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.

 

The Proof Is In The Core

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

WCIP found a plausible device, even if it does have to be pretty thick and have a couple of pounds of thermite. Does anyone have a plausible method of setting these things, putting bombs on every single floor, and then crashing planes precisely where the thermite was planted?


Obviously you and Vushta haven't been listening to me. I have answered your question many times now and you guys won't listen. My scenario:

Thermite was placed at select areas on the core columns. To do this, one wouldn't need to get permission from the individual tennets in the building because the core and duct work in the core was accessible to the maintence crew of the building, etc. Remember that Bush's brother's company was in charge of the security, security guards, cameras, maintenance personell etc. I'm not implicating Bush but just saying that one company controlled these aspects and could easily let slip a few workers "repairing" anything they want to say they were repairing in the core area. That's how a few people could get access and do it without many people knowing. And the only people who actually had to know would be someone at the top (Bush) to get these few people access. And obviously the few people who planted them.

As far as putting bombs on every single floor. I believe there were no bombs set in the buildings.

As far as crashing planes precisely where the thermite was. This is a red herring. They didn't need to set the thermite where the planes crashed. Once the building had no more support from the core, where do you think the building will start to fail? Right where the weekest part is.....i.e. the impact zones. That's the reason the buildings failed in these areas, not because there were bombs set there or thermite there....it was the weekest part of the outer columns so obviously, it would start to buckle in these areas. This would also account for the floors pulling the outer columns inwards. Once the strength of the core was weekened enough, the floors would start to sag along with the core thus pulling the outer columns with them.

That's my scenario of how a few people could rig the towers with thermite so not a lot of people had to be in "the know". How they didn't have to set explosives and charges in the building (at all). And how they didn't have to place the thermite at the exact zone of impact. If I can answer anymore questions on my theory, please let me know.




posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Griff..But HOW was it rigged?

So you don't believe the controlled demo/bombs theory?
So much for the squibs. But how does severing a verticl column cause a building to collapse in such a manner. How does thermite cut horizontally? If a gap of say 1/2"or 1" was produced by being cut away by thermite how does this cause such a collapse?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Griff..But HOW was it rigged?

So you don't believe the controlled demo/bombs theory?
So much for the squibs. But how does severing a verticl column cause a building to collapse in such a manner. How does thermite cut horizontally? If a gap of say 1/2"or 1" was produced by being cut away by thermite how does this cause such a collapse?


I like how you try to derail this with "HOW was it rigged." Let's answer the the rest of the questions first as "HOW it was rigged is addresed in many other threads. Simply put... ACCESS.

1. He does believe in controlled demo... just using incendaries instead of explosives. READ vushta. Can you differentitiate between the two?

2. Severing the CORE VERTICAL COLUMS would remove minimally 50% of the support and cause total, vertical collapse pulling down the building from the inside.

3. Thermite cuts in whatever direction the shell/charge is "shapped" to cut in. Do some research.

4. Cutting a support column in half, at an angle (suppose 45 degrees)... even a 1mm wide cut, could/will cause it to "slide off" and remove 100% of it's ability to support ANYTHING.

Your questions are lame and I do not know why I even answer you.

[edit on 10-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Well Griff that theory certainly makes more sense than the built-in explosives, or the "guy with backpack" theory, however I still see a few problems with it.

Marvin Bush.

The man was on the board of directors. He had no operational control that would allow him to do something like this. Even a CEO would have trouble with this as they would have to communicate their conspiracy through the people actually on the scene at the WTC. Not only that, but he was only on the board until fiscal year 2000.

I'm glad we can agree that there were no bombs in the building. A thermite only theory is slightly more plausible, but most of the CT's here will start calling you a government agent if you don't acknowledge the "squibs" or the "loss of momentum", and other such nonsense.


Another problem. If you believe thermite was only used in the core, that red stuff dripping out of the building is not caused by thermite then? Wouldn't the thermite have to be at the perimeter for that?

And finally. If you have no problem believing that the failure of a single floor caused by thermite could cause the collapse, why is it so hard to believe that a plane impact and the subsequent fires could cause it?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Well Griff that theory certainly makes more sense than the built-in explosives, or the "guy with backpack" theory, however I still see a few problems with it.

Marvin Bush.

The man was on the board of directors. He had no operational control that would allow him to do something like this. Even a CEO would have trouble with this as they would have to communicate their conspiracy through the people actually on the scene at the WTC. Not only that, but he was only on the board until fiscal year 2000.


