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 South Tower

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Remember aluminum and magnesium are used to make fireworks.

Lets look at a small list of material from the planes that would make a reaction if comming into contact with each other and high temps...


So what? Again you can't just throw chemicals or metals together and expect them to create a reaction, sry it just doesn't work that way.

And again, even if by a slim chance those materials did come in contact with each other in the chaos of the impact, it would not be enough to cause the massive steel core to fail to the point of complete collapse. I don't think you realize how massive that central core was.

And what high temps? The temps were no where near high enough to create any chemical reaction, let alone a thermite type reaction, as we've already shown.

But anyway this is OT, it has nothing to do with the South Tower tilt problem...




posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
And what high temps? The temps were no where near high enough to create any chemical reaction, let alone a thermite type reaction, as we've already shown.


But what caused the reactions and molten metals comming out of the side of the tower as shown in photos and video, Thier had to be high temps to cause that and the molten steel found in the basements and to keep the debris red hot for 6 weeks.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   
^That's not the topic of this thread, but isn't that where the thermate theory comes in?



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
^That's not the topic of this thread


Why did a firechief who reached the 74th floor and a firemen on the 68th report walls had been breached ?


9:48 a.m.

Ladder 15: "Battalion Fifteen to Battalion Seven."
Battalion Seven: "Go Ladder 15."
Ladder 15: "What do you got up there, Chief?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm still in boy stair 74th floor. No smoke or fire problems, walls are breached, so be careful."

Ladder 15: "Yeah Ten-Four, I saw that on 68. Alright, we're on 71 we're coming up behind you."
Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four. Six more to go."
Ladder 15: "Let me know when you see more fire."
Battalion Seven Chief: "I found a marshall on 75."



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I'm not really seeing your point Ultima - I don't think anyone here is claiming that the plane didn't do any damage.

The extent of that damage is not revealed by your quotes -- what exactly did the man mean when he said 'breached'?

I would fully expect the kind of damage I have read about - doors thrown out of plumb and no longer opening for people trapped within - walls cracked and/or buckled from the shock wave that would have travelled the building. In no way does that indicate to me that the core was damaged.

This building was designed to allow winds to move it rather than break it - stresses being dispersed throughout the structure - at least that is my understanding. Otherwise a strong wind would break the towers in half.

So the initial shock wave from the planes impact would have followed the same idea and been distributed through the building. I reiterate - that does not mean that the building and core recieved enough structural damage to cause complete failure and total collapse.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Why did a firechief who reached the 74th floor and a firemen on the 68th report walls had been breached ?


Yeah and did you notice he also said, 'No smoke or fire problems'?

The walls of the towers were not load bearing walls, so how would that effect the strength of the structure? You could take all the walls away and the core and outer facade would still stand.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   
It's been 4 days since the last post on this thread -- I would really hate to see it die. So a bump and a bit of a personal appeal -- If anyone has any ideas, don't hold back.

I have never been convined either way with 911 - conspiracy or the official story.
The longer the questions remain unanswered or unaddressed the more I feel that it must have been some kind of conspiracy. With no logical explanation for how this tower fell, I can only hold out for so long before concluding that the conspiracists have it right. If all else is eliminated - what do we have left?

ANOK (the OP) has done a great job here - not only highlighting a concern about the physics inlvolved that day, but also debating logically and intelligently without becoming emotional. If I had any WATS left for the month ANOK would get them.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ilandrah
I'm not really seeing your point Ultima - I don't think anyone here is claiming that the plane didn't do any damage.

The extent of that damage is not revealed by your quotes -- what exactly did the man mean when he said 'breached'?

I would fully expect the kind of damage I have read about - doors thrown out of plumb and no longer opening for people trapped within - walls cracked and/or buckled from the shock wave that would have travelled the building. In no way does that indicate to me that the core was damaged.

This building was designed to allow winds to move it rather than break it - stresses being dispersed throughout the structure - at least that is my understanding. Otherwise a strong wind would break the towers in half.

So the initial shock wave from the planes impact would have followed the same idea and been distributed through the building. I reiterate - that does not mean that the building and core recieved enough structural damage to cause complete failure and total collapse.


Well for 1 the intail explosion from the planes happened on the outside of the building, according the NIST there was little damage done to the building by the intail blast. So if the majority of the intail balst was outside the builidng and what was left of the jet fuel burned up quickly what caused the walls on the lower floors below the crash to be breached ?

Was it to weaken the floors or put something into the walls ???

[edit on 25-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I guess that would depend on what these particular walls are made of - are they structural or are they more like partitions?
A lot of office buildings I have seen use fake wall partitions to divide larger areas. I'm not sure of what they are called, but they are very common and do look like thin walls - going from floor to roof.
The flex of the building from the initial sudden burst could certainly damage a lot of structures within the building without damaging the core, including more substantial walls. In a house walls are often 'load bearing' - without them the house will fall, but that is not my understanding of the construction of the towers.
I would imagine that if explosives were used they would have been better hidden. This damage isn't encountered until after the plane struck and is reported by firemen, to the best of my knowledge no such concerns were raised by any office workers prior to the event.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ilandrah
I would imagine that if explosives were used they would have been better hidden. This damage isn't encountered until after the plane struck and is reported by firemen, to the best of my knowledge no such concerns were raised by any office workers prior to the event.


