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.

 

POLITICS: Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
When have you ever seen a modern sky scraper fall over side ways?




posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX



Professor Eagar points out that the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength," or around 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit


Thats a far cry from the 3000 degrees you put in your post and very far from the melting point of steel..



so, did steel melt, or not? the answer is yes.

indeed. there is no accounting for the extreme amount of concentrated heat which melted steel. where did the molten steel in the sublevels come from? don't try and deny that there was molten steel. it is well documented. the pools of molten steel remained that way for weeks.

so, did the melted steel come from above or below? below, because if it had come from above it would have pooled in spots higher up in the debris pile, as well.

so, the molten steel is from the BOTTOM of the tower.

what was the heat source that melted the steel? could it be the EXPLOSIONS that were reported by multiple witnesses? (also cited in the paper, read the paper).



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
what was the heat source that melted the steel? could it be the EXPLOSIONS that were reported by multiple witnesses? (also cited in the paper, read the paper).



O a few people claim to have heard explosives wow I bet i can find a few people that claim to see a ufo bring down the towers aswell. Have you ever heard explosives that bring down buildings a fraction the size of the towers? I have and they are very loud every single person around them would have heard explosives very clearly not just a few people.

Watch a few demolitons in person and see just how quiet they are.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob


so, did steel melt, or not? the answer is yes.


The anwser is no, there have been some people who keep saying that there were "pools of melted steel found weeks after the wtc collapsed", but no proof was ever put forward. Even the man that was claimed to have said this never mentioned it in his website where he explains what they found at ground zero.


Originally posted by billybob
indeed. there is no accounting for the extreme amount of concentrated heat which melted steel. where did the molten steel in the sublevels come from? don't try and deny that there was molten steel. it is well documented. the pools of molten steel remained that way for weeks.


Could that be because there were no "pools of melted steel"?..... if these pools of melted steel existed, please present photos of them.... There have been a lot of photos that were taken of ground zero and I have never seen one with signs of these "pools of melted steel"....



Originally posted by billybob
so, did the melted steel come from above or below? below, because if it had come from above it would have pooled in spots higher up in the debris pile, as well.

so, the molten steel is from the BOTTOM of the tower.


Can you please present proof of this?......


Originally posted by billybob
what was the heat source that melted the steel? could it be the EXPLOSIONS that were reported by multiple witnesses? (also cited in the paper, read the paper).


Present proof that "explosions" can melt steel and make "pools of it"....

The only explosions that are hot enough to melt steel would be a nuclear device...or something similar and any explosions that big would have taken at least half of NY with them....

BTW, we already had a couple of people implying that a nuclear device was used at the WTC..... but then again there is no radiation in NY city....people living in NY would be showing signs, and dying, if there was any radiation there....

[edit on 14-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
--Muaddib



Part of one of the towers that fell down took almost half of a part of the bottom of wtc7, plus there was burning debris and fuel which was blown by the explosions and the collapse into wtc7....


It was explained in the original article that there likely weren't any explosions due to fuel.



* Two tanks, maximum capacity 11,600 gallons each. Found intact after the collapse. 20,000 gallons total was recovered from these by the EPA.
* Two tanks, maximum capacity 6.000 gallons each. Found ruptured, but not exploded, after the collapse. At the time of the FEMA report, the tanks had yet to be extracted and examined.
(Source: NIST WTC report)




Please do some research before making up stories....


Why do we always have to put others down for not reading before writing...?



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
The man that designed the building said he designed it to take a hit of a 707. The 707 was the largest airplane at the time the building was being constructed. He couldnt have designed it with a larger 767 in mind since they were none flying.


The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.


He also never thought of a plane hitting it full of fuel.



911research.wtc7.net...
Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.


Interesting that experts are cited as the be all and end all, infallible, and cannot be shills, except when they are the actual people who designed and built the buildings, in which case they become buffoons who "would never have thought of" this or that.

Is nobody willing to discuss WTC7?



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4V4T4R

It was explained in the original article that there likely weren't any explosions due to fuel.


I see.....so airplanes do not explode when they crash?......



Originally posted by 4V4T4R
Why do we always have to put others down for not reading before writing...?


I am not trying to put anyone down, I am tired of seeing people make up stories and exagerating the facts... What I am puting down are the "wild claims."



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
This is wtc7 we're talking about, no direct impact. Again, already stated, and cleared up quite a few times.

Your statement:



Part of one of the towers that fell down took almost half of a part of the bottom of wtc7, plus there was burning debris and fuel which was blown by the explosions and the collapse into wtc7....


hmmm...