If you think the CEO cannot get whatever he wants in a company... QUIETLY, you are dead nuts wrong. Of course he would get off the board before the actual incident. Check out the relation ship to a guy named Walker in this too.. Quite interesting.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
Another problem. If you believe thermite was only used in the core, that red stuff dripping out of the building is not caused by thermite then? Wouldn't the thermite have to be at the perimeter for that?


Is it possible that it was both or that this anomaly has been misjudged?


Originally posted by LeftBehind
And finally. If you have no problem believing that the failure of a single floor caused by thermite could cause the collapse, why is it so hard to believe that a plane impact and the subsequent fires could cause it?


Where was it said the thermite would have been on a single floor? Did I miss that part? Thermite releases far more focused energy than a kerosene fire so even IF it was one floor, severing the core with thermite is a FAR CRY from a burning jet fuel fire.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta


Once you locate the proper spot for each set you have to remove the drywall or whatever the wallcovering is...and then..oh #..the steel is cover with fireproofing..better chip that off...hope no one notices...and then place the charggg....no wait..I have to prefail the steel by cutting thru it about 90%...gotta get the oxy/acet rig up here..hope nobody wonders why I'm cutting the beams..I'll just tell them I'm soldering some wires etc.


So, for it to have been a CD, they would have had to cut 90% of the steel? But, in your scenario of plane impacts and fire, no steel had to be cut? Why the double standard? If the buildings were shoddy enough for just a plane impact and fire to bring them down, why does all this prep work for the beams and columns have to be implemented? I still don't get the reasoning of it having to be weakened and perfectly organized for a CD but in a chaotic collapse from fire, none of this specialized prep work had to be done?


These facts WILL..NOT..GO..AWAY.


Neither will the above mentioned facts.


So the only avenue open to the CT is to claim some "new technique that no one knows about was used" or saying that "the explosives were there all along". Neither of these is remotely believable.


Neither is plane impact and fire as the cause of collapse.



So when someone tries to say anything like "Stick it on the walls and...BOOM!"..I'm sorry, but it IS laughable and can't be taken seriously.


But yet a chaotic fire and plane impact aren't laughable and can be taken seriously? A chaotic bomb (plane) can achieve what would take months to design and implement? You guys are funny.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Griff..But HOW was it rigged?

So you don't believe the controlled demo/bombs theory?
So much for the squibs. But how does severing a verticl column cause a building to collapse in such a manner. How does thermite cut horizontally? If a gap of say 1/2"or 1" was produced by being cut away by thermite how does this cause such a collapse?



It was probably rigged the same way they rig thermite welding.

No, I don't believe that there were conventional bombs in the building. As far as the "squibs" and other things. They are anomylies that I can't explain. I'm just an engineer...not someone who knows air pressure physics etc.

I don't believe that the thermite was placed horizontally. I think it was placed at 45 degree angles. This would cause them to slip off using gravity as the driving force. That would cause the building to collapse in such a manner.

Let me ask you. If fire doesn't sever columns, how did the buildings collapse in such a manner? Something had to sever the columns to initiate collapse.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff[/i

So, for it to have been a CD, they would have had to cut 90% of the steel? But, in your scenario of plane impacts and fire, no steel had to be cut? Why the double standard? If the buildings were shoddy enough for just a plane impact and fire to bring them down, why does all this prep work for the beams and columns have to be implemented? I still don't get the reasoning of it having to be weakened and perfectly organized for a CD but in a chaotic collapse from fire, none of this specialized prep work had to be done?

Correct.

What double standard? I'm saying that no steel had to be cut because it wasn't a CD.
If it was a CD all the prep has to be there.
The building weren't shoddy.
Your last sentence is apples to oranges.


These facts WILL..NOT..GO..AWAY.


Neither will the above mentioned facts.


So the only avenue open to the CT is to claim some "new technique that no one knows about was used" or saying that "the explosives were there all along". Neither of these is remotely believable.


Neither is plane impact and fire as the cause of collapse.



So when someone tries to say anything like "Stick it on the walls and...BOOM!"..I'm sorry, but it IS laughable and can't be taken seriously.


But yet a chaotic fire and plane impact aren't laughable and can be taken seriously? A chaotic bomb (plane) can achieve what would take months to design and implement? You guys are funny.




Neither will the above mentioned facts.

What facts are those?



Neither is plane impact and fire as the cause of collapse.


I know thats your opinion, but theres are no facts to support it.



But yet a chaotic fire and plane impact aren't laughable and can be taken seriously? A chaotic bomb (plane) can achieve what would take months to design and implement? You guys are funny.


