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.

 

WTC Visual Explosives ('Squibs')

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   
bsbray11, It's referring to your statement that the buildings were built to withstand hurricane force winds. Which means just as they were said to be able to withstand a plane impact and failed. So the core strength and the channeling of stress to the truss sytem might not of been as remarkably strong as you say it is.

If you don't see my connection it's ok. And if you still find it illogical well that's ok too.




posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Let me explain what is meant by hurricane force winds: a lot of lateral strength. The perimeter columns and trusses could absorb a lot of lateral pressure or jolts or whatever the hell because of the way they were interconnected and related to the core structure. Not that it would explain the squibs if they didn't.

And the buildings did in fact withstand the plane impacts. If you think they collapsed from the ensuing fires, fair enough, but it's senseless to use that as argument against me considering that I don't think fires collapsed the buildings in the first place. That is illogical.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Let me explain what is meant by hurricane force winds: a lot of lateral strength. The perimeter columns and trusses could absorb a lot of lateral pressure or jolts or whatever the hell because of the way they were interconnected and related to the core structure. Not that it would explain the squibs if they didn't.

And the buildings did in fact withstand the plane impacts. If you think they collapsed from the ensuing fires, fair enough, but it's senseless to use that as argument against me considering that I don't think fires collapsed the buildings in the first place. That is illogical.


The buildings definately didn't withstand the plane impacts for me. Otherwise they would still be there.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomX

The buildings definately didn't withstand the plane impacts for me. Otherwise they would still be there.


They did withstands the impact. Not the following large fire in the impacted area



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Could of been cutters or explosives going on early, seems to fit better then what you all have provided.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Of course the collapse starts to happen from the impact areas. So cut charges were placed in those areas well before the planes crashed into them and than were not damaged when the impacts occur. Yeah that definately sounds better.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by DoomX

The buildings definately didn't withstand the plane impacts for me. Otherwise they would still be there.


They did withstands the impact. Not the following large fire in the impacted area


Is there a certain amount of time needed to be called a "withstand" ? Say the towers only stood for 10 minutes after the impacts. Would that still be considered withstanding?

If only such fires were present without the impact damage, I wonder how the buildings would have held up.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by DoomX

The buildings definately didn't withstand the plane impacts for me. Otherwise they would still be there.


They did withstands the impact. Not the following large fire in the impacted area


nor the thermate, thermite and rdx.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomX

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by DoomX

The buildings definately didn't withstand the plane impacts for me. Otherwise they would still be there.


They did withstands the impact. Not the following large fire in the impacted area


Is there a certain amount of time needed to be called a "withstand" ? Say the towers only stood for 10 minutes after the impacts. Would that still be considered withstanding?

If only such fires were present without the impact damage, I wonder how the buildings would have held up.


The towers were built to withstand multiple impacts, depending on where they were hit.

Frank Demartini's Statement

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 4


The walls in the basement exploded when the planes hit the 94th floor of WTC 1.

Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them.

...............

The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

"There was nothing there but rubble" Mike said. "We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press - gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.

........

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. ‘There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything’ he said


Plane and fires had nothing to do with the towers coming down.

A secret infiltration of the US government has USED the attacks to COVER a demolition. Who supports the cover and who supports the Constitution and why?



[edit on 29-6-2006 by Christophera]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christophera

The towers were built to withstand multiple impacts, depending on where they were hit.

Frank Demartini's Statement

. . . .




He had nothing to do with the original design or construction of the building.


Leslie Robertson: One of my jobs was to look at all of the possible events that might take place in a highrise building. And of course there had been in New York two incidences of aircraft impact, the most famous one of course being on the Empire State Building. Now, we were looking at an aircraft not unlike the Mitchell bomber that ran into the Empire State Building. We were looking at aircraft that was lost in the fog, trying to land. It was a low-flying, slow-flying 707, which was the largest aircraft of its time. And so we made calculations, not anywhere near the level of sophistication that we could today. But inside of our ability, we made calculations of what happened when the airplane goes in and it takes out a huge section of the outside wall of the building. And we concluded that it would stand. It would suffer but it would stand. And the outside wall would have a big hole in it, and the building would be in place. What we didn't look at is what happens to all that fuel. And perhaps we could be faulted for that, for not doing so. But for whatever reason we didn't look at that question of what would happen to the fuel.

www.pbs.org...





