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.

 

People seen in the wreckage holes of the WTC

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Okay. Here is what really gets me. People keep saying how the fires from the aircraft were so hot that it melted the core of the WTC and yet shortly after impact we have all kinds of photographs and video footage of people standing at the impact zone and looking out.

If the official story of 9/11 was the real case then this wouldn't have happened. Those people would have died and melted on national television.

How can people ignore this and keep spouting out all that nonsense.

"...Oh the fuel did this and the fuel miraculously did that..."

Last time I checked airplane fuel doesn't burn at the 3000 degree tempatures needed to melt steel. On top of that after only burning for an hour and Firefighters were on radio saying that the fires were nearly extinguished.




posted on May, 28 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
The people were in the ENTRY holes. Last I checked this force called "inertia" kept the wreckage going and the damage was mostly on the other side, and in the middle of the building.

The firefighters that said that the fires were almost out were on the FIRST burning floor, they never got to the higher floors where the main impact occured.



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
No one's claiming anything melted anymore, but there's still no evidence of the fires being hot enough.

This is really simple:

If the fires were as hot as NIST would like, we would have seen many more columns "buckling" before the collapses start, and probably even some glowing steel.

But, we saw very few perimeter columns whose coverings appeared out of place, and no glowing columns. And the few out of place coverings were not necessarily due to extreme heating. In other words, we saw no conclusive evidence for any structural damage from fire.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Exactly, if that part of the building was no longer consumed with fire shortly after the impact how did the rest of the building become so consumed with fire? If that area cooled off so quickly, to the extent that it would allow anyone near it, how was the heat so intense that it melted steel?

Firefighters did make it up to 70 some floors and they can be heard commenting that there are very few fires.

Of course people will argue that WTC 1 & 2 were struck by planes but WTC 7 was not struck by anything but, yet the 47 story building fell, just exactly like they did and there was no jet fuel or impact from a plane contributing to that. Not once before or since in history has a steel building fallen from fire, but three fell on that one day.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by goose
Exactly, if that part of the building was no longer consumed with fire shortly after the impact how did the rest of the building become so consumed with fire? If that area cooled off so quickly, to the extent that it would allow anyone near it, how was the heat so intense that it melted steel?


AFAIK the steel was't supposed to melt, failures caused by temperature may appear well below the melting temperature. Railroad tracks can get deformed by heat originating from the Sun if they are built in a bad fashion.
Besides the fuel had inertia which carried it into the building, so that I'd expect the entrance hole without major fires.



Firefighters did make it up to 70 some floors and they can be heard commenting that there are very few fires.


A first man reached floor 78, the lowest of the impacted floor, and his reports of two pockets of fire were about that floor only.



Of course people will argue that WTC 1 & 2 were struck by planes but WTC 7 was not struck by anything but, yet the 47 story building fell, just exactly like they did and there was no jet fuel or impact from a plane contributing to that. Not once before or since in history has a steel building fallen from fire, but three fell on that one day.


Not once before or since in the history was a stell building intentionally hit by a large jet liner at full speed.

[edit on 29-5-2006 by tuccy]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
failures caused by temperature may appear well below the melting temperature.


So do you have anything to show that this happened at the WTC? Or does the idea itself somehow make up for a lack of evidence of it?

Again,


If the fires were as hot as NIST would like, we would have seen many more columns "buckling" before the collapses start, and probably even some glowing steel.

But, we saw very few perimeter columns whose coverings appeared out of place, and no glowing columns [glowing occurs above 400C]. And the few out of place coverings were not necessarily due to extreme heating. In other words, we saw no conclusive evidence for any structural damage from fire.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
Not once before or since in the history was a stell building intentionally hit by a large jet liner at full speed.


There was more than just one report about the lack of fire and you might want to recognize the fact that one of those three steel buildings did not get hit by anything. There was no jet fuel feeding a fire nor was there any structural damage caused by an impact from a plane yet a 47 story building imploded into it's own footprint.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 29/5/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
good point.

I'm surprised some jet fuel didn't bounce back off columns/objects and spill down the face of the building on fire.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

So do you have anything to show that this happened at the WTC? Or does the idea itself somehow make up for a lack of evidence of it?

Again,


Say one of the first links appearing on Google on "fire steel building collapse" www.tms.org...