You didn't address the point, but I'm used to that.

No they are not laughable. There was nothing laughable about 911.
It wasn't just the bomb(plane)..it was the fire and physics added to the mix.

The crashes and explosions and subsequent fires were not covert..they were right there in the open and happened immediately.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Vushta
Griff..But HOW was it rigged?

So you don't believe the controlled demo/bombs theory?
So much for the squibs. But how does severing a verticl column cause a building to collapse in such a manner. How does thermite cut horizontally? If a gap of say 1/2"or 1" was produced by being cut away by thermite how does this cause such a collapse?



It was probably rigged the same way they rig thermite welding.

No, I don't believe that there were conventional bombs in the building. As far as the "squibs" and other things. They are anomylies that I can't explain. I'm just an engineer...not someone who knows air pressure physics etc.

I don't believe that the thermite was placed horizontally. I think it was placed at 45 degree angles. This would cause them to slip off using gravity as the driving force. That would cause the building to collapse in such a manner.

Let me ask you. If fire doesn't sever columns, how did the buildings collapse in such a manner? Something had to sever the columns to initiate collapse.


Good Grief Griff.

Welding is done as construction is being done.

How would that same process have to be altered it were to be done after the building was fully constructed and occupied. Would the process be any different?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Marvin Bush.

The man was on the board of directors. He had no operational control that would allow him to do something like this. Even a CEO would have trouble with this as they would have to communicate their conspiracy through the people actually on the scene at the WTC. Not only that, but he was only on the board until fiscal year 2000.


There's no way you or I can be truelly confident in saying what exactly Marvin Bush could and could not do.


I'm glad we can agree that there were no bombs in the building. A thermite only theory is slightly more plausible, but most of the CT's here will start calling you a government agent if you don't acknowledge the "squibs" or the "loss of momentum", and other such nonsense.


Like I said. I'm not qualified to address these anomylies.



Another problem. If you believe thermite was only used in the core, that red stuff dripping out of the building is not caused by thermite then? Wouldn't the thermite have to be at the perimeter for that?


If it was thermite from the core or melted aluminum, it still had to pole somewhere and run off at the last minute. Wasn't there supposedly a slump in the floor that initiated this pouring off of this material? The real question is if it was thermite from somewhere in the core, would that have been hot enough to slice through the concrete floor? I don't think so and would have poled there until the floor slumped.


And finally. If you have no problem believing that the failure of a single floor caused by thermite could cause the collapse, why is it so hard to believe that a plane impact and the subsequent fires could cause it?


My belief is not that a single floor caused the collapse, it was the collapse of the core structure. There's a difference. Either way, something had to sever the core for it to collapse in the way it did IMO.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
You didn't address the point, but I'm used to that.


What is your point?


No they are not laughable.



You know what is laughable? You guys who think that a chaotic plane crash and fire can do the same job that you guys claim would take months to implement. Now that's laughable. Let me ask you. Why do you think they sever 90% of the steel in a controlled demolition? So that it gives no resistance. Do you know why they don't want columns to give resistance? Because if they did, the fall wouldn't be controlled. So, how did a plane impacting a couple of floors and subsequent fires cause 90% of the columns to be severed/split etc.? I don't know how else to put it. If you believe that for a controlled demolition to work that they would have had to sever columns and pack so much explosives in there then you also would have to believe that the same would be neccessary for a plane impact and fires to do the exact same thing.

Edit: Don't say that the plane exploding was a major part of it either. You guys keep saying that you just can't put the explosive just anywhere...well, the same applies to the plane explosion.

[edit on 7/10/2006 by Griff]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

Good Grief Griff.

Welding is done as construction is being done.

How would that same process have to be altered it were to be done after the building was fully constructed and occupied. Would the process be any different?


You're acting like people aren't inovative. "Boy, we have the technology but for some reason we can't think beyond welding for construction.....duh..were's my hole in the ground again?".

Plus, why do I have to answer your questions of could it have been done. Use google.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
it is obvious, that vushta, like leftbehind, is completely incapable of finding ANY fault with the government infochain. it is flawless, and all the people in the government are philanthropist angels. there is never any nepotism or subterfuge. secret police protect. the media has no agenda.

griff, i would agree that thermite alone COULD have done it, but i KNOW that explosives were used. in my 'faster than freefall' thread, i proved it.



although the resolution is poor, it is still clear enough.

i used the center of the falling object as a reference, because it is spinning in space.
i used the lowest visible point of dust in the debris clouds.

the short vertical purple line, shows how far the freefalling debris(which has been picking up speed at the acceleration of gravity for several floors).
the longer blue line shows a squib, or 'puff', if you prefer', appearing lower than the freefalling object. that blue line is like, FOUR TIMES outaccelerating gravity, and is supposedly being caused by pancaking floors. impossible. falling through a steel tower cannot be easier than falling through air. only a timed detonation could cause the dust to outpace freefalling debris. incidentally, in the second frame, you can also see new debris appear from the side of the building, BELOW the freefalling debris.

and here is how they rigged the towers from a very clever fellow.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Here's a simple calculation regarding the "squibs".

