Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11 - The official story contradicts the laws of physics and the most basic knowledge of the behavi

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 22 2003 @ 07:16 AM
link   
heelstone, didn't want to ignore your question dealing Building 7's demise. I have a harder time explaining that but I would hazard a guess that the impact and failure of the larger buildings impacted the footing in a manner in which an earthquake would. The large shock and vibration broke down the concrete in the footing and maybe the structural supports throughout the building as well. This one does bare more investigation because its not readily apparent nor have I read any research which has detailed the cause of Building 7's failure. At this point, I can't rule out demolition explosives there because frankly I'm not sure what happened there. I can only theorize. However, an investigation of the footing/foundation would likely tell the story one way or another. Unlike many people who post speculations as fact, I will not. I know for certain the mechanisms involved in WTC towers 1 and 2 but I can't be sure about 7. I have an idea, the one posted above but without proof, I will not be married to it. If anyone else has the info, please post it.




posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Astrocreep,

The problem with the offical story is it claims that jet fuel melted the steel supports. While I do not dount your experience with construction matierals and such, the WTC itself was contrcted uniquely. It was designed for a plane impact. Somethign that tall would naturally have to be, especially in such busy airspace.

Plance crashes mean lots of jet fuel burning. They mean high speed planes slamming into things with great impact. Thus, with these factors in mind, those we also on the minds of the desingers and builders. New York is no stranger to high rise/jet plane collisons. In 1945, the Empire state building got smacked with a B-17. It wasnt designed for that, yet it still stood. It still stands.
The officals claim, with little investigation, that jet fuel melted the steel supports. I know from prior experience with jet fuel that this is not the case. Even Diesel, which is thick, less refined, and heavier, with a higher flash point (diesel is so stable you can literally put your cigarette out in it and it will not burn) will not melt steel like that. Hence, engines are made of iron and steel because steel is so resistant to fuel induced heat it doesnt warp. Steel is thich, steel is strong, steel is resistant. And this isnt just your run of the mill steel, this is re enforced higher grade contruction steel.

Theres also the question. Did the plane hit deep enough into the building to actually hit the steel supports in the middle? Many office workers on the floors of impact on the other side of the building were unhurt. Did the plane actually hit so far it made siginifgant distance and eneough velocity to actually strike the center steel supports with enough force to crack, warp, twist them? the inner supports werent the only things holding that monster tower up. The outer supports, far more of them, also had part of the strain. the plane struck around the 70 series floors. Tho it appeared lower to us, the WTC is a full 110 stories high. 30 floors above it had to support. Much more than meets the eye here.

And dont forget the first WTC, hit at the 90 floor, with much less weight, and building 7........

I am very interested in the research that shall come of this. I am notsure what I can contribute, but Ill try.



posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Debate this one.. Why ..after 5 years of planning(from todays bogus news) would terrorist decide to hit the buildings before 70% of the occupants even got the building. The attack occured an hour before the stock market opened and before most of the traders got to their office. Over 400 firefighters died...
so..only 2600 occuppants of 2 towers that hold upwards of 50-70 thousand people after 9:30am.


Either these terrorists are really..really..really..dumb.
Or decided to inflict minimal casualties cause they respect human life...
or the it was an inside job to make a point with the least casualties possible.

DEBATE...DEBATE. This is the only proof I need.
The rest is also easily plausible..






posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Skadi, no one is making the claim the steel actually "melted" in the sense of a oozing pile of goo. You keep arguing against theories that haven't been made. Pressure and heat change molecular abilities of metal. Different metals are made for different applications. The steel that houses jet engines is a hell of a lot different than steel designed for building construction.

No one lived through it on the opposite floors that were hit. Both planes exploded all the way through taking out many of the outside supports which are the main support structure of WTC, designed in the hollow tube frame for stability. They were designed to withstand impact of the largest plane made at the time, a 707...much smaller than the planes that hit.

The key culprit involved in collapse was the redistribution of the load which could not be equally done and finally the mass of the top floors collpasing on the one directly underneath it acted upon and compounded by gravity exponetionally. As anything falls, its speed increases (until reaching terminal velocity..look it up) thus also its impact on the floors below. Once such impact rivet throughout the structure, many of the materials reached their resonant frequency and returned or tried to return to their inert state. Thats why metal rust, concrete crumbles and asphault breaks apart. We take these materials and form them into compounds but when acted upon by any other force, their first response is to return to the inert state. Pulverization is one of the most effect ays to do this. Maybe the heat wasn't hot enough to melt steel but just because it doens't fall in the floor into a puddle is no indication that its chemical make-up and thus mechanical properties haven't changed.