Btw from what I've seen here and on other web locations the evidence for natural collapse is much more convincing than "hey look at these lights they have to be explosives... OK, they aren't explosives, so they're for sure thermite... OK, so let's say it had to be a mininuke"



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
Say one of the first links appearing on Google on "fire steel building collapse" www.tms.org...


Yeah, that's Eager.

So where is the evidence that the steel was heated sufficiently? That's what I asked for after all. I didn't ask for a link to Eager.


Btw from what I've seen here and on other web locations the evidence for natural collapse is much more convincing than "hey look at these lights they have to be explosives... OK, they aren't explosives, so they're for sure thermite... OK, so let's say it had to be a mininuke"


Then you haven't been around here very long. Here's a simple problem for you to replace that immature bs with: WTC1's uppermost 13 floors or so allegedly flattened the other 97 without the collapse rate slowing down.



You would think that hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete would slow those upper floors down. Apparently not, even though most of the debris didn't even fall straight down but off to the sides, and even though the lower floors were much denser and stronger than the upper floor for obvious structural reasons.

The fact that the collapse speed didn't slow indicates that resistance wasn't a factor. Resistance would be a factor if the buildings were falling via gravity alone. Resistance could only be taken out of the equation when the floors are being blown before falling material can be resisted by those floors. Otherwise the collapse speeds would have slowed down, if not stopped outright.


But not to get too off topic, I'm still waiting for you to show me the evidence that the fires were destructive enough to cause two symmetrical, unresisted collapses.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yeah, that's Eager.

So where is the evidence that the steel was heated sufficiently? That's what I asked for after all. I didn't ask for a link to Eager.


What about that fire going on? You know, even when just furniture and papers are burning the temperature may reach well over 1000 Celsius degrees (from the Czech firefighter's server), atleast here in Middle Europe. Maybe you use special low-temperature burning paper and furniture, after all.

Now, obtaining a 100% proof is rather hard without someone right on spot with a thermometer but based on what I've found it is not too much leap to expect that temperature in burning building would exceed atleast 600 degrees, which would degrade mechanical parameters of the steel construction significantly. Add to that mechanical damage to many columns caused by the fact that a jet liner crashed into them.

All this seems pretty obvious to me. Maybe you have some proof the temperature didn't reached such a level?

As to the rest of the post, no time just now, will look at it later in the day.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   
it's not as simple as the top 13 floors having to squash the rest of the building, you're treating it like one solid object which it wasn't. It only had to destroy sections at a time, not the whole thing.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
The thing that gets me about the fires is that the damage created by the airplane hitting the tower can not be recreated. After reading all the experts nobody knows exactly how both towers collapsed the same way or almost the same way. I for one could not say that the official story is a lie. Unless the crash could be recreated (impossible). Yes not other building ever has ever collapsed to its own footprint due to fire.

On the other hand, not any other building has ever been hit by an airplane. Maybe the terrorist after failing in 1993 really did their homework and found the way to bring them down. I have to think they were planning this for years.

The main problem I have with the official story is WTC 7, not the crappy video of the plane hitting the Pentagon, (the GOP always feels that they have no reason to disclose information to regular citizens) or the other hundreds of holes that this story has. (And it does have a lot of holes, much like any other government investigation of an event that has never happened before and that evidently they were not prepared for). How in the world did a building that size collapsed in to its own footprint due to fire. No airplane, No jet fuel, No bomb, just a few floors on fire. That to me is the key to the whole mystery. I am not sure if the GOP had something to do with this or not but it sure says a lot about their capacity to investigate. The problem with conspiracy theorist is that they believe the government is actually competent enough to carry an operation like this, all the signs unfortunately point to the other direction. I will be more inclined to think that a third party maybe with contacts in the GOP could do this. But then again there is no proof of such a thing.

Maybe in 40 something years we will now what really happened I am only 25 so I will hopefully be around. My Heart goes to the people that lost love ones and have to deal with these questions every day.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
it's not as simple as the top 13 floors having to squash the rest of the building, you're treating it like one solid object which it wasn't. It only had to destroy sections at a time, not the whole thing.


apparently the claim is, is that not only did heat get so intense around the initial blast that it melted the structure of the building, but this heat managed to conduct its way through 80 floors of structure, completely destroying the integreting of the entire building in thirteen seconds or less. and all done with carasine.

ok im being sarcastic. COME ON you brown nosing official story advocates, If the aguement was ever laid out and given a chance in front of a public audience, the official story would not have a leg to stand on.

did anyone report hearing creaking sounds coming from steal bending? NO

did people report hearing explosions? YES

does jet fuel have the explosive power to turn concrete to powder? NO

can the force of air turn concrete to powder? NO

can thermite explosives be used to pulverise concrete? YES

Im not going claim expert on this topic, I like many have only seen a few websites and videos. There was not much convincing needed, once all the material is laid out, there is nothing that can convince me of anything but a collaplse, and It makes me sick to my stomach hearing people defend some that is so groundless and so dire to our future.

