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.

 

Telescoping Steel?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Ok I am new to this, until recently I believed the official story, but last month I watched 911 mysteries because it was in the google video's top 100.

I was shocked at just how stupid and gulliable most people in the world like me have been, but now I know the truth. Some the conspiracies are way out there, others just make logical sense. What finallly made me decide that a demo crew was used is the core steel of the WTS. The official story would have us believe that the core basically was overheated and telescoped into itself. Even if those floor truss did fail as the all the floors would have fallen and at ONLY point of impact the steel in the core would broken off, this means at an absolute worst case scenerio the floors fall and the core breaks off and falls. You would be left wth the core still standing.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR STEEL OF THAT SIZE TO TELESCOPIC INTO ITSELF JUST FROM AN INTENSE FIRE. And at free fall speed no less.

And yet that is what seems to be happen, but when you think about you realize that just can't happen

I also watched the building of the WTS the size of that steel was huge, this video is interesting to watch.

I am now convinced that one of the greatest frauds in human history has been commited, greatest in the sense that billions have believed this gigantic hoax.

One day those that set this up will pay.
Hitler seemed to get away with that little fire of his too(false flag Ops) but eventually he was forced to pay for his crimes against humanity.

Judgement Day is coming for all these evil groups who think they are so smart and can't be touched.



[edit on 4-11-2006 by Blue_Jay33]




posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR STEEL OF THAT SIZE TO TELESCOPIC INTO ITSELF JUST FROM AN INTENSE FIRE.


What are you basing that little pet-theory on? A layman's understanding of the fundamental concepts structural engineering, perhaps?



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Egotosum

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR STEEL OF THAT SIZE TO TELESCOPIC INTO ITSELF JUST FROM AN INTENSE FIRE.


What are you basing that little pet-theory on? A layman's understanding of the fundamental concepts structural engineering, perhaps?


Uh who are you btw? I haven't seen you around here before myself. I think he has a good point here. The steel has three choices: melt, disintegrate or bend. So what did it do on 911 anyways?



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   
The steel was certified by ULC and they retested to double the possible heat it could have experienced in the WTC fires. The result it passed the test. If it didn't whatever company produced that steel would be getting sued, and so far they aren't.

There is no way heated steel can collapse in a straight down telescopic manner.
Bend and break at the most intense spot yes, but how hot was the steel 50 floors away from the main fire? Some heat transfer sure, but after seeing the result of 27 hour fire on steel frame building and it not collapasing, that says it all.

Also of interest is that the fires were burning themsleves out in some spots, as shown by that woman in one of the video's that actually climbed the wreckage where fire had been and was trying to make contact by waving, she died when the building collapsed, not from fire or smoke.

Also the firefighters radio'd 2 isolated pockets of fire, had the building not collapsed they could have put the fires out in a rather short period of time.

So you can have an ostriach type mentality if you want, it doesn't change what people have come know as the truth about 9/11.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I am the exact opposite of you
I believed the Conspiracy Theories.. realised how stupid they were and how gullible the people that believed them were (especially the ones who watch one documentary, and fail to look into the counter arguments). I then turned my opinion.

So I think at the end of the day I am a little more convinced by Civil/Structural Engineers with YEARS of experience:

www.debunking911.com...
www.debunking911.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.popularmechanics.com...

Controlled Demolition Inc. Also wrote a paper on how absurd the demolition theory is. I can't find it at this time, but I do know it has been posted on ATS before. These guys are the number one demolitions company in the world.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   
All I know is after watching MANY video's not just one, what I see and how it is explained doesn't feel right. And many very intelligent people smarter than me who have studied what happened, agree. A one hour fire could not have brought down a building of that size. These explanations by the debunkers of conspiracy, sound good on paper, but they don't have the ring of truth to them, it's more of
"bull**** baffles brains" that is being used.

[edit on 4-11-2006 by Blue_Jay33]

[edit on 4-11-2006 by Blue_Jay33]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
Controlled Demolition Inc. Also wrote a paper on how absurd the demolition theory is. I can't find it at this time, but I do know it has been posted on ATS before. These guys are the number one demolitions company in the world.


They were also commissioned for the clean up of Ground Zero. Imagine that. The Oklahoma City Bombing, too. Hm. And the guy that wrote that paper was also government-contracted from PROTEC, not from CDI. His paper is worthless for anyone but those who think the Tower demolitions were conventional demolitions (implosions), because, aside from vague references to NIST, he considers nothing else.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
His paper is worthless for anyone but those who think the Tower demolitions were conventional demolitions (implosions), because, aside from vague references to NIST, he considers nothing else.


And how exactly would you define an "unconventional" demolition?

Do you have any examples of these elusive "unconventional" demolitions?

After all, isn't most of the so-called "evidence" for demolition based off knowledge of "conventional" demolitions?

I thought that "squibs" and "near-free-fall collapses" and the way 7 fell into it's footprint, were "trademarks" of "conventional" demolition?

If you have to invent something to prove your point, you're probably wrong.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Those "demolition squibs" that you see in the footage of the collapses could be that of the glass in the windows blowing out or of the corners of the buildings giving out as the building fell. This is because demolition squibs do not shoot outwards like what those did at the World Trade Center.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
The official theory of what happened on Sept 11, 2001 is also a conspiracy theory doctorfungi.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   
The telescoping theory that was mentioned could also be called the 'pancake' theory which is the official story that was up until recently accepted by the 9/11 commission, given by the 'official reports'. That theory is now being taken back because of the call for scientific evaluation of the many different aspects of the collapse of the twin tower and WTC building 7 (which was never addressed in any of the 'offical reports'. Simply look at buildings where the pancaking effect did occur will notice right of the bat that it in no way resembles the scene at ground zero.....where are the pancaked floors, why are there remains of the outer structure still standing?

