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.
What I find ironic, the closest thing to a conspiracy was the EPA air samples. How did that cover-up work out? How much did the government pay out in wrongful deaths. More should have been done, but billions paid out for wrongful death due to the botched EPA air samples.
originally posted by: LaBTop
Pilgrum, you are making ONE GIGANTIC irrational mistake.
Collapse zones are instigated in fear of TOPPLING OVER.
And ONLY in such cases, when a 1300' building breaks at its base or somewhere higher up, and TOPPLES OVER, we can expect solid debris landing 600' away from a 1300' building collapse. Or even further, up to a little over 1300', when such a building would fall like a, cut at its base, tree.
You HOWEVER neglect the fact, that NIST, FEMA, LDEO, and god knows how many more obedient US Institutes, are defending a NATURAL collapse, HOWEVER all the way straight down into the path of the most resistance.
There's no case to make, to defend even a partial toppling over for the 9/11 ones.
Sorry but that doesn't explain it at all. There was no reason for the core to collapse from failure of the trusses.
The trusses did not hold up the core, the core held up the trusses.
IF the core failed at some point it would have toppled over, but to collapse straight down, and break up into many pieces, needed energy that was not available from fire and gravity.
Bolts breaking does not explain how sagging trusses put a pulling force on the columns to start the collapse.
The bolts were obviously more than sufficient to hold the floors up, there is no reason for them to all break instantly.
It also does not explain why the core collapsed.
In fact the core started to collapse first...
Also the tops of the buildings were collapsing independent of the bottoms, you can see the top start to crush as it drops before the bottom starts to collapse...
How much of the building do you think was heated to failure by the fire?
How much steel was still able to hold the extra weight that would have been transferred to it?
Do you understand factors of safety, and how much steel could actually fail before global collapse could commence?
Failure of one or two trusses is not going to cause complete failure.
NIST claims the trusses pulled in the columns breaking them.
But that is all just assumptions. You first have to prove the connections could fail.
(LT :See Beck's math for the impossibilities.)
ONE hour of fire is not enough to cause the massive box columns to heat up enough for a smaller lighter truss, also heated up, to be able to pull it in.
You obviously do not understand how it works.
When steel is heated it expands.
The first thing the trusses would do is push outwards against the columns, IF the trusses could effect the columns they would have been pushed out.
Because the heated truss could not push the columns out, they sag, which means they also could not have pulled the columns in either.
Also I am not looking for pics, I want to see a demonstration of a sagging truss pulling in rigidly fixed box columns.
Until you can demonstrate that hypothesis, you will never convince me it is possible.
MrBig2430 : The free fall period of collapse of 7 is easily explained without invoking explosive demolition of the ext columns.
However, ignorant conspiracy believers (LT : believe) that this free fall period is important. Szamboti could no longer stay silent about this issue cuz he realizes it undermines the credibility of himself.
I've proven that Szamboti has corrected Chandler about the free fall period and it's rather ordinary explanation.
Tony Szamboti :
David Chandler now knows and accepts that only the core columns needed to be removed in WTC 7 to cause its collapse and that it could cause a free fall acceleration shortly after starting to drop. I explained it to him in the last year.
A lot of people initially assumed it would require all columns to be removed to get free fall. It is a nuanced situation where 8 stories of the core are removed and 8 stories of the exterior are then unsupported and being pulled inward at the same time.
The roof dropped about a half meter (20 inches) across the full length and width and then went into free fall.
To get a 20 inch drop, pulling in 8 stories, the pull in would have been about 110 inches, or a little over 9 feet.
The columns would have provided a little resistance at first but once the pull-in became significant the p-delta load would get very large and completely overcome any resistance of the now slender columns.
Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 1st June 2016.
Advantages of thermobaric materials.