Forget flashes, Larry Silverstien told us with his own lips that explosives were rigged on the morning of 9/11, if that is even possible in such little time, why is that not mentioned in the official report or even discussed in the major news?

I never meant to go on this long about it, it just keeps going, it's honestly not worth talking about anymore. There are really evil people out there, they may or may not have an agenda that could or could not be for the better future of (western) humanity, yadi yadi, that is our history, im young but iv'e regretfully come to realize this. Being lied to is the part that i cant bury and live with though, thank god i can change the channel, i dont think i could take this BS to my face.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 02:44 AM
link   
A little 101 in material science, specially the part concidering Fe-C Equilibrium diagram and tempering of steel might be a useful read for anyone studying the effects of heat to steel structures.

The above picture is an Equilibrium diagram of Iron-Carbon alloys, steels are at the far left, since their carbon % is very low.

As you can see the "melts" at relatively high (1300C) Temperatures, but it turns into austenite at around 800C, the same temperature at where steel is kept and then rapidly cooled in tempering process.

When tempered steel is heated to above 800C the effects of tempering begin to cancel and steel rapidly looses strength and hardness. Even temperatures at around 650-750C start to alter the grain size of steel and thus reduce the strength of the structure. The drop in strength with both these processes may be in the range of 50% at worst.

I hope this sheds some light why the WTC Towers collapsed as they did, I have no idea on why the third building went down.


(and steel conducts heat very well, so several dozen floor bellow the fire would have been softened too)



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
What about that fire going on?


Yeah, what about it? That's what I'm asking you. Show me that it sufficiently damaged the building to initiate a collapse.


You know, even when just furniture and papers are burning the temperature may reach well over 1000 Celsius degrees (from the Czech firefighter's server), atleast here in Middle Europe. Maybe you use special low-temperature burning paper and furniture, after all.


A couple things to consider:

Open atmosphere hydrocarbon fires burn at a maximum (ie perfect conditions) at 825 C. If there is reasonable ventilation, you can expect such temperatures or lower, especially as the smoke turns black (poor combustion behaviors from diminishing fuel -- both WTC Towers showed this).

Also, the temperatures of the fire don't matter so much as the temperatures to which the steel was heated, and in what amounts the steel was heated in the amounts of time available (102 and 56 minutes if I'm not mistaken). Heat is always lost in transfer, with much being lost to the atmosphere, concrete slabs, and the steel itself conducting heat away from sources.


Now, obtaining a 100% proof is rather hard without someone right on spot with a thermometer


No, hold on.

Fire temperature isn't what you're looking for. It would've played a role, but heated steel would be much easier to spot, and that is what you're looking for!

It glows in broad daylight much over 400 C. Between 600 C and 700 C, aluminum will melt (the perimeter facades and most of the planes were aluminum) and run a silvery gray. You may have also seen more buckling, as per NIST's theory. The problem with NIST is that they don't show enough buckled columns, or even properly establish that the apparent buckling was due to heat.


All this seems pretty obvious to me. Maybe you have some proof the temperature didn't reached such a level?


I don't really see those whom claims are asserted upon as being responsible to prove negatives.

If you want to claim there was sufficient loss of integrity from fire, that's your job to back up. Not mine.




Originally posted by AgentSmith
it's not as simple as the top 13 floors having to squash the rest of the building, you're treating it like one solid object which it wasn't. It only had to destroy sections at a time, not the whole thing.


Wow. I would think that one floor at a time is "sections" at a time, unless you're saying that each third collapsed as a whole or something. Are you? If not, then that's the whole problem. 13 versus 97. Didn't slow down. This isn't brain surgery.




Originally posted by LoKito
The thing that gets me about the fires is that the damage created by the airplane hitting the tower can not be recreated.


We know about how many columns were knocked out for the perimeter columns, and the could play with different figures for the core columns. It wouldn't be hard. Less than 15% loss of perimeter columns in the region in either tower and probably around the same or less of the core columns.