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
When have you ever seen a modern sky scraper fall over side ways?


the question is, when have you seen a skyscaper fall down at all?

the point is, if it starts to fall one way, it must continue that way until it meets resistance. the point is, it can't CONTINUE to fall straight down once one side starts falling ahead of the others. just get yourself a tray of drinks and walk through a busy bar and you'll understand. or half fill a boat with water. in the boat you represent the force of gravity, the water represents the dynamic load, and the boat's skew represents symmetry.
before you get in the boat, the load of water is evenly distrubted. when you step into the boat, your added weight tips the skew of the boat, and all the water rushes to that side of the boat, and the boat sinks(assymetrical collapse). in order for you to avoid the boat sinking, you rush to the other side, but all the water follows you, and then the boat sinks on THAT side. the only way to keep the boat symmetrical, is for you(gravity) be in the exact center of the boat.
i am giving a rough analogy of the forces at work to try and give you a 'feel' for the forces at work.
so that's you=gravity, water=angular momentum, and boat's skew=symmetry/assymetry.
once a vast body of mass in moving in one direction, it takes a greater force to move it back.
please indicate where the assymetry corrective 'you gravity' comes from that will allow the boat to stay on an even keel.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.



Yes the 767 is bigger then the 707 as I stated thanks for the facts.


Originally posted by wecomeinpeace



He also never thought of a plane hitting it full of fuel.



911research.wtc7.net...
Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.



Yeah lets not mention the planes where cross country flights that are carrying loads of fuel nowhere near empty by the time they reached NYC. The planes picked by the terrorist were in part choosen for this very reason.




Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Interesting that experts are cited as the be all and end all, infallible, and cannot be shills, except when they are the actual people who designed and built the buildings, in which case they become buffoons who "would never have thought of" this or that.


O so your trying to suggest the Head designer of the Towers had invisioned or should have planned for a Plane with loads of fuel used in a terrorist attack? Or a plane just taking off from a close airport to NYC and happen to hit the Towers?

Please
Before 9-11 the only plausible scenario of a 707 hitting the WTC was of one landing (So it would be low on fuel) at a nearby NYC airport and getting lost due to bad weather. That is the only way a plane would be low enough to hit a tower.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Here are some good short answers to what caused the WTC collapse.




The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature). Further information about the design of the WTC can be found on the World Wide Web.5–8

www.tms.org...



Regarding the design accounting for airplane impact:




One of those variables was the size and kinetic energy of aircraft that might accidentally strike the WTC. No one imagined intentional strikes. Mr. Robertson and others involved in design and construction of the WTC have repeatedly stated that back in the 1960s they could not have planned for the jetliners of 2001. Specifically, they modeled the effects of a hit by the largest aircraft of the day, the Boeing 707-320, and presumably calibrated their design to withstand it. Yet a comparison of the 707-320 with the Boeing 767-200s that struck the towers shows surprisingly small differences between them and, factoring in the 707's higher typical cruise speed, a case can be made that the design team actually modeled an aircraft with greater kinetic energy than those which struck:

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, however, WTC towers 1 and 2 were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 lost in fog, looking to land. The modeled aircraft was a 707 weighing 263,000 lb (119,000 kg) with a flight speed of only 180 mph (290 km/h), as would be used in approach and landing situations ([2], page 17). The 767s that actually hit the towers had a kinetic energy more than seven times greater than the specifically modeled 707 impact. Significantly, the Boeing 747, with an empty weight more than twice that of the 767, was in the final design phase when WTC drafting began and its dimensions were widely known. The first order for a 747 was made in April, 1966. Construction of the WTC began on 5 August, 1966.

en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 2005/11/14 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

origin is billybob--
so, did steel melt, or not? the answer is yes.


The anwser is no, there have been some people who keep saying that there were "pools of melted steel found weeks after the wtc collapsed", but no proof was ever put forward. Even the man that was claimed to have said this never mentioned it in his website where he explains what they found at ground zero.


these are all from the article which we are discussing(you know, the one you obviously didn't bother to read?) :


 Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:

Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)

3.  There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7.  For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,

‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.”  (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna.  She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,

‘Nobody's going to be alive.'  Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.  (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)

Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.”   Further information on the subject is available at globalresearch.ca.myforums.net...


so, when you say, "the guy who reported it", which one are you talking about? i'm sure all these people see ufo's on a regular basis, eh, muaddib?



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Yes the 767 is bigger then the 707 as I stated thanks for the facts.


Your welcome.


Yeah lets not mention the planes where cross country flights that are carrying loads of fuel nowhere near empty by the time they reached NYC. The planes picked by the terrorist were in part choosen for this very reason.


No one stated they were "near empty". Just not full as you and others have stated.



O so your trying to suggest the Head designer of the Towers had invisioned or should have planned for a Plane with loads of fuel used in a terrorist attack? Or a plane just taking off from a close airport to NYC and happen to hit the Towers?

Regardless, when struck by the planes the towers moved no more than they would in strong wind, with minimal deflection, and quickly returned to their median state. This is in the $20,000,000 NIST report that no one seems to be willing to read.

Another WTC designer stating the building could have taken multiple hits.
Frank A. DeMartini - Construction and Project Management

So who wants to talk about WTC7?