• Thermobaric materials are low sensitivity materials ideal for use in insensitive munitions
• Thermobaric material performance can be tailored to the target set of interest
--- Output can be tailored from high blast to high thermal output
• Thermobaric materials are best suited to personnel andmaterial defeat
• Thermobaric materials can provide significantly higher total energy output than conventional high explosives
---Majority of additional energy available as low pressure impulse and heat
• Thermobaric compositions are fuel rich high explosives that are enhanced through aerobic combustion in the third detonation event
--- Performance enhancement primarily achieved by addition of excess metals to explosive composition
• Aluminum and magnesium are primary metals of choice
--- 3rd event enhanced by aerobic combustion of fuel rich species in shock front, ie :
• 4Al + 3O2 ==> 2Al2O3
• 2Mg + O2 ==> 2MgO
• 2H2 + O2 ==> 2H2O
• 2CO + O2 ==> 2CO2
• Thermobaric Charge: 1.6 lbs. Talley Mix 5672-10
32% wt Aluminum
40% wt Zirconium
26.75% wt Isopropyl Nitrate
1.25% wt Gellant
Channel One said that while the Russian bomb contains 7.8 tons of high explosives compared to more than 8 tons of explosives in the U.S. bomb, it's four times more powerful because it uses a new, highly efficient type of explosives that the report didn't identify.
While the U.S. bomb is equivalent to 11 tons of TNT, the Russian one is equivalent to 44 tons of regular explosives. The Russian weapon's blast radius is 990 feet, twice as big as that of the U.S. design, the report said.
Like its U.S. predecessor, first tested in 2003, the Russian bomb is a "thermobaric" weapon that explodes in an intense fireball combined with a devastating blast. It explodes in a terrifying nuclear bomb-like mushroom cloud and wreaks destruction through a massive shock wave created by the air burst and high temperature.
Thermobaric weapons work on the same principle that causes blasts in grain elevators and other dusty places - clouds of fine particles are highly explosive. Such explosions produce shock waves that can be directed and amplified in enclosed spaces such as buildings, caves or tunnels.
Channel One said that the temperature in the epicenter of the Russian bomb's explosion is twice as high as that of the U.S. bomb.
The report showed the bomb dropped by parachute from a Tu-160 strategic bomber and exploding in a massive fireball. It featured the debris of apartment buildings and armored vehicles at a test range, as well as the scorched ground from a massive blast.
All of Dr. Bazant’s papers use free-fall acceleration through the first story and the maximum design load mass of the falling upper section. Neither of these are representative of the actual situation, so this causes an embellishment of the upper section’s kinetic energy in his papers. He also significantly underestimates the energy dissipation due to column deformation during impact. Dr. Bazant has been made aware of these problems with his hypothesis, and in January 2011 he had a paper published by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics where, with a graduate student as his co-author, he tried to claim the deceleration would not be observable. This paper has been shown to use fraudulent values for both inertial and column deformation energy losses. However, NIST continues to use his work.
Recent research using test results versus the three-hinge method for estimating energy dissipation caused by plastic hinge formation in axially-loaded buckling columns has shown the three-hinge method to significantly underestimate it —and this is without using fraudulently low column plastic moment (Mp) values, as Le and Bazant did in their paper.
This research provides even more support for the contention that the lack of deceleration in the descent of WTC 1 is a severe impediment for a natural-collapse scenario.
David Chandler posted a short summary of the paper on his site, part of which was taken from an explanation I had sent out with e-mails.
No reason you couldn't use what was already done, if it works for you. You can see it a third to halfway down the page here
I don't know that you can honestly say the latest developments in peer reviewed civil engineering literature show the towers shouldn't have failed. Of course, you should read Jonathan Cole and Timothy Eastman's survey of all of the peer reviewed literature on the towers here :
It won't include the new paper by G. Szuladzinski, R. Johns, and myself, as it was not out when they wrote that paper, but it will give you an idea of what has been put out in the last few years prior to 2013.
Controlled demolition proven, why is there a debate?
It's just impossible to be anything other than a controlled demolition by basic physics. There is no debate.
FACT 1 : An object falling under gravity cannot accelerate through resistance greater than the weight of the falling object.
