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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
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?


But as has been mentioned in this thread


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.

911research.wtc7.net...

This is coming from the construction manager of the towers. The 707 it really not much different from the 767 at all. In fact the the slimmer nature of the 707 probably might have 'punctured' the towers more effectivlety causing more structural damage.

And the huge explosion burning off most of the jet fuel would only mean that there was not much left around to create structural weakening to a degree where collapse occurs. Surely not enough heat to produce molten materials to flow from the building any way.

In terms of the basement debate, see the video in this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

In it there are clearly heard explosions, followed by dust rising from the bottom of the towers. and this is long after it was possible for jet fuel (if you actually believe it possible for jet fuel to reach down there) to be resposible for any damage at the bottom. Who in their right mind could believe that that much damage on the lower levels could be cause by a rush of jetfuel. It wasnt even fire damage in the bottom floors anyway from what i have seen in video footage.




posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   
I follow what you're saying, and I remember that analogy clearly. But when he's referring to the screen-like grid, that's from a top-down view of the building, correct? So, if the plane had flown through the top, this is where the design would have saved it. But the plane didn't hit the top, it plowed through the side. This obviously took out structural supports, like the exterior walls. At this point, it's like playing Jenga...you've got a tall vertical structure, which still has core support, but is missing outer support beams along one side.

Regarding the fuel burnoff, what I'm saying is that the steel wouldn't have needed to be even halfway to its melting point before losing structural integrity. All it takes is constant heat to start weakening it, even if only a little.

But, on the flip side, if it was even a couple hundred degrees in the impact zone, people wouldn't have able to hang out of the gaping hole in the building and wave for help...


In terms of the basement debate, see the video in this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

In it there are clearly heard explosions, followed by dust rising from the bottom of the towers. and this is long after it was possible for jet fuel (if you actually believe it possible for jet fuel to reach down there) to be resposible for any damage at the bottom. Who in their right mind could believe that that much damage on the lower levels could be cause by a rush of jetfuel. It wasnt even fire damage in the bottom floors anyway from what i have seen in video footage.


I'm really doubting that the fuel could have made it that far, but there's so much else we don't know, it's just hard to dismiss any one thing.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
I follow what you're saying, and I remember that analogy clearly. But when he's referring to the screen-like grid, that's from a top-down view of the building, correct? .


No, it would be impossible to fly a plane into the top, why would he be refering to that?! He was referring to the design of the outer structure and what effect he felt a plane(specifically a 707 which is v. similar to a 767) would have had on the building when it crashed into it at high speed.

These buildings were supported by the outer steel structure and the inner core.

Picture it. Like has been said about the pentagon 'crash' , the wings would disintigrate on impact, stopped by the steel mesh surrounding the outer building, then the fuelsage of the plane would , as he said , "poke through like a pencil." Could this pinpointed pencil of damage on this huge 'over-engineered' building really be responsible for a free-faill collapse and damge of ground level floors before the collapse? I don't believe so.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthtone



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.

911research.wtc7.net...

This is coming from the construction manager of the towers. The 707 it really not much different from the 767 at all. In fact the the slimmer nature of the 707 probably might have 'punctured' the towers more effectivlety causing more structural damage.


Actually, most evidence points to a design that accounted for a 707 lost in fog and out of fuel. Not multiple 707's hitting the building at full speed. Quite different scenarios.

Not only that but it seems that the calculations were eventually lost and that the study done was carried out with existing designs, so the building was not designed to withstand jets.

www.911myths.com...


Note that according to this, the towers were not specifically designed to survive the impact from a plane. Rather, Robertson carried out some calculations on the existing design to assess what the results of impact might be.

Further, whatever the truth about the speed of the plane, there’s no indication that the design considered the effects of the fire. Leslie Robertson says the towers were not designed to handle it:.


scott-juris.blogspot.com...


Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.

Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Not only that but it seems that the calculations were eventually lost and that the study done was carried out with existing designs, so the building was not designed to withstand jets.


The study was lost, but your second assumpotion that the conclusions were not inculded in the desiign is exactly tha... an assumption. Robertson just made it up?

