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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
The Foot of God Theory




Originally posted by HowardRoark


Good one.


Thought you'd like that.








[edit on 2006-6-6 by wecomeinpeace]




posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
BTW, physicist Steven Jones is going to be interviewed tommorow by Alex Jones, and he is going to provide new evidence that thermite or thermate was used to shear some of the steel columns. He and others recently concluded an analysis of some steel from one of the Twin Towers. The program airs from noon-3pm and from 10pm-1am ET (9-noon, 7-10 PT). Whatever your views, it will probably be worth listening to (hope I got the details correct):

Prof Steven Jones interview tomorrow (Wed, 6-7)



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
maybe you are forgeting to take into account the actual building construction being a radial suspension construction. The inner center core has suspension arms that go to the outer casement walls, the outer walls were not designed to support the full floor weight.

So what happens to the upper floors when the suspension truces are ripped apart ?. The outer walls begin to have the weight of the upper floors transfered to them. At the same time the upper weight of the center column now supporting 100% of the shared weight of the upper floors now detached from the suspension truces bears down and the lower connecting truces at the base of the tower begin to shear from the total suspended weight. As the upper floor weakens and the remaining truces above the impact point bend the outer walls fall away, the two undamaged sides then transfer all the remaining suspended weight down into the center column this total mass drove the center column down into the lower lobby beneth the tower and the downward motion of the center column pulled the lower outerwall section into the middle and the building collapsed down into itself basically.

Why WTC7 failed I am not sure, but from what I could see from the debris pattern looks like the building got pullvarized by falling debris.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Sigh..once again.....

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ... on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.

... Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Fire chief Daniel Nigro clearly thought the building could collapse. Here's why:

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.

at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged. ... until you had done either a couple of 360s around this whole site or if you got an aerial view somehow, you really couldn’t appreciate the scope of the damage." - Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years

So yes, the NYFD has said that WTC 7 was heavily damaged by the collapse of WTC 1. I forget who it was that said they timed the fall....good luck since there isnt a video that shows all 47 stories of the building. How do you know what happened after it disappeared behind the buildings? You don't. In addition, your formula doesnt take into account the widespread damage to the building that would also affect the fall time.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
by the way guest...if the US government had sent all the steel to china...how did this 'professor' do his tests? and which steel did he test? the thousands of pieces that had to be torched to fit into the dump trucks?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
by the way guest...if the US government had sent all the steel to china...how did this 'professor' do his tests? and which steel did he test? the thousands of pieces that had to be torched to fit into the dump trucks?

I never claimed all of the steel in the Twin Towers was shipped to China. If others have though, perhaps only 99+% was disposed of. All I know about the interview tomorrow is the brief snippet I posted earlier. I'll post a summary after listening to it tomorrow.

I don't know why you put 'professor' in quotes. He is apparently a legitimate professor,
Professor Steven E. Jones

I emailed him once with a question about the melting point of steel, and he responded in a few days. If you have any specific criticisms of his paper, my guess is that he'd be happy to hear from you. He posts some of the letters he receives here,
Comments regarding Prof. Jones’ "Why Indeed Did the WTC ...



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Does light aggrigate concrete have any strength against stress and strain? No only against compression. If you drop a piece of light aggrigate concrete will it shatter? Yes.


By the way thermite doesn't explode. IT BURNS. CONCRETE DOESN'T BURN.


sure concrete can shatter, did you think i though that they burned old sidwalks away to make new ones. but no matter how hard you hit a piece of concrete in will never pulverize into dust. at least not without a lot of help.

I asked if anyone knew of a man made force that could pulverize concrete and all anyone could come back with was trash talking the thermite. i already said i meant thermal, maybe a little less twitchy on the quote button, try reading a little farther ahead first huh.


Originally posted by LeftBehind


Which properties were similar to a volcano? How does thermite transfer volcano-like properties?

I didn't see any lava that day, but I think any burning building will fill the air with ash, fitting one volcano like property.




agian with the thermite.

yes a building fire can leave some ash on your car, but not a hell of a lot. I'm sure you noticed how much ash was at the WTC. I should point out that this ash did not get thick and heavy until the explosion...sorry collaspe
so that being said i guess the "intense fire" never caused the ash but it was actuall something else that caused the collapse and resulted in the thich ash.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Heres a Video of Thermite.... pretty cool and informative.

