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 Explosives: A Scientific Analysis

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Slap Nuts I believe there was already a debate over the columns being reinforced with concrete, and the majority of sources said they were. (Usually the ones where the information was put out prior to 9/11.)




posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
No, they were not.



An acutal WTC column from inside an elevator shaft.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
An acutal WTC column from inside an elevator shaft.


Too many variables to debunk with a single image, of a single face, of a single column.

Would the concrete in the core have extended the entire height of the building? Would it have been outside of the columns, or in-between them, or on the inside, or some combination?



I still think it's a good possibility.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Hello HowardRoark! Welcome to the party!

So before this thread goes off into the nether-regions of speculative minutia, I'd like to reiterate my initial three questions/points:



#1 - I have frequently heard people state that "explosives couldn't have been used, because no one heard explosives going off". This video, during the first five minutes, presents eyewitness account after eyewitness account of the sounds of explosions, bombs, etc. going off in the buildings. So if you have a different explanation for those explosions, that's fine, but let's establish here and now that there most certainly were eye witness accounts of explosions after the planes had impacted. So what is your explanation for these secendary explosions?

#2 - If the official story and the 9/11 commission reports are to be believed, why do they deny the existance of the 47 core columns so clearly seen during the construction of the buildings and in all the blue prints?

#3 - What is your response to the NIST's estimate that the core columns would only have reached a temperature of 600 degrees, rather than the 1500 degrees needed to cause the softening of the steel?


Let the fireworks begin.


Also, let's please try to avoid debating wether or not the steel core columns were reinforced with concrete. I don't think we'll ever have a definative answer to that question, which in my mind is rediculous because you'd think that information would be very easy to find, and irrefutable. Either they were or they weren't. But sadly this is not the case.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
About the jetfuel theory. How could it crawl down from the top floor to the basement? The jetfuel somehow went down 198 different elevator shafts to the bottom?

What is it a slinky?

Not to mention half of the jetfuel exploded outside of the building in a giant fireball.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Liquid jet fuel falling down an elevator shaft is not going to cause a massive explosion if it catches on fire in the first place.

Jet fuel isn't an explosive, and a fuel-air explosion requires a very particular proportion of fuel to air. Not just liquid jet fuel falling, and then catching on fire. That is absolutely ridiculous to try to use as an explosive.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
First, I would like Slapnuts to remove my name from the quotes he has stated. I did not write that 'encased in concrete garbage' he was ranting about in the first page.

Second, there was a man who was burned in the basement of the WTC if I remember, but let me go find something on the web. THere was also damamge to the sky lobbies that were reported by the FDNY on site and PA workers.

www.usatoday.com...

Here is a link to a credible news source about the jet fuel and the elevators.


I actually read it in the book 102 minutes, very good from a survival point of view.

I was trying to state where some of the reports of 'explosions' came from that day.

[edit on 25-8-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

I actually read it in the book 102 minutes, very good from a survival point of view.

I was trying to state where some of the reports of 'explosions' came from that day.


you, as a government apologist, must learn:

"the explosions were exploding transformers".....

'kay?



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   
As this thread will now make the slow but inevitable slide towards oblivion, I'd like to thank all those who participated, and point out how interesting it is that when there's no minor detail for the official story champions to nit-pick and side track with, and there are actual legitimate scientific points brought up to which they can't answer, or contradictions in the official story are shown, these threads tend to slip away unnoticed.

Interesting, isn't it?



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Liquid jet fuel falling down an elevator shaft is not going to cause a massive explosion if it catches on fire in the first place.


When did it catch fire? That is the $64 question.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Jet fuel isn't an explosive, and a fuel-air explosion requires a very particular proportion of fuel to air. Not just liquid jet fuel falling, and then catching on fire. That is absolutely ridiculous to try to use as an explosive.


zenstoves.net/MSDS/JetFuels.pdf

According to that, the LEL is 0.6 and the UEL is 5.6.

Sounds explosive to me.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
zenstoves.net/MSDS/JetFuels.pdf

According to that, the LEL is 0.6 and the UEL is 5.6.

Sounds explosive to me.


Well, this analysis of the explosion of the Jet Fuel which brought down Flight TWA-800 by the California Intitute of Technology indicates that in order for Jet Fuel to "explode" is for it to have been heated past the "flash point" of the fuel and have incredible pressure put on it, which causes a vapor cloud which is then ignited and explodes. It's a technical malfunction that occurs within vessels from time to time. And in fact, after TWA-800, the FAA created several new rules, including SFAR No. 88 and the Advisory Circular AC 25.981-2 Fuel Tank Flammability Minimization, in order to minimize these types of accidents.

They state there are three basic ways in which flamable liquids burn.

#1 - The aformentioned explosive manner due to increased temprature and pressure, neither of which would have been present at the WTC event.

#2 - In a 'pool fire' where a puddle of liquid burns.

#3 - Where fuel is sprayed into the air then ignited (Such as in a car engine, or a plane crash), which causes a fireball, which is defined as:



The atmospheric burning of a fuel-air in which the energy is mostly emitted in the form of radiant heat. The inner core of the fuel release consists of almost pure fuel whereas the outer layer in which ignition first occurs is a flammable fuel-air mixture. As buoyancy forces of the hot gases begin to dominate, the burning cloud rises and becomes more spherical in shape.

Fieballs occur with gases and can also occur with liquids where the liquid has been sprayed into the air, such as in an aircraft crash.