Why do you think floors collapse in steel warehouses that undergo fire? Ask any firefighter, they will tell you heat fatiqes steel and greatly reduces its ability to bear a load. Hell, an 8" thick solid masonry wall is only rated for 1 hour fire resistance and fire also breaks down the cement based material used to construct them.

Ask any building inspector why a steel frame building that undergos fire is immediatly condemned and why the existing strudture can't be re-used without metallurgical analysis. Heat does change metal...heat and extreme pressure change metal a lot. Just because you can't take your bic and melt an anvil does not change this.



posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 09:02 AM
link   
The following is a quote from a story out of a trade mag. No link so I have to do it all by hand.


"According to Gregory Fenves, a professor of Civil Engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, the planes weakened the buildings' structures at key points. Fenves, working on information gleaned from preliminary TV reports, stressed that he was speculating. He said that if the planes had hit the structures higher, they could have merely damaged their tops; if they had hit lower, they would have been up against the enormous weight and resistance of the base of the buildings.

The buildings were architecturally interesting in many ways. Each structure is based on a central steel core, which is surrounded by the outside wall, a 209-foot by 209-foot cube of 18-inch tubular steel columns, set 22 inches apart. The cores and "tube walls" share the enormous physical weight of the structures and protect them against the extraordinary wind forces of buildings that tall. There are trusses that support each floor, but no other columns between the cores and outside walls. Some floors contain nearly 40,000 square feet of open office space.
News reports said the planes were jetliners, a 757 and a 767. The 757 has a 124-foot wingspan, is 155 feet long and can weigh 100 tons. A 767 is bigger, with a 156-foot wingspan and 159-foot length and can weigh a maximum of 200 tons. (A 747 is more than 200 feet long and can weigh 400 tons.)
The planes hit the buildings near the 70th or 80th floors. Their impact severely damaged the tube walls, which carried a large proportion of the buildings' weight. CNN footage of the second plane hitting a tower appeared to show that a large part of the jetliner went all the way through the building, suggesting that the interior core was also damaged.
Once a building like a World Trade Center tower loses some of its support, the building in effect goes to work, Fenves said. "The loads are trying to redistribute," he said. "The loads are figuring out how to get back down to the ground." At the same time, he noted, the fires are deforming the physical properties of the support steel.
"It's a very rugged system," he said. "It takes a long time for the collapse mechanism to develop. It's not like kicking the leg out from underneath a chair. The building is 200-foot square and there's a lot of structural system there."
But once the upper floors began to give way, terrible force was set in motion. Each floor of a building that big might weigh 6 million pounds, he said. Once impact is factored in as well, he said, the force becomes irresistible.
The disaster is a terrible echo of another disaster involving a New York landmark. On July 28, 1945, a B-25 bomber slammed into the north side of the Empire State Building, then the tallest building in the world. A reckless pilot was flying over Manhattan in poor visibility; it was apparently an accident. Thirteen people died, mostly in fires started by burning gasoline.
The Empire State Building, Fenves noted, was built during the Depression, and made with a much heavier structural system. The bomber in that accident was also a much smaller plane, said Fenves. "



posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Sorry for the three in a row but here's more info on steel, fire, and a link with this one as well.


"IT WAS THE FIRE THAT BUCKLED THE BUILDINGS: SAY ENGINEERS

"It was the fire that killed the buildings - nothing on Earth could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said Structural engineer Chris Wise. Once the steel frame on one floor had melted, it collapsed downwards, inflicting massive forces on the already-weakened floor below. From then on, the collapse became inevitable, as each new falling floor added to the downward forces. Further down the building, even steel at normal temperatures gave way under the enormous weight - an estimated 100,000 tonnes from the upper floors alone. "It was as if the top of the building was acting like a huge pile-driver, crashing down on to the floors underneath," said Chris Wise. "Only the containment building at a nuclear power plant" is designed to withstand such an impact and explosion, says Robert S. Vecchio, principal of metallurgical engineer Lucius Pitkin Inc., referring to the hijacked Boeing 767 airplanes, heavy with fuel, that slammed into each WTC tower. As the fires burned, the structural steel on the breached floors and above would have softened and warped because of the intense heat, say sources. Fireproofed steel is only rated to resist 1,500 to 1,600 F. As the structure warped and weakened at the top of each tower, the frame, along with concrete slabs, furniture, file cabinets, and other materials, became an enormous, consolidated weight that eventually crushed the lower portions of the frame below. When the stability was lost, the exterior columns buckled outward, allowing the floors above to drop down onto floors below, overloading and failing each one as it went down, he says. The good thing is that the two towers of the World Trade Centre, one stood for one hour and the other stood for one and three-quarter hours after impact. The American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. (AISC) has contacted FEMA and the leading structural engineering associations and is forming a special task force to investigate the structural collapses of the World Trade Center buildings resulting from the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. What is of some concern is the fact that newer skyscrapers in the United States and elsewhere were constructed using cheaper methods and would collapse even quicker. See the full analysis at "

www.civil.usyd.edu.au... .