The Video is called Thermite versus Liquid Nitrogen

videos.streetfire.net...


And a lab expirement with a couple of College Students...also pretty informative..

video.google.com...


A Thermite Grenade (This one is just hilarious watch how the soldier runs away ahah)

video.google.com...




[edit on 6-6-2006 by Poison]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Just found this off of google Video...I don't know if it has been posted but here it is

It's supposedly a video of Thermite burning along the WTC

video.google.com...

[edit on 6-6-2006 by Poison]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Swampfox,

The fact that the FDNY was hesitant on sending guys into WTC7 in no way accounts for this:



You're sweeping virtually every issue with WTC7's collapse under a vague rug of general damage that doesn't help here at all. Short of issuing a technical report, which NIST is having enough trouble doing, or at least freaking photographs of the damage and relating this to the inner columns, there's no way the firefighter testimony on the building's conditions prior to collapse accounts for a damned thing. Pretty much all you're suggesting is "wowee geez super exterior damage." You're not explaining the symmetrical, free-fall collapse of the core columns. That's the major issue here. It just doesn't happen outside of demolitions.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Poison
Just found this off of google Video...I don't know if it has been posted but here it is

It's supposedly a video of Thermite burning along the WTC

[edit on 6-6-2006 by Poison]


Looks like burning jet fuel leaking out to me.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
[snip]
So yes, the NYFD has said that WTC 7 was heavily damaged by the collapse of WTC 1. I forget who it was that said they timed the fall....good luck since there isnt a video that shows all 47 stories of the building. How do you know what happened after it disappeared behind the buildings? You don't. In addition, your formula doesnt take into account the widespread damage to the building that would also affect the fall time.


The video frame clips here show the building collapsed in 6-7 secs,
CBS video frames at 1 second intervals

That's 6-7 seconds from the last time when the downward velocity of the top of the building is zero, not when the explosions are going off below, causing slight movement at the top of the building. LOL

That's still way too fast, as the program I posted earlier (East Penthouse atop WTC 7 imploded too!" thread ) shows a min collapse time of 8.58 secs. It assumes the building collapsed into a pile of rubble 47*0.62 meters, or 95.6 feet high, which is almost 8 stories tall. The program makes the assumption that the 47 stories are suspended in mid-air, they (temporarily) slow the fall due to the principle of conservation of momentum, and that the building and air provided no resistance to the fall. LOL2.

A mathematician friend of Steven Jones did a calculation which shows a min collapse time of 8.5-9.0 secs. I'm sure his calculations are more sophisticated and accurate than mine. For example, maybe he used different floor widths, different masses for the floors and roof, etc. I'll let everyone know when it's posted on the www.st911.org website.

[edit on 7-6-2006 by guest100]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by guest100
BTW, physicist Steven Jones is going to be interviewed tommorow by Alex Jones, and he is going to provide new evidence that thermite or thermate was used to shear some of the steel columns. He and others recently concluded an analysis of some steel from one of the Twin Towers. The program airs from noon-3pm and from 10pm-1am ET (9-noon, 7-10 PT). Whatever your views, it will probably be worth listening to (hope I got the details correct):

Prof Steven Jones interview tomorrow (Wed, 6-7)


The interview lasted almost one hour, and will probably be posted at www.infowars.com sometime soon. Therefore, I'm not going to post a summary as it would be too time consuming, as well as unnecessary. However, he did say the steel that he analyzed came from one of the "9/11 Memorial Parks", and that he has a way to non-destructively test the samples. They showed the presence of thermate (thermite with sulphur and other things), but he has not finished his quantitative analysis. Sulphur can lower the melting point of steel from 2750F to 1600F, just like salt on ice lowers its melting point. Also, the columns were cut at angles which is routine in demolitions.