Does it suprise you that the"study was lost" when the governemtn cannot even produce the BLUEPRINTS? Heck, my local township government can give you the bluprints for my house, but NYC cannot produce them for their LARGEST BUILDINGS? Whatever.

By the way... citing "911myths" is like me citing "Prison Planet" neither source can be trusted as they both have an agenda.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Actually, posting 9-11 myths is nothing like prison planet.

They provide information and give you sources for it. They even provide the sources for the conspiracy side. They then ask you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

Don't hate on a very well done site just because you don't agree with their conclusions.

Please show me an example of them lying or hiding something due to bias and then I'll listen to your cries of bias.

It is very easy to show prisonplanet being deceptive, why don't you show us how 911 myths is?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

scott-juris.blogspot.com...


Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.

Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study.




I'd actually like to see the source of Robertson saying he calculated for a plane lost in fog and out of fuel and where he says that he didn't account for fire. I'd like the original quotes please because some guys blog doesn't count for me. That is always the arguement, that it was calculated to be lost in the fog and searching fuelless. I have yet to see where this information came from. I'll believe you guys if you can point me to the original quote of Robertson saying this. Until then, I don't believe some guys blog or any other "official" site when they state secondhand that he said these things. Thanks in advance.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae

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.



What do you know of the freight elevators in the towers?



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I'd actually like to see the source of Robertson saying he calculated for a plane lost in fog and out of fuel and where he says that he didn't account for fire. I'd like the original quotes please because some guys blog doesn't count for me.


Go to that link, the source is a PDF reprint of the New York Times Article written by James Glanz, the science columnist.



There is also this:



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...


[edit on 1-9-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by Howard RoarkThere is also this:



www.pbs.org...


[edit on 1-9-2006 by HowardRoark]


Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks Howard.

[edit on 9/1/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 9/1/2006 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
They provide information and give you sources for it. They even provide the sources for the conspiracy side. They then ask you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

Don't hate on a very well done site just because you don't agree with their conclusions.


If you cannot see that this is a direct contradiction you are not worth the keystrokes I am wasting.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthtone
No, it would be impossible to fly a plane into the top, why would he be refering to that?! He was referring to the design of the outer structure and what effect he felt a plane(specifically a 707 which is v. similar to a 767) would have had on the building when it crashed into it at high speed.


I realize that, and although it sounded silly to imagine a plane hitting in the top, it seems like that's the only way the design would have helped it. Your next statement sums it up exactly:


These buildings were supported by the outer steel structure and the inner core.


Part of that support was compromised by the plane plowing through the building, which added stress to the core. Then we factor in heat compromise, and it becomes plausible.


Picture it. Like has been said about the pentagon 'crash' , the wings would disintigrate on impact, stopped by the steel mesh surrounding the outer building, then the fuelsage of the plane would , as he said , "poke through like a pencil." Could this pinpointed pencil of damage on this huge 'over-engineered' building really be responsible for a free-faill collapse and damge of ground level floors before the collapse? I don't believe so.


Now, regarding the Pentagon... it was built to withstand attacks from weapons-grade material, such as bombs and heavy munitions. There's no need to whoop out blueprints or whatever to back that up; it's common knowledge. It's also common knowledge that the WTC was not built nearly as defensible, since there was no calling to armor it, and also due to its height. Yes, it was intended to take an accidental hit from a commercial airliner, but this is a big difference from a full-speed spreadshot into the building. So we really can't draw comparisons between the Pentagon and WTC impacts.

There is no need to "picture" what a plane would do when it hit the WTC, because we can watch it. The wings don't disintigrate against the surface of the building; they are destroyed as they tear through all manners of structure, whether its supporting or noncritical. I again refer to my crude but effective comparison to the game "Jenga", because that's a really accurate visualization.

Now, having said all that, I'm not out to prove you wrong, bub. There's some things I have no rebuttal to, which is why I cannot accept the official story. The refusal to accept the core columns, the apparent ground floor and/or sub-basement explosions, and so on. There is more to dig up, and it will come out in time. The sheer amount of people involved is going to be the weak link that comes back to bite them.