Originally posted by Christophera


The walls in the basement exploded when the planes hit the 94th floor of WTC 1.



Yeah, jet fuel and air has a nasty tendency to explode like that.



[edit on 29-6-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomX
Is there a certain amount of time needed to be called a "withstand" ?


Yeah. If they didn't fall immediately after the impacts then they withstood them. In fact, look up the word "impact". Notice that nothing inherent about the word itself involves fire of any sort.

Here's an interesting point on the fires, though: they apparently didn't heat the steel to some critical temperature until after the jet fuel had already burned away much earlier and they'd gone from fuel-efficient (lighter smoke) to more inefficient (darker smoke outputs). Considering less inefficient means less combusted hydrocarbons and less heat, that's a kind of puzzler.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Yeah, jet fuel and air has a nasty tendency to explode like that.


Do you remember any the stuff Valhall pointed out about that theory, Howard?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
If the explosive force from a fireball was powerfull enough to travel down to the lobby and blow out the doors and windows, there, then it was strong enough to knock down a 200 lbs hydraulic press.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christophera

The towers were built to withstand multiple impacts, depending on where they were hit.

Frank Demartini's Statement



Originally posted by HowardRoarkHe had nothing to do with the original design or construction of the building.


Are you attempting to assert that because he was not of the original design team that you know MORE than Frank Demartini about the planes ability to withstand airplane impacts?


What we didn't look at is what happens to all that fuel. And perhaps we could be faulted for that, for not doing so. But for whatever reason we didn't look at that question of what would happen to the fuel.

www.pbs.org...

All Robertson says there is they didn't examine the effects of a fuel fire. Why should they? The buildings was constructed of steel and concrete and that type construction does not fail from hydrocarbon fires that can only heat a small part to temperatures high enough to cause bending.


Originally posted by Christophera

The walls in the basement exploded when the planes hit the 94th floor of WTC 1.



Originally posted by HowardRoarkYeah, jet fuel and air has a nasty tendency to explode like that.


Can you show that fuel of any kind exploding caused concrete walls to fracture? Can you show that this has happened from a distance, ever?



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
If the explosive force from a fireball was powerfull enough to travel down to the lobby and blow out the doors and windows, there, then it was strong enough to knock down a 200 lbs hydraulic press.


I'm not so sure it did either, so that hardly logical.

Fireball down elevators from burning jet fuel, yes, but as Valhall's pointed out, among a lot of other things, the right amount's not going to be in the air for that when you have streams of it running.

[edit on 29-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
the right amount's not going to be in the air for that when you have streams of it running.

[edit on 29-6-2006 by bsbray11]


How is this determined?

Another powerful explosive force is a dust explosion.

Seeing that we're speculating on things like"the right amount is not going to be in the air when you have streams of it running"...speculate this.
The fuel was moving at 500 mph. It finds a verticle drop. It doesn't just "run down the shafts", the speed of its movment causes it to splash back and forth against the walls at the same time that its dropping creating a dispursed vapor. But that not all thats falling. With it is carried a certain amount of potentially combustible dust which just adds to the explosive force.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by bsbray11
the right amount's not going to be in the air for that when you have streams of it running.

[edit on 29-6-2006 by bsbray11]


How is this determined?

Another powerful explosive force is a dust explosion.

Seeing that we're speculating on things like"the right amount is not going to be in the air when you have streams of it running"...speculate this.
The fuel was moving at 500 mph. It finds a verticle drop. It doesn't just "run down the shafts", the speed of its movment causes it to splash back and forth against the walls at the same time that its dropping creating a dispursed vapor. But that not all thats falling. With it is carried a certain amount of potentially combustible dust which just adds to the explosive force.


A dispersed vapor does not ignite as easily as one created thermally and if the fuel was burning when it entered the core vapors would be consumed in fire. No explosive force.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christophera
A dispersed vapor does not ignite as easily as one created thermally and if the fuel was burning when it entered the core vapors would be consumed in fire. No explosive force.



fuel air explosions

Most of the fuel would have still been liquid as it entered the core shafts.

at some point as the liguid dispersed, the right vapor air mixture is reached. . . Kabloom!


don't forget, liquid fuel doesn't burn, only the vapors do.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Still looking for a reasonable answer for the squibs or jets of air being pushed out the sides of the building as it was collapsing.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Valhall already made a great point back in the pyroclastic cloud survivor thread, why not address what she has stated.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join