You're still faced with a huge challenge: NIST figures indicate that, on the uppermost floors, as in WTC1 for example, any given floor could lose about 75% of its ability to support its loads before failing. Impacts having knocked out 15% or less between the outer and inner parts of the building, you're still faced with something like >60% integrity loss from fire alone. There is no precedent for such integrity loss from fire in steel skyscrapers. But you could test it.

In fact, I think NIST did test it, but had to crank the temperatures (and maybe a couple other variables) up to unrealistic levels before any failure would result, and even only showed a local collapse. NIST also conducted experiments with office fires and steel in one of their labs and couldn't cause steel (trusses?) to fail. This is probably why you weren't aware of these tests.




Originally posted by northwolf
As you can see the "melts" at relatively high (1300C) Temperatures, but it turns into austenite at around 800C, the same temperature at where steel is kept and then rapidly cooled in tempering process.


Any evidence that any steel in the WTC was heated to such temperatures? It would be glowing pretty brightly in broad daylight if it were, and you might've even seen aluminum panels start melting and running (somewhere around 660 C I think). See if you can point out anything like that at the WTC.


(and steel conducts heat very well, so several dozen floor bellow the fire would have been softened too)


You forget that this also spreads out and lowers the temperatures of the steel. Not that I think your assertion of "several dozen floor[s]" has any credibility to it anyway.

[edit on 30-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I agree that there are alot of people who have their own theories about what happened. but honestly, i have met several people that do not understand what they are talking about.

Example:

My ex-father in law said " Nitrous makes a car faster cause it adds more fuel"
Me " nitrous actually works by cooling down the air ALLOWING more fuel to be used"
Ex-father in law: No it works like adding more fuel
Me: Then why not just ADD MORE FUEL?

It goes back an forth from there cause people do not understand the enough of logic and technicalities in the area. They gather what little info they can to sit on their side of the fence and go no further.

If you ask me what my oppinion is on the WTC catastrophy, i just think it sucks, it shouldn't have happend but it did. I only have more questions and do not claim to make an expert oppinion. However i do ask questions and do my research and look at what makes sense in the WHOLE picture, not just what i want to see. So please do not post negatives saying that the event could have ONLY happened this way wihtout a detail explanation. And then you will need an arsenal of well educated answers to contnue. This is how these things will get resolved, not by throwing curve balls to make other members defensive on their sebject. Please only proved data and expect it to be debunked or proven, but do not go in expecting to be right.

To bsbray11 good job with lots of good info. Thanks for the good read



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by scoobdude
I agree that there are alot of people who have their own theories about what happened. but honestly, i have met several people that do not understand what they are talking about.

Example:

My ex-father in law said " Nitrous makes a car faster cause it adds more fuel"
Me " nitrous actually works by cooling down the air ALLOWING more fuel to be used"
Ex-father in law: No it works like adding more fuel
Me: Then why not just ADD MORE FUEL?

It goes back an forth from there cause people do not understand the enough of logic and technicalities in the area. They gather what little info they can to sit on their side of the fence and go no further.

If you ask me what my oppinion is on the WTC catastrophy, i just think it sucks, it shouldn't have happend but it did. I only have more questions and do not claim to make an expert oppinion. However i do ask questions and do my research and look at what makes sense in the WHOLE picture, not just what i want to see. So please do not post negatives saying that the event could have ONLY happened this way wihtout a detail explanation. And then you will need an arsenal of well educated answers to contnue. This is how these things will get resolved, not by throwing curve balls to make other members defensive on their sebject. Please only proved data and expect it to be debunked or proven, but do not go in expecting to be right.

To bsbray11 good job with lots of good info. Thanks for the good read



it has nothing to do with alternate "theories" of what happened, it is about the official "theory" that is wrong in regards to the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 and the Ignorance of the collapse of WTC 7.

I'm no expert and i'm not here to make claims, i've like you said, "ask questions and do my research," why i would post on this thread is because i feel the need, not to push forward my personal theory, but to support those that are against the officail theory, in whatever way.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Tom Goose my comments were not directed to you nor the information you posted in the thread. I was simply trying to explain to the people who were taking one theory or the other and believing it blindly. From what i have seen you have provided information as well as an oppinion. Its the people that provide only an oppinion that worry (unless its a technical oppinion)

Sorry if you took that the wrong way.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
If the fires were as hot as the NIST claimed, we would have windows shattering and exploding anywhere near the impact zones. Since this was not observed, it makes you wonder..............



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join