Near the end of the interview, either he or Alex Jones said "neocons" (the smarter ones presumably), are now abondoning the official theory, and are blaming Arabs for having planted explosives in the building. Anyone dumb enough to still believe the official 9-11 conspiracy theory is probably dumb enough to believe that as well. IMO

[edit on 7-6-2006 by guest100]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Looks like burning jet fuel leaking out to me.


Did you know that fire is a chemical reaction, and not a substance like molten metal that can just fall off the side of a building?




posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Here's the link to Professor Steven Jones' interview that discusses the results of new tests on metal from the Twin Towers,

physicist Steven Jones interview (6-7-06)



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   
link

I think this will explain something. Though the temperature of the jet fuel would not be able to fully melt the steel, it wouldn't have to either. The explosion plus the heat from the flames damaged the towers enough so that it wouldn't be able hold the weight of the rest of the tower on top of it.

As for the explosions that people heard, who is to say what those were, those could have been anything. Maybe a boiler exploded, or a pipe bursted. Who knows?



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by nt327
link

I think this will explain something. Though the temperature of the jet fuel would not be able to fully melt the steel, it wouldn't have to either. The explosion plus the heat from the flames damaged the towers enough so that it wouldn't be able hold the weight of the rest of the tower on top of it.

As for the explosions that people heard, who is to say what those were, those could have been anything. Maybe a boiler exploded, or a pipe bursted. Who knows?



"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600" ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177)"


So much for excessive fire damage to the system to cause a final symmetrical collapse!


[edit on 6/12/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar


"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600" ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177)"


So much for excessive fire damage to the system to cause a final symmetrical collapse!


[edit on 6/12/2006 by Masisoar]


What happened to the paint on the other specimines?

Only a few samples, is that representative of the whole?


Again, the issue is not how hot the columns got, but how hot the floor trusses were.

It was the loss of the floor trusses that caused the exterior columns to buckle.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   
so the peices that he used for his "research" were cut into angles...that couldnt of been done during the clean up right??? The WTC was designed loosely like the human body...with a spine and "rib cage" The middle column acted like the spine of the building bearing most of the weight when the plane went through the building you would have to assume that a big chunk of the center collumn was compromised with it...now let me give you a real quote from a real steel worker in NYC not some schlep from loose change "Heres a fact. NUMBER 1, i am a Local 40, NYC Structural Ironworker. In case you didnt know, we BUILT NY. Skyscrapers, bridges, and every steel structure in between. The WTC Towers are what was known as "lightweight" construction, meaning the Twin Towers were solid at the very core, but all around the perimeter was lightweight steel, designed to sway and give due to wind etc. (An example of a "heavy" construction high-rise would be the Empire State building, which was built with heavy weight steel members all the way around, and brick faced).

Fact 2, those towers were designed to stand the impact of an airplane, and even on 9/11, they did withstand the impact. Fact3, the towers in the case of a collpase were designed to do EXACTLY what they did, collapse vertically rather tah topple over (could you imagine the damage had they fell horizontally over?). Fact 4, The reason for the collapse was the Jet fuel burning at over 2000 degrees, which in turn weakened the steel structural members, which in turn led to the collapse.

Fact 5, I WAS THERE. I was born, raised, and currently dwell in NYC (And i aint never leaving here). I watched, with my own eyes, no "hollywood" involved, the planes hitting the buildings. I got down to the site the morning of the 12th, and was down there for 2 1/2 months straight. I SAW THE PLANE WRECKAGE WITH MY OWN EYES. And having the experience, and knowledge of how those buildings were designed AND BUILT, im TELLING you what happened. There is no conspiracy in this whatsoever"



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It was the loss of the floor trusses that caused the exterior columns to buckle.



wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixd.pdf

The following presents some preliminary findings based on the analyses under service loading conditions:

Linear stability analysis was used to examine the stability of the undamaged WTC 1 under service loads through increased unbraced column lengths (floor removal). The tower was stable when two floors were removed. Two core columns buckled when three floors were removed, but the tower maintained its overall stability. The tower also maintained its stability when four columns buckled with four floors removed. The analysis suggested that global instability of the tower occurred when five floors were removed from the model.





[edit on 2006-6-13 by wecomeinpeace]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join