EDIT: Grammar

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Astygia]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   
the top half sagging and creeping becomes plausible.

an all out instant collapse has never been probable.

make a 110 layer stack of ANYTHING.

now quickly whip out one layer from the bottom of the top one fifth of your stack( 22 layers, onto 87 layers, presumabaly, for accuracy, you should weaken the top part with either heat or fracture, depending on your material(s) of choice)

did the bootm layer explode into a cloud of ultrafine dust that covers an area hundreds of times larger than the original footprint of your stack?

does it happen, 'essentially at freefall' (-the NIST)?

are there pools of molten or really hot stuff at the botton of the stack?

or did the more massive, lower four fifths, which are coupled to the ground, arrest or deflect the falling layers?

did anything shoot out sideways with great force?


because, it's so simple i can't beLIEve there is a 'question' about how 'plausible' it is.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
the top half sagging and creeping becomes plausible.

an all out instant collapse has never been probable.

make a 110 layer stack of ANYTHING.

now quickly whip out one layer from the bottom of the top one fifth of your stack( 22 layers, onto 87 layers, presumabaly, for accuracy, you should weaken the top part with either heat or fracture, depending on your material(s) of choice)

did the bootm layer explode into a cloud of ultrafine dust that covers an area hundreds of times larger than the original footprint of your stack?

does it happen, 'essentially at freefall' (-the NIST)?

are there pools of molten or really hot stuff at the botton of the stack?

or did the more massive, lower four fifths, which are coupled to the ground, arrest or deflect the falling layers?

did anything shoot out sideways with great force?


because, it's so simple i can't beLIEve there is a 'question' about how 'plausible' it is.


Your example is accurate, but we gotta keep in mind the sheer weight we're talking about here. A scaled example of any collapsing structure will never damage itself in the same manner as the real thing. Millions of tons of debris coming down all at once, collapsing the floors beneath it and thereby gaining more mass and more momentum, are going to eventually obliterate everything beneath it.

But as to the 'squibs', the freefall speed, the secondary explosions that are definately not impact tremors...that's the hook.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
Millions of tons of debris coming down all at once, collapsing the floors beneath it and thereby gaining more mass and more momentum, are going to eventually obliterate everything beneath it.


If this was the case, we wouldn't have seen the buildings become engulfed in so much debris on the way down. We would have seen each floor dropping, one onto another, with minimal amounts of debris being thrown out. This is what we would have seen if most of the mass dropped, and became more mass, and more mass, and more force, etc.

What really happened, was most of the debris "fell" outside the footprints pretty equally in four directions. When I say most of the debris, I mean a good .75 pretty easily. Jim Hoffman has estimated between 80% and 90&, and CDI's Blanchard (who argues AGAINST demolition) has even asserted that as much as 95% of the debris fell outside of the footprints.

All of this material was falling outside of the footprints the whole way down. It wasn't like most of the mass stayed within the footprints, and then a great mass just fell outwards on the last few floors. No, you can see stuff flying out everywhere right from the start, and continuing all the way down.

Point is, the great majority of the falling mass fell outwards, out of the building and not onto it. Mass is obviously a huge factor in momentum, impulse, etc.

In addition to the mass greatly decreasing from initiation to completion, the inner columns also greatly thickened on the way down for obvious reasons, with 2 sets of extra-reinforced floors (the dark, windowless bands on the buildings: the mechanical floors) and then MUCH more reinforced floors at the very bases.

And, pulverized, destroyed floors are easily deflected and do not add as much weight as an intact floor simply falling downwards would. An analogy would be dropping a 50 lb. stone onto a car, versus dropping 50 lbs of gravel, which are deflected and pour off the sides. With connected members, the force is focused. With pulverized material, and steel beams separated and often chucked outwards at great velocity, good luck doing the same to the below floor. Good luck.

Despite the above, can you notice the collapses ever slowing down? That's a bigger issue than how fast they fell. They didn't seem to slow down. At all. It was way too smooth, way too little resistance. There was no jarring or even slowing from hitting the steel-reinforced concrete floors on the mechanical floors (which were JUST UNDER the impacted region of WTC2), or anything like that. It takes energy to destroy a floor, knock out columns and pulverize huge concrete slabs into fine dust. Huge amounts of energy. To think that this could happen several times a second, and the collapse continues unimpeded, without slowing... I don't think "progressive collapse" is supposed to also mean "free energy" or "infinite energy" or "increasingly magical kinetic energy".