The north tower accelerated through the lower section at a uniform 64% freefall, which means that the lower section exerted resistance equal to 36% of the weight of the upper section, Newton's third law of equal and opposing forces states that the top block thus exerted 36% of it's weight, which means it’s exerting much less force than when supported at rest. This means a large portion of the resistance was removed by explosives.
Also the top section after collapsing the distance of 1 story did not slow at all upon encountering the intact lower section. This is impossible as a falling mass cannot crush MORE resistance and maintain the same speed, it slows. The mass continued to accelerate uniformly proving explosive demolition.
FACT 2 : Newton's third law states that colliding objects exert equal force on each other, which means that for every floor destroyed in the lower section, a floor must be destroyed in the falling section, therefore after 15 floors there is no pile-driver left, it would slow down before then anyway, as the mass of the falling object is reduced and energy is absorbed through disintegration and the superior upward resistance.
FACT3 : The top section of the south tower topples to an angle of 22 degrees. Basic physics shows that the shift in center of mass due to the angle means that any torque imparted by gravitational pressure on the lower section accelerates the rotation of the top mass. The base of the top section acting as a fulcrum. The more gravitational pressure the top section provides, the more toppling would occur. Discontinuation of toppling proves the removal of resistance, disproving gravity induced collapse and proving explosives.
An off center, leaning mass CANNOT cause a symmetric collapse.
FACT 4 : The symmetric, even collapse of WTC7 is IMPOSSIBLE without demolition as all structural supports must be removed simultaneously across each floor, and this repeated in sequence for each successive floor.this is impossible in a collapse resulting from structural or fire damage, as such causes result in organic uneven damage. even a slight integrity inequality ALWAYS leads to a messy uneven and in most cases partial collapse.
FACT 5 : The 2.5 seconds of Freefall in WTC7 that NIST admits to is IMPOSSIBLE without Controlled demolition as all structural supports must be removed ahead of the collapse front, otherwise ANY intact structural resistance would slow the collapse to a rate less than freefall.
Sabretruthtiger on Fri, 08/02/2013 - 10:36pm.
originally posted by: neutronflux
And how can one broad band seismograph accurately record all data from an event with multiple causes of seismic activity.
(LT : it easily can, read a basics book on why.)
The whole thing if a trough encounters a peak of another wave it results in changing the waves. When the buildings fell, there was different waves traveling at different rates interfering with each other. How does a seismograph receiving all seismic waves at once make an accurate representation of all waves from multiple seismic events occurring at the same time?
Then you see why they had to choose for thermobaric explosives, because of their much longer but less pressurized qualities, against the much shorter but much higher explosive force qualities from standard HE explosives.
Not Thermobaric. This bomb is burning off the extra fuel/O2 after the detonation.
A thermobaric explosion CONSISTS of the fuel/O2 detonating itself.
This is merely a OB+ explosion burning off residual fuel.
But if one wants to quibble that it produced "heat" & "pressure" and therefore is "thermobaric", then all explosions are "thermobaric". Impressive, but mislabeled.
A thermobaric detonation can be initiated AFTER a smaller charge disperses the fuel amongst the oxygen, OR.... The thermobaric detonation pressure wave is protracted as the expanding front continues to detonate (as opposed to just deflagration of fuel from a point detonation).
Enhanced blast weapons are devices that incorporate the characteristics of two different devices.
If you are trying to claim this detonation was thermobaric with a deflagration at the end, then I must point out that it is the detonation characteristic I am referring to....NOT THE DEFLAGRATION.
If you don't know the difference between a point detonation (i.e HE), and a protracted detonation (i.e thermobaric) as they cause damage, then I suggest you go back and read the study I was a part of.
Those trees would shake violently if a truck was full of fireworks....that doesn't mean the fireworks were thermobaric.
CLUE: Look at the pressure wave as it passes through the trees. Trees are used by video forensic teams to determine yield and characteristics of video-taped detonations. I did many.