERATED
16. PRE-COLLAPSE STEEL TEMPERATURES ARE EXAGGERATED
17. TESTED FLOOR ASSEMBLIES DID NOT FAIL
18. INITIATION OF COLLAPSE – “INWARD BOWING” WAS INDUCED ARTIFICIALLY
19. COLUMN STRESS DUE TO LOAD REDISTRIBUTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE FAILURE
20. NO EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR HORIZONTAL PROPAGATION OF COLLAPSE
21. WTC 1 TILT OCCURRED AFTER SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE FOR AT LEAST TWO STORIES
22. NO JOLT – CONTINUOUS ACCELERATION OF COLLAPSE WAS IGNORED
23. NO PILE DRIVER IS OBSERVED IN VIDEOS
24. COLUMN LOADS WERE CALCULATED FOR WORST CASE, NOT ACTUAL IN-SERVICE LOADS
25. MOLTEN METAL OBSERVED POURING OUT OF THE CORNER OF WTC 2 REMAINS UNRESOLVED
Now you are always asking for a challenge, here is mine, do not repeat yourself again..
I shouldn't have had to repeat my references and sources because truthers should have gotten the message the first time around, but instead, they decided to go into debunk mode without a shred of evidence and instead, substituted disinformation, hoaxed and bogus videos and photos, some of which was deliberately planted in order to discredit the Truth Movement. Case in point was the hoaxed video of WTC7. I posted that truthers were posting bogus videos and photos and I posted a reference to a hoaxed WTC7 video and amazingly, it didn't take very long before truthers posted the very same hoaxed WTC7 video that I made a reference to, as their evidence of demo explosions. Simply amazing!! Just recently, they posted another hoaxed video, this time, a hoaxed video of WTC2 depicting explosions. Truthers had claimed the video was evidence that WTC2 was taken out by demo explosives. As a response, I posted the original WTC2 video and additional WTC2 videos that did not depict demo explosions. To make a long story short, I did not get any further response from them in regard to that hoaxed WTC2 video.
MOLTEN METAL OBSERVED POURING OUT OF THE CORNER OF WTC 2 REMAINS UNRESOLVED
I shouldn't have had to repeat my references and sources because truthers should have gotten the message the first time around, but instead, they decided to go into debunk mode without a shred of evidence and instead, substituted disinformation, hoaxed and bogus videos and photos, some of which was deliberately planted in order to discredit the Truth Movement.
The molten metal was aluminum from the aluminum airframe of United 175 which was piled up in the northeast corner of WTC2. The nature of the aluminum was evident by the silvery droplets in the lower portion of a WTC2 photo.
Well when you deal with teenagers and hoaxers and people looking for hits what do you expect..
The molten metal was aluminum from the aluminum airframe of United 175 that was piled up in the Northeast corner of WTC2. The nature of the aluminum was evident by the silvery droplets in the lower portion of a WTC2 photo.
Well, I found many such cases here, such as, no aircraft struck the Pentagon.
Eagar and Musso concluded that the actual temperature most likely remained below 650°C/1200°F. In so doing, they dispelled the myth that the jet fuel could have made the fires unusually hot, noting that it was "highly unlikely" that the temperature rose above 800°C/1470°F.
AE911Truth agrees that the jet-fuel-induced fires in the Twin Towers could not have melted steel.
But because more recent reports confirm the presence of molten steel and molten iron both during and after the 9/11 event, it must be determined what actually melted those two metals and in so doing demolished two of the world's tallest steel-frame skyscrapers.
Figure 3. A thermite reaction generates yellow-white hot molten iron at well over 2500°C/4000°F and white smoke. This type of material can melt and cut steel beams.
he National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did document the flow of molten metal pouring out of the South Tower during the final seven minutes before its collapse, noting the accompanying "unusual bright flame" and "plume of white smoke." However, NIST failed to investigate the phenomenon, dismissing it as molten aluminum from the crashed jet, which melts at only 660°C/1220°F.
NIST's hypothesis may seem plausible at first. But Dr. Steven Jones demonstrates in his 2006 paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" that the official government hypothesis is untested and implausible.
Dr. Jones' paper reveals that the initial bright yellow-white glow of the expelled liquid was consistent with a glowing stream of molten iron from "a nearby thermite reaction zone," and the expected white smoke (aluminum oxide off-gassing) supports that conclusion. NIST must rely on its claim of molten aluminum in order to validate its official fire-based explanation, because office fires cannot generate the extreme temperature required to melt steel or iron. The fundamental flaw of the aluminum hypothesis, though, is that the implied temperature of the white glow remains above 1200°C/2200°F, regardless of the metal involved. An independent researcher suggested that the molten substance could be lead from storage batteries, but this explanation fails — as do all hypotheses based on alternative metals — because the temperature required for the yellow-white glow of the metal is beyond the capability of the building fire.
Dr. Jones also notes that molten aluminum appears silvery as it melts at 660°C/1220°F, and that it remains silvery when poured in daylight conditions, regardless of the temperature. It is theoretically possible to continue heating liquid aluminum way past its melting point and into the yellow-white temperature range, but the office fire was not a plausible source for such high temperatures, and there was no crucible to contain liquid aluminum for continued heating. Put another way, even if the building fire could have somehow provided the needed temperature for the yellow-white glow, the unrestrained aluminum would have melted and trickled away before it could achieve such a temperature. This problem also rules out other proposed alternative metals — lead, for example — which have similarly low melting points.
Finally, Dr. Jones adds that even if liquid aluminum could have been restrained long enough to make it glow white, it would still have appeared silvery within the first two meters of falling through the air in daylight conditions, due to its high reflectivity and low emissivity.
That is pure speculation, not to say it may not be true but the fact is no one knows what it was unless they were there to see it . And it looked orange coming out of the tower. the fact is what it was cannot be proven.
Stephen D. Chastain of Metal Talk.
Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools....
Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open _ Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.
Stephen D. Chastain
Report chronicles the final moments of WTC tragedy
The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the jet's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner. Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out the side of the building. Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.
Report on WTC 2
A photograph leaked from the ASCE-FEMA investigation shows a stream of what appears to be molten aluminum exiting from the northeast corner. This would indicate that what was left of the aircraft when it reached the north end of its travel was massive enough to have destroyed at least one floor.
NIST pg 43 Section H.9 App H Vol 4
Starting at around 9:52 a.m. a molten material began to pour from the top of the window 80-256 on the North face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59.
The observation of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.