Greatly decreasing "driving mass", consisting of only shattered floors, dropping on increasingly thick columns, and yet no change in the speed of the collapse wave. You know, it's as if the weight that was falling had absolutely nothing to do with the building's collapse.

[edit on 1-9-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
Your example is accurate, but we gotta keep in mind the sheer weight we're talking about here. A scaled example of any collapsing structure will never damage itself in the same manner as the real thing. Millions of tons of debris coming down all at once, collapsing the floors beneath it and thereby gaining more mass and more momentum, are going to eventually obliterate everything beneath it.

But as to the 'squibs', the freefall speed, the secondary explosions that are definately not impact tremors...that's the hook.


i agree it won't damage itself in the same manner, but i disagree that scale will change it ESSENTIALLY.

the bottom always held up the million of tons of debris, and the only way to get momentum is to destroy that EXTREMELY MASSIVE, EXTREMELY STRONGER bottom portion.

also, when the debris is debris, as opposed to intact structure, it can not couple it's kinetic or potential energy, whereas the intact structure is as per built.

edit to add, ...what bsbray said. the falling mass is like a shovelful of dirt being dropped onto a rock, where a great deal of the dirt doesn't even hit the rock.

[edit on 1-9-2006 by billybob]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Yeah, I'm with you for the most part. I'm no expert on structural engineering, and since 9/11, countless "experts" have appeared with their professional opinions, so it's difficult to find a non-biased source of information which could adequately depict what should have happened versus what did happen. Who am I to say what a million tons of collapsing building should do? There's a lot of information out there, and most of it has an agenda. I don't board the train if I don't know where it's going, see.

Plus, I'm just having a hard time coping with what would be the most manipulating, diabollically clever, and earth-shattering inside job ever conceived, followed by what would have to be the most idiotic, obvious, and sub-moronic cover story ever ever conceived, but carried out by the same people. If I hadn't been in the Army when this happened, never seen demo before, I still would've thought the tower's collapse looked too perfect. So it just doesn't jive well.

I guess it's the human element that fries me the most about the concept of the pre-planted explosives. Like the amount of people involved...not to hijack the thread, but what, a hundred people or less knew about the NSA wiretapping for five years before someone leaked it to the NYT? How many must have been involved in just the WTC part of 9/11? Several hundred, composed of cops, firemen, and other officials to keep those not in the know from finding out. Then the unknowns, probably the largest percentage of the group, the people who would have done the dirty work. That's a lot of people keeping the same secret.

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Astygia]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
Millions of tons of debris coming down all at once, collapsing the floors beneath it and thereby gaining more mass and more momentum, are going to eventually obliterate everything beneath it.


Look at the video... the weight WAS NOT piling up on to... it was turning to dust. The collapsing mass was getting LIGHTER as debris wer cascading outside of the walls. the FOOT OF GOD theory is bunk for this exact reason.

You use physics words like mass and momentum, but you are leaving out resistance. Destroying things USES energy, it does not create it.

What about WTC2 and the "tilting mass"... SHOW ME THE VECTOR for how this could have crushed the rest of the building. The rotational inertia removed all of the mass and FORCE of that block from the equation as it was not "pressing" down on the rest of the building... so WHERE does the energy come from to SMASH through the unaffected 47 core colums, cornercolums and wall lattice below?

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia

But, on the flip side, if it was even a couple hundred degrees in the impact zone, people wouldn't have able to hang out of the gaping hole in the building and wave for help...


Just a quck note, most of the burning debris and fuel would end on the side of the building opposite to the impact point, carried inside the building by the inertia, so the surrounding of impact hole may be relatively without fire.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

Just a quck note, most of the burning debris and fuel would end on the side of the building opposite to the impact point, carried inside the building by the inertia, so the surrounding of impact hole may be relatively without fire.


Can you show me pictures of fires on the opposite sides of the impact hole when there were no fires at the impact hole? I understand what you are saying but this is just speculation without proof.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join