I know none of us much trust the government and thats why I turn to structural engineers, metallurgical engineers, and specialist in the field. These people deal with these properties everyday. they live it, they test it in lab and in field.



posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Um, remember that HUGE fireball that exploded from the second building as it was hit? That was jet fuel exploding. Propelled outside the building by the force of the impact.

Jet fuel is mostly kerosene. Kerosene DOESN'T melt steel. And even if it melted some lode-bearing struts, for the buildings to BOTH fall in an imploding style means that there had to be simultaneous catastrophic failures in more than one buttress.

BS I say.

I would say that the fact that the largest crime scene in US history was covered up is pretty good proof that there were things that we weren't supposed to learn. Within DAYS the scrap metal was being shipped across the ocean to India, to be melted down and used. You'd figure the US government would want to, oh I don't know, STUDY them?

The single moment that made me believe something else was going on here was when they found an Arabic PASSPORT in the rubble, untouched. Despite the fact that that the temperature of the fire was enough to apparently melt steel. Was this a titanium passport?

jakomo



posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Look, maybe you should read some of the information I posted above. At best the jet fuel would have only added about 500 degrees to the already burning temperature of the fire. I know thats no where near the 1500 degrees needed to reach the fire rating temp.


What you all are practicing is the divide and conquer technique. None of you will accpet that these things happened together but continue to argue that niether (separately) could have cause the collapse. Well, ya know what peachy, I agree. Niether ONE probably could. What actually happened on 9-11 however has failed to be discussed in your theories.

I'm not taking my info from the government.. I have experience in this crap and so do the engineers I quoted. Oh but you, you can walk right on the scene and know every friggin thing about it because you have an ego. Well, why the hell don't you all go ahead and publish your reports about it and see how far your speculative non-science based BS gets. I beg of you. If I were you all I'd also throw global warming in there for good measure.



posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 05:44 PM
link   
the WTC was designed to survive the impact of a 727 not a 767 or 777. Plus you forget that these planes were loaded with tons and tons of jet fule which burns really really hot. not to mention that these planes took out a large portion of the outter supports which held up the rest of the building. the fire weakened what was left of the steel, not to mention that the steel had all of its fire proofing blasted away in the inital collision, the steel supports causing those to give out and the top of the buildings to come crashing down. the theory of a "controlled demo" does not hold up.



posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Okay, I'm not an engineer or a jet fuel specialist. There's TONS of stuff out there on the Net supporting both sides, and damn if they're not both pretty convincing. What I do know is common sense.

The first hijacked plane was suspected at about 8:20 a.m., and the last hijacked plane crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:06 a.m. Not one single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the U.S. Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles from Washington, D.C., until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. How exactly does that happen? In the nation with the most powerful air force and air traffic controllers in the world?

If that's in question, I'm willing to believe pretty much anything about how it was the towers actual fell so strangely.


jakomo

[Edited on 23-9-2003 by Jakomo]



posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Yes, astrocreep, peopl on the other side did survive on the hit floors. Go to BBC.com website, go to the 9/11 page. Survivor accounts. People from the floors above survived and got out too, because the stairwells on the other side on the building werent burning.



And, has been stated, much of the fuel blew out of the building, consumed in the blast.



posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 06:45 PM
link   
1st- the towers fell when the steel got hot enough to be flexible....end of story...melt steel and it will become more and more liquid. Not rocket science.
2nd- The plane in Penn is most certainly an oddity. Yes, there was time to scramble a fighter. Yes, I believe the orders would have been issued by that time and point. (shoot it down!) Question remains, did it get shot down and if it did, was that a bad thing?
3rd- The b*st*rds who were in on it (the terrorists) and did not die should be torured for the next 45 years



posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Um, lurking, your post made zero sense.

For one, anyone who was on any of those planes and hijacked it is pretty much dead. Its safe to say the govornment didnt lie about that. If they survived that #, then someone posses tech that people would sell thier mothers for.



posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Okay, I'm not an engineer or a jet fuel specialist. There's TONS of stuff out there on the Net supporting both sides, and damn if they're not both pretty convincing. What I do know is common sense.

The first hijacked plane was suspected at about 8:20 a.m., and the last hijacked plane crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:06 a.m. Not one single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the U.S. Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles from Washington, D.C., until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. How exactly does that happen? In the nation with the most powerful air force and air traffic controllers in the world?