I used P1V1/T1=P2V2/T2 This is the Combined Gas Law

Assuming temperature stays the same...we could use temperature defferentials if need be....maybe another calculation when I'm done here. This leads us to.

P1V1=P2V2

I have started with a total volume of 1830730 m^3. This assumes all air in the building including core. One story has 16643 m^3. So the volume decreases by 16643 m^3 every floor that "pancakes" on the remaining floor. Also assumed in this calculation is that NO air is lost while the volume of the building decreases (pancakes).

Here is an excell spread sheet calculating the pressure of each floor after the floor above has "pancaked".

Story Volume m^3 Pressure atm

110 1830730 1
109 1814087 1.009174312
108 1797444 1.009259259
107 1780801 1.009345794
106 1764158 1.009433962
105 1747515 1.00952381
104 1730872 1.009615385
103 1714229 1.009708738
102 1697586 1.009803922
101 1680943 1.00990099
100 1664300 1.01
99 1647657 1.01010101
98 1631014 1.010204082
97 1614371 1.010309278
96 1597728 1.010416667
95 1581085 1.010526316
94 1564442 1.010638298
93 1547799 1.010752688
92 1531156 1.010869565
91 1514513 1.010989011
90 1497870 1.011111111
89 1481227 1.011235955
88 1464584 1.011363636
87 1447941 1.011494253
86 1431298 1.011627907
85 1414655 1.011764706
84 1398012 1.011904762
83 1381369 1.012048193
82 1364726 1.012195122
81 1348083 1.012345679
80 1331440 1.0125
79 1314797 1.012658228
78 1298154 1.012820513
77 1281511 1.012987013
76 1264868 1.013157895
75 1248225 1.013333333
74 1231582 1.013513514
73 1214939 1.01369863
72 1198296 1.013888889
71 1181653 1.014084507
70 1165010 1.014285714
69 1148367 1.014492754
68 1131724 1.014705882
67 1115081 1.014925373
66 1098438 1.015151515
65 1081795 1.015384615
64 1065152 1.015625
63 1048509 1.015873016
62 1031866 1.016129032
61 1015223 1.016393443
60 998580 1.016666667
59 981937 1.016949153
58 965294 1.017241379
57 948651 1.01754386
56 932008 1.017857143
55 915365 1.018181818
54 898722 1.018518519
53 882079 1.018867925
52 865436 1.019230769
51 848793 1.019607843
50 832150 1.02
49 815507 1.020408163
48 798864 1.020833333
47 782221 1.021276596
46 765578 1.02173913
45 748935 1.022222222
44 732292 1.022727273
43 715649 1.023255814
42 699006 1.023809524
41 682363 1.024390244
40 665720 1.025
39 649077 1.025641026
38 632434 1.026315789
37 615791 1.027027027
36 599148 1.027777778
35 582505 1.028571429
34 565862 1.029411765
33 549219 1.03030303
32 532576 1.03125
31 515933 1.032258065
30 499290 1.033333333
29 482647 1.034482759
28 466004 1.035714286
27 449361 1.037037037
26 432718 1.038461538
25 416075 1.04
24 399432 1.041666667
23 382789 1.043478261
22 366146 1.045454545
21 349503 1.047619048
20 332860 1.05
19 316217 1.052631579
18 299574 1.055555556
17 282931 1.058823529
16 266288 1.0625
15 249645 1.066666667
14 233002 1.071428571
13 216359 1.076923077
12 199716 1.083333333
11 183073 1.090909091
10 166430 1.1
9 149787 1.111111111
8 133144 1.125
7 116501 1.142857143
6 99858 1.166666667
5 83215 1.2
4 66572 1.25
3 49929 1.333333333
2 33286 1.5
1 16643 2
0 0


Notice that after 110 stories, the pressure is at 2 atmospheres. I used atmospheres because it doesn't matter. I could have converted to pascals if i wanted but since all designations stay constant, it doesn't matter.