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
It has already been stated by the structural engineers and architects of the towers that the planes alone were not enough to cause the collapse. You guys should really watch World Trade Center: Anatomy of the Collapse on The Learning Channel. It goes into detail why the Trade Center towers collapsed.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4V4T4R
This is wtc7 we're talking about, no direct impact. Again, already stated, and cleared up quite a few times.

Your statement:



Part of one of the towers that fell down took almost half of a part of the bottom of wtc7, plus there was burning debris and fuel which was blown by the explosions and the collapse into wtc7....


hmmm...


I have presented pictures of WTC7 in the past which show exactly what i stated, I wish I remember how that thread that I responded to was called, so I can once again put the pictures here.

Anyways, if you go to pages 17 and 18 in the following links, you will find pictures and drawings of wtc7 and how it was hit by the sides by both twin towers. i wish I could find that picture I have posted before of the hole at the bottom of wtc7...

www.fema.gov...



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
I have presented pictures of WTC7 in the past which show exactly what i stated, I wish I remember how that thread that I responded to was called, so I can once again put the pictures here.

Anyways, if you go to pages 17 and 18 in the following links, you will find pictures and drawings of wtc7 and how it was hit by the sides by both twin towers. i wish I could find that picture I have posted before of the hole at the bottom of wtc7...

www.fema.gov...


Well if you had read my earlier post that FEMA initially said that WTC7 was not damaged or there did not seem to be enough damage caused by the collapse of either WTC1 or WTC2 for there to a complete collapse of WTC7.


WTC 7 Collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20pm. There were no known casualities due to this collapse. The performance of WTC7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings




~Peace
~

[edit on 14/11/05 by Hunting Veritas]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure the image you are referring to is this one, Muadibb.



There was similar damage done to many of the buildings around the towers, and the ones closest to them were virtually destroyed, yet did not collapse. That little bite out of the edge of WTC7 is pathetic when considering how modern steel buildings are constructed.

This:
external image

Plus this:


Does not equal this:



Originally posted by Muaddib
Part of one of the towers that fell down took almost half of a part of the bottom of wtc7, plus there was burning debris and fuel which was blown by the explosions and the collapse into wtc7....


"Almost half of a part of the bottom..." How much is that exactly? I like more than half of you not half as much as you'd like, and I like less than half of you not half as much as you deserve. Look at the photo again.


[edit on 2005-11-14 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
the question is, when have you seen a skyscaper fall down at all?

the point is, if it starts to fall one way, it must continue that way until it meets resistance. the point is, it can't CONTINUE to fall straight down once one side starts falling ahead of the others. just get yourself a tray of drinks and walk through a busy bar and you'll understand. or half fill a boat with water. in the boat you represent the force of gravity, the water represents the dynamic load, and the boat's skew represents symmetry.
before you get in the boat, the load of water is evenly distrubted. when you step into the boat, your added weight tips the skew of the boat, and all the water rushes to that side of the boat, and the boat sinks(assymetrical collapse). in order for you to avoid the boat sinking, you rush to the other side, but all the water follows you, and then the boat sinks on THAT side. the only way to keep the boat symmetrical, is for you(gravity) be in the exact center of the boat.
i am giving a rough analogy of the forces at work to try and give you a 'feel' for the forces at work.
so that's you=gravity, water=angular momentum, and boat's skew=symmetry/assymetry.
once a vast body of mass in moving in one direction, it takes a greater force to move it back.
please indicate where the assymetry corrective 'you gravity' comes from that will allow the boat to stay on an even keel.


it does not work like that Billybob...

First, you are talking about a SKYSCRAPPER....it is a lot bigger, and it's made from many small pieces of iron and masonry put together.... hence there is a buckling effect if the structure of the SKYSCRAPPER is compromised in too many areas.

Second, you did not think through your boat analogy. There are other points which you did not take into consideration, like the following.

Boats are not as tall as skyscrapper, they are built longer than they are taller, hence you don't have nearly as much mass to weight down on the lower parts of the boat for it to collapse on itself.

And last, the overall structure of a boat is a lot stronger than water, water is not solid in case you forgot, hence water does not provide enough resistance against the boat for the boat to collapse on itself, instead it will sink sideways if there is too much weight on one side.



[edit on 14-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Great thread WCIP


I usually approach threads like these with one of two frames of mind.

1. I read all the replies including from those who I KNOW to be closed minded delusionists preaching about how the government would never do this, and have a good laugh in the process

or

2. I skim over those delusionists and enjoy reading more evidence from scientists that backs up what most people can see from the obvious body of evidence: 9/11 was an inside job



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Great thread WCIP


I usually approach threads like these with one of two frames of mind.

1. I read all the replies including from those who I KNOW to be closed minded delusionists preaching about how the government would never do this, and have a good laugh in the process

or

2. I skim over those delusionists and enjoy reading more evidence from scientists that backs up what most people can see from the obvious body of evidence: 9/11 was an inside job


I would say that the "close minded delusional people" around here are the ones that accept what every crackpot tells them even if he/she got the facts completly wrong... But who am I to know?.....



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join