I think it's safe to say we all observed the fireball behavior of the jet fuel when the planes impacted:



So you're theory that the jet fuel traveled down the elevator shafts and exploded simply doesn't work. It was a fireball, not an explosion.

[edit on 28-8-2006 by Athenion]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Athenion


So you're theory that the jet fuel traveled down the elevator shafts and exploded simply doesn't work. It was a fireball, not an explosion.

[edit on 28-8-2006 by Athenion]


Actually the term is deflagration.


Although the detonation combustion mode produces the most severe damage, fast deflagrations of the cloud can result from flame acceleration under confined and congested conditions. Flame propagation speed has a significant influence on the blast parameters both inside and outside the source volume.


www.fas.org...

There is no data to suggest that would not have been enough overpressure as a result to cause the damaged observed.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   
But there are 119 elevators in the building. All of which end at one point. In order for that to go to the basement and the lobby it would need to travel down one shaft, roll out of the elevator, down another, all the way down, out of the elevator, roll acrossed the floor to get into another elevator...allllll the way down. again and again till it reached the bottom.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
In order for that to go to the basement and the lobby it would need to travel down one shaft, roll out of the elevator, down another, all the way down, out of the elevator, roll acrossed the floor to get into another elevator...allllll the way down. again and again till it reached the bottom.


Not only that, but the fireball caused by the jet fuel would not sound the same as an explosion. It would sound like a fire. It's like the difference between a sparkler, something burning, and a cherry bomb, something exploding. So using this as an explanation for the explosions heard in the world trade center buildings is invalid, even if it could account for the damage to the bottom floors.

Which as WolfofWar points out, is impossible.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
There was at least one express elevator that went up to the Windows on the World restaurant and one freight elevator that ran the whole length of the building.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Athenion

Originally posted by WolfofWar
In order for that to go to the basement and the lobby it would need to travel down one shaft, roll out of the elevator, down another, all the way down, out of the elevator, roll acrossed the floor to get into another elevator...allllll the way down. again and again till it reached the bottom.


Not only that, but the fireball caused by the jet fuel would not sound the same as an explosion. It would sound like a fire. It's like the difference between a sparkler, something burning, and a cherry bomb, something exploding. So using this as an explanation for the explosions heard in the world trade center buildings is invalid, even if it could account for the damage to the bottom floors.

Which as WolfofWar points out, is impossible.



So, what sounds were heard in the basement when the plane hit?

A rumble, not an explosion.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Actually the entire basement EXPLODED. They didnt hear an explosion.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Actually the entire basement EXPLODED. They didnt hear an explosion.



double you tee eff are you talking about?




posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   


quote: Originally posted by bsbray11
Liquid jet fuel falling down an elevator shaft is not going to cause a massive explosion if it catches on fire in the first place.


When did it catch fire? That is the $64 question.


Well the idea of Jet Fuel travelling down from where the planes hit to the Bottom is ridiculous because of the way the Towers were built, and you know this Howard.
(If not, I am sure I or someone else could give a go at explaining it.)
Although I am sure we have already had this debate somewhere on ATS before.




quote: Originally posted by WolfofWar
Actually the entire basement EXPLODED. They didnt hear an explosion.



double you tee eff are you talking about?


ditto.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Athenion
#1 - I have frequently heard people state that "explosives couldn't have been used, because no one heard explosives going off". This video, during the first five minutes, presents eyewitness account after eyewitness account of the sounds of explosions, bombs, etc. going off in the buildings. So if you have a different explanation for those explosions, that's fine, but let's establish here and now that there most certainly were eye witness accounts of explosions after the planes had impacted. So what is your explanation for these secendary explosions?

#2 - If the official story and the 9/11 commission reports are to be believed, why do they deny the existance of the 47 core columns so clearly seen during the construction of the buildings and in all the blue prints?

#3 - What is your response to the NIST's estimate that the core columns would only have reached a temperature of 600 degrees, rather than the 1500 degrees needed to cause the softening of the steel?



Hello. It's refreshing to see intelligent debate about this. The events on 9/11/01 are what lead me to find ATS long ago, and I am glad to contribute.

#1: Regarding the explosions, I have watched, again and again, every compilation of 9/11 footage I can find, and I have seen and listened to the various reports of explosions. The problem I find is that there is no context; during most of the various clips, we are unable to see if both buildings are already burning, and which (if either) building has collapsed in the background behind the witnesses. Many of these reports have no time stamp, and virtually none of the witnesses statements confirm a timeframe either. So, due to this lack of context, I am unable to be sure exactly what they heard. The second plane collision? The other building collapsing? Floors caving in? Weakened structural supports snapping due to stress overload? Gas lines exploding? There are too many possibilities for me to pin down exactly what the witnesses may have heard. Now, in watching this footage, upon collapse of the buildings we can see the much-debated puffs of smoke blowing out the windows, several stories below the field of collapse. I'm no expert, but these certainly look like squibs...although we must keep in mind that at this point, several tons of collapsing building are all coming DOWN at once, and it's not outlandish that debris would be ejected from windows as it went. Plus, we cannot see any fire from the supposed squibs, only dark gray smoke.

#2: I have no counterpoint for this, and is one of the reasons I cannot hang let it be.

#3: This is not a crazy estimate, though it's important to remember that's all it is: their estimate. But it's important to note that the steel didn't need to be soft, or molten, to lose structural strength. The impact, and the resulting explosion, would have burned off most of the fuel immediately, and that would have been one hot fire.

Your thoughts?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join