I recently attended a lecture by 3 different academic/scientific speakers who are for more investigation into what happened during 9/11 (www.colorado911visibility.org...). There was a physicist who has been forced to retire from a university, in which he has been an professor at for more than 20 years because of his actual research and experimentation into how the buildings fell. He represents dozens or more scientists and researchers that are dedicating their work to showing the public that the official explanation at the least, falls short of basic scientific knowledge, including the laws of physics. Not only that, an investigation should have been conducted in a scientific, non-biased manner and as someone on here already stated, the same people were used in every "independent" investigation commissioned by the governement.

There are many unanswered questions - why was their molten steel falling from the twin towers when only thermite could cause such a reaction, why was there huge quantities of unexplainable trace minerals/elements found within the dust from the collapse, why do they refuse to consider such things or answer such questions, why did they tell the company commissioned to study the collapse of WTC7 to only look at floors 8-42 in consideration of what caused the collapse of that building? I could go on further (if I had my notes from the lecture) regarding all the scientific and plausible questions and points brought up by that lecture alone, not to mention the countless books, documentaries and the scientific, peer-reviewed journal that has been dedicated to the same effort.

So in my opinion, for anyone to say that the official explanation is acceptable, it means that they haven't thoroughly looked at the evidence to the contrary.

And a point was brought up about false flag operations...this wouldn't be the first time the government has done something of this nature to cause public sentiment to sway in favor of a government agenda.

In all honestly, I study psychology, religion and conspiracy theories. I'm not a physicist, structural engineer, chemist, or anything of the sort, but I do know how to think scientifically and the manner in which the official investigations were conducted violates what I know about the necessity for basic empiracal observations, plain and simple.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
This panacke theory as shown on TV, made sense until you consider the enormous steel girders in the core. We are meant to believe the the surrouding floors trusses weakened by fire was able to pull the steel core down at free fall speed?

Those people like doctorfungi should watch the video of the contstruction of WTC, and see the massive amount of steel that was built into this building.

Also one of the video's showed one of these massive core steel beams cut at perfect 45% angle with molton residue surrounding the cut. This is an example of a cutting demo charge. Fire would never produce that look. If someone could find that picture and post it, that would be awesome.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

Also one of the video's showed one of these massive core steel beams cut at perfect 45% angle with molton residue surrounding the cut. This is an example of a cutting demo charge.


No it's not.

That is an example of steel beams that were cut during the cleanup.

www.debunking911.com...

And how exactly is that an example of a "cutting demo charge", do you have any pictures from known controlled demolitions showing beams cut like that?

Thermite is not used in demolitions, and no thermite device that I know of could even produce a cut like that.


No explosive device would produce a cut like that either.

Welders however . . .

[edit on 4-11-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Wait a minute. There's more wrong with the example than that. First off, I'm not convinced that's "molten residue" of steel. I'm not sure what it is - maybe insulation - but I don't personally think that's molten steel residue. I'm open to suggestions on this.

Second, the 45 degree angle is indicative of shear failure due to axial loading. So that particular beam you're trying to use as an example of mischief is actually a rare sampling we have of something failing due to being extremingly overloaded.

and then finally - it's not cutting torch slag. Not unless they used a cutting torch the size of a tank turret. lol

[edit on 11-4-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

and then finally - it's not cutting torch slag. Not unless they used a cutting torch the size of a tank turret. lol



You sure about that?






posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Thanks for posting those pics, look at the size of those steel beams. How could they magically fall into themsleves. If the heat did weaken them they would have bent and twisted as metal does when it's heated, creating a topple effect.

On 9/11 huge steel girders broke the rules of physics of heated metal, how is that possible?



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
It is more and more apparent to me that without controlled demolition eg. engineered that the towers would have toppled over and not collapsed even due to the heat which was insufficient in the first place.

What should have happened if NIST was correct is that the building would have toppled at the impact zone at the weakened corner and side but did not.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

You sure about that?





Yeah - apparently you didn't look at your own pics and compare them to the pic we're talking about. You proved my point actually. The longest run of slag on these pictures you just provided is right about 3" (based off the height of the man being about 6').

Pretending this was slag in this picture

www.debunking911.com...

looks like it was poured on with a bucket. Like I said - if you used a cutting torch the size of a tank turret you could get there, otherwise I have to stick with that's not cutting torch slag.

P.S. I finally picked up that these pics were all from the same site. Yeah, I'm real with it today.

[edit on 11-4-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
That's exactly my thoughts when I visit the 9/11 debunking sites, the imapct zone is the ONLY place where the core steel girders COULD have failed, not 30 floors down so far away from the fires. If it was that hot, people would have been roasted alive as they went down the stairwells, but testimony from survivors show that they lived through that exodus.

The truss failure theory means broken bolts and welds from the core girders, we have all seen sheered off bolts from extreme wieght overloads. It still fails to explain how these collapasing floors take the core down with them. At some point a huge bending would have to have happened creating a topple effect that would have been seen.

[edit on 4-11-2006 by Blue_Jay33]



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Do some more research...and try to stick to factual sites instead of conspiracy sites. Too many errors and misbeliefs in your posts to list one by one. However, here is a clue, UL (which you referred to as ULC) has NOTHING to do with the steel of the world trade center. That was shown to be false long ago.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join