If that's in question, I'm willing to believe pretty much anything about how it was the towers actual fell so strangely.


jakomo

[Edited on 23-9-2003 by Jakomo]


I have no freakin idea about the scrambling of the jets. For all I know they did know and let it happen. My only point is this:


No other catalyst was needed to result in the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. Thats it. I don't speculate and I won't attempt to shoot down your other theories.



posted on Sep, 23 2003 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Okay, I'm not an engineer or a jet fuel specialist. There's TONS of stuff out there on the Net supporting both sides, and damn if they're not both pretty convincing. What I do know is common sense.

The first hijacked plane was suspected at about 8:20 a.m., and the last hijacked plane crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:06 a.m. Not one single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the U.S. Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles from Washington, D.C., until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. How exactly does that happen? In the nation with the most powerful air force and air traffic controllers in the world?

If that's in question, I'm willing to believe pretty much anything about how it was the towers actual fell so strangely.


jakomo

[Edited on 23-9-2003 by Jakomo]


thats because they didnt know that it was headed to the pentagon



posted on Sep, 24 2003 @ 10:15 AM
link   
One aspect of this that I have been looking at is the fact that the steel structure was rated for 1 hour (about as long as the WTC 1 lasted) at 1500 degrees F. But that is with a layer of lightweight, non-reinforced concrete covering most of the supporting structures. This was to give fire retardant systems more time to bring a fire under control. However, this covering was more than likely compromised in various areas by the shock of the impact. We've all seen bombs blow concrete, masonry, and adobe structures into chunks. The bad thing about concrete is that it can't take much in the way of shock and vibration..as it losses its cohesive bond. One good thing about it is that it does insulate well against heat. An 8 inch wall will rate at about one hour for residential. I think I read these had a four inch coating. The problem we find, if they had bothered to do a detailed investigation, is that in some areas, this coating was compromised and the steel itself exposed to the fire prematurily. Also during this blast, most of the fire control equipment was likely damaged on the floors directly impacted.


The second question about this is that with the pulverization of so much during the collapse, would it be possible to determine if this was the case? Reguardless, if we have a fire rating of 1 hour, WTC1 lasted and hour and WTC 2 almost made it an hour so even with the impact which acted like a huge bomb and blasted away many of the load bearing memebers, the buildings definetly weren't easy to bring down.



posted on Sep, 24 2003 @ 10:25 AM
link   

When you talk about this.. have you for once stopped to think that the WTC was hit by object that weights between 60000-114000kg:s depenting how it is loaded.

And this object moved 300-800km/h.. (max being 500mp/h)

And the 'object' (missile, plane..) exploded as it (they) were carrying much fuel.


Holy Schniky! I gotta stop agreeing with Fulcrum here,
Something tells me, that they don't have an awful lot of test evidence of fully loaded jetliners smashing into incredibly tall buildings, to draw from in their comparisons....



posted on Sep, 24 2003 @ 10:39 AM
link   
The problem was not the steel that melted. The problem was that the steel structure was moved and the bolts weakened, effectively displacing pressure points and thus make the building collapsing like a stack of playing-cards.



posted on Sep, 24 2003 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Whenever--- If Ever, ya'll 5 interested people get together to do the Research Forum on this...

You might want to check back to published articles about the World Trade Tower, i'm thinking about 1969

i believe the Village Voice had something
i know the Washington Free Press did an article, on how the whole thing was a
'House Of Cards' & an Accident Waiting To Happen !

Archiving either should be a real task...but... i know that the 'activists' of the day... were against the 'system'...
(which would evolve into NWO & WTO, etc)
and the arrogant/elitists who created & engineered these collosal monuments to rampant capitalism & greed

getting sucked into the maelstrom of enigmas....eh?

Follow the Money Trail....
why does the port authority, architects & reg. bodies,
state & federal Govts WANT to have everyone Sign-Off>
& Settle...mach schnell?
evidence; destroyed...mach schnell?

find the stories & views of young engineering students about the World Trade Tower 1 & proposed Tower 2.
about the protests aimed at the World Trade Center Complex, and the 'illuminiti' which created IT.



posted on Sep, 24 2003 @ 06:43 PM
link   
riffraffalunas

You have an interesting angle.

I have made some comments before about whether the whole project had been completed to spec.

My opinion is still that on the research forum we will need to have a series of revolving projects with people contributing their expertise and interest, which might move from building engineering to stock market regulation to aerodynamics to the prescribed procedures for progressing congressional enquiries.

Sounds like you would make an invaluable contribution to ATS with your research in this subect matter!





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join