Well they might not have been seen by office workers if the walls that had been breached were on floors that were not occupied.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   


Well for 1 the intail explosion from the planes happened on the outside of the building


No, the explosion occured inside and blasted through the outside, look at the South Tower....do you really think the plane transited the whole building and exploded as it EXITED the tower?



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, the explosion occured inside and blasted through the outside, look at the South Tower....do you really think the plane transited the whole building and exploded as it EXITED the tower?


Blasted through the outside? You realize that those fireballs weren't like high explosives, right? They were deflagrations, and about all they did was blow out some windows. If you come across any structural damage besides that from the fireball itself, be sure to show it to me.



That's also a deflagration. Different fuel, and less of it, but it still moves too slowly to cause any real destruction.

By contrast, an actual high explosive from fuel, a fuel-air explosion:





[edit on 26-1-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, the explosion occured inside and blasted through the outside, look at the South Tower....do you really think the plane transited the whole building and exploded as it EXITED the tower?


No, it exploded as it entered the tower.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, the explosion occured inside and blasted through the outside, look at the South Tower....do you really think the plane transited the whole building and exploded as it EXITED the tower?


You might want to read up on the NIST and FEMA reports that state the intial explosion was external of the building and caused no structural damage.


kix

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   
It did not explode as it entered the tower, that is easily seen on any video. Remember th eplane had huge inertia de to its high speed so the fuel was also traveling at over 500km/h, so it continued its path, and most of it burned outside the building, that is why we see GIGANTIC 20 story fireballs AFTER the impact.

Also Jet fuel its not gasoline, jet fuel is quite heavy and dificult to ignite, it needs atomizing in the air to burn (similar to diesels and oils), so the super high temps on WTC is just a opile of dung planted by disinfo agents



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, the explosion occured inside and blasted through the outside, look at the South Tower....do you really think the plane transited the whole building and exploded as it EXITED the tower?


I present to the jury exhibit one...The South Tower




posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   
But to get back on topic, here is a great set of pictures showing the South Towers tilt, rotation and collapse.

South Tower

How can anyone still think the official story is right, after studying these pictures? Time to wake up from the dream...

[edit on 27/1/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   
First of all, to think that ANY structure should have survived that is funny to begin with. Buildings are designed to survive a 2 hour fire to allow people to escape, not a fire bombing with a jet. It is maazing it lasted as long as it did and more were not killed. this is a good thread, don't let it die..



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, the explosion occured inside and blasted through the outside, look at the South Tower....do you really think the plane transited the whole building and exploded as it EXITED the tower?


I present to the jury exhibit one...The South Tower



the problem is this, i dont care who you are, fema, nist et al...its hard to judge how much of the fuel EXACTLY was burned up in that fireball. and even if MOST of the fuel burned off outside the building, it wouldnt take much to have a pretty spectacular explosion inside that floor/floors.

bsb has made some great points regarding the velocity of a FAB, but i still kind of disagree to a point. (great video btw bsb)

IMHO, the fuel tanks were likely ruptured as the plane got shredded entering the building. that will aeresolize the fuel in the tanks and throw it into the air. well, when that fuel is then detonated in a fairly enclosed space, its going to explode with SOME force, and in an enclosed space, it doesnt take much to do some structural damage. i wont say that it is enough to turn concrete into tiny particles, but i think that many people have under-considered the damage taht was likely caused in this detonation. i watched a great demonstration during an explosives training class once involving a single pound of TNT and a bag of flower, which is in the same ideology of a FAB, it was a pretty spectacular demonstration.

do i think that was the single cause of the collapse? certainly not, if it was the building would have fallen nearly immediatly. do i think that it knocked out the core? or even mangled the perimiter supports? nope. but for anyone to not even CONSIDER that it COULD have weakened the truss' supporting the floors above and below is simply being closed minded.

ive said before that i dont buy the govts story 100%. and i stand by my hypothesis bout there not being explosives planted in the buildings before the collapse. and ill always admit that the falls were certainly anomolous. ill further admit that my spelling isnt worth crap.

i do however think that to look at the collapses and say that the physics doesnt work based on the VERY limited data we have is premature.

we dont know what the condition of ANY of the supporting framework was like 10 seconds after the crash, 20, 30, 10 minutes. 45 minutes. we just dont know. we can speculate all we want, but theres not enough data to make a conclusive case for ANY hypothesis.

we have a lot of evidence for a lot of things. evidence doesnt equal proof.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
First of all, to think that ANY structure should have survived that is funny to begin with. Buildings are designed to survive a 2 hour fire to allow people to escape, not a fire bombing with a jet. It is maazing it lasted as long as it did and more were not killed. this is a good thread, don't let it die..


Then NIST and FEMA nust have been wrong when the stated that the buildings would have stood from the plane impacts. Something else had to cause the buildings to collapse and it was not isolated fires.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join