So, at 50 stories we have 1.02 atmospheres of pressure. Is that enough to stream across a whole floor and break a window and cause "stuff" to fly out 100 + feet horizontally? I doubt it. Remember that this calculation takes into account that ALL the air would be compressed. Something to think about.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Don't confuse things with empirical data Griff!!!



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
But it shows that even with no loss of air, that the most pressure it could be is 2 atmospheres. That is as long as I've done the calcs correctly.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
But it shows that even with no loss of air, that the most pressure it could be is 2 atmospheres. That is as long as I've done the calcs correctly.


Just kidding bud.

You did not even subtract for all of the air leaving the wide open top did you?

Your calculations are VERY generous to the official story if that is the case.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   



from 'david b. benson'


Ejected materials during collapse --- Here is an approximation to the horizontal ejection speeds. For simplicity, assume that all the air in the core escapes down vents, shafts and stairwells. Also assume that all the air on each floor outside the core is forced out the windows, with the visible particles entrained. The simplified model of the right side of a floor looks like

_____________________________________
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------

in side view, with the core to the left and (all window) to the right. The descending mass is assumed to act as a perfect piston, descending flat down to the next floor. As the exterior walls formed a square but the core was a non-square rectangle, there were long sides and short sides. We consider only the long side, where the air had further to travel. The distance from the core to the exterior wall on a long side was d1 = (63.7 - 27.1)/2 m and d0 = (63.7 - 42.4)/2 m on a short side.

Now consider a trapezoid with depth d1, width 42.4 m on the interior side and width 63.7 m on the exterior side. All the air in this trapezoid is assumed to be forced out the exterior face. The area of the trapezoid is 970.815 m^2 and half the air is in a trapezoid with the same exterior side and depth 8.24 m. In other words, the 'average' particle of air lies on the 8.24 m line dividing the outer portion from the inner portion.

Let d = 8.24 m and h = 3.7 m, the height of one floor. When the perfect piston descends h/2 m, we assume that the outer half of the air mass has been forced out. Then this piston acts as a velocity multiplier by the ratio of d/(h/2),

v = (2d/h)V

where v is the speed of the 'average' particle of air along the dividing line and V is the speed of the descending piston. (For simplicity, we assume no acceleration of the descending piston.) Plugging in the numbers,

v = 4.45 V

and assuming a descending speed of V = 29 m/s, the 'average' particle of air has a speed of 129 m/s at the window! But the last particle of air, with the farthest to go, must travel d1 m in the same time,

v' = (2d1/h) = 8.89 V,

i.e., 258 m/s !  

Just using the 'average', 129 m/s = 464 km/hr, which is a mighty wind indeed, 279 mph.

This simple model just produced numbers which seem to me to be too large by a factor of, say, three. Those who can look at the videos are encouraged to suggest more realistic estimates for the speed of horizontal ejection right at the edge of a descending tower.


i honestly can't make head nor tails of fluid dynamics.
but, although this guy, david, is sitting firmly on the other side of the fence, his model for one floor's worth of air looks valid to me.

once again, i have no idea what effect this has on collapse, but it does show that there would be a 'mighty (horizontal) wind' from the extreme compression of air between floors.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
It accounts for no loss of air anywhere except into the next floor below. It's just to show the pressure difference at each floor if all the air from the floor above compresses into the floor below and so on. So, if all the air from the building was to be compressed into the last floor...it would only make the pressure twice that of what it started with.

It doesn't account for temperature differences so it could be off if the temperatures affect it significantly.....but I think bringing in the temps is a little over my head at this point. Meaning it would take me alot longer to calculate the pressure difference.

It also doesn't account for blockages of air that might be pressurized at different floors. This calculation accounts for the air being able to be compressed into the next level. For duct working and such, the calcs would be different because the volume of the ductwork won't change.....so if anyone wants to calculate...go for it. I'm out of time at work today and will be in NYC the next 2 days doing inspections. Hopefully, I'll be able to check in those days.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
yeah. i know it's a very specific calculation. but that's GOOD, in my opinion.

each floor was virtually hermetically sealed. there is of course duct work, and elevator shafts, but, after the fire in the seventies, the weak points and holes between floors were located, and modifications were made to seal them.

so, in other words, the air on each floor would have a CUSHIONING effect on the collapsing floors from above. you can't just push all that air out at those velocities, because even air has inertia and counterforce. you push on the air, the air pushes back.

so, if the towers falling can MATHEMATICALLY push that kind of air out of the way, at those velocities, then when you factor other things back in, (like the presence of windows and spandrels and columns), the immense air cushion has considerable power to resist collapse.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join