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: 8
2
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I can remember when george bush was once asked about this photo in the OP, and he claimed, "They proved, thats ones been faked. That ones been doctored. They proved it!"


And, magnesium inside the WTC?! Where the heck does that come from? I cant think of any reason why there would be magnesium in the WTC, and plenty of reasons why there would not be. The same for aircraft bodies. Why the hell would you build an aircraft out of an incredibly flammable and relatively heavy metal?

And any "natural thermite reaction" would be microscopic. Can not explain the collapse or the molten metals in the basement.

Thermite is very difficult to ignite. It ignites around 1200C, twice the temp jet fuel burns at. Aluminum melts at around 660C.

You can take a blowtorch to thermite, melt the aluminum, and still not have it ignite.

[edit on 2/10/2007 by sp00n1]




posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1
And, magnesium inside the WTC?! Where the heck does that come from? I cant think of any reason why there would be magnesium in the WTC, and plenty of reasons why there would not be. The same for aircraft bodies. Why the hell would you build an aircraft out of an incredibly flammable and relatively heavy metal?

And any "natural thermite reaction" would be microscopic. Can not explain the collapse or the molten metals in the basement.

Thermite is very difficult to ignite. It ignites around 1200C, twice the temp jet fuel burns at. Aluminum melts at around 660C.

You can take a blowtorch to thermite, melt the aluminum, and still not have it ignite.

[edit on 2/10/2007 by sp00n1]


Well for 1 the all wheels on the planes are made of magnesium alloy. I was a Crew Chief in the Air Force i saw wheels get cherry red hot from the brakes overheating and the only thing to do was to get away from them and let then cool down.

Second you have to think about what molten aluminum is going to do when it comes in contact with things like magnesium / flammable metals, oxygen generators (which have been the cause of at least 1 plane crash), oxygen tanks, compsites on the plane and steel, concrete from the building.

Something had to cause the thermite reacton and molten metals seen in photos and video comming out from the corner of the South tower before it collapsed

[edit on 10-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Something had to cause the thermite reacton and molten metals seen in photos and video comming out from the corner of the South tower before it collapsed.


Yeah, thermite....

Okay, lets do the math logic here;

Open air jet fuel burns at 600C under optimal conditions, 550C is the norm.

Magnesium must be melted or powdered before it will burn. Melting point is about 650C. Aluminum melts at 660C.

IF the jet fuel somehow got hot enough to melt aluminum and magnesium, that would have occurred within the first ten minutes after the crash, when the flames were most intense. According to the NIST report, most jet fuel burned within the first second after the crash, the rest was consumed within minutes.

Aluminum re-solidifies within seconds from being removed from a heat source over 660C.

Where exactly does a high concentration of powdered rust come from? It must be about 600 mesh powdered rust to provide the surface area necessary for a sustained reaction.

The molten metal seen dripping from the tower, IF its from a thermite reaction will either be pure iron from the reaction itself, or melted steel from the tower. Either way, that is a large quantity of molten material. How exactly does all of the aluminum and all this 600 mesh powdered rust come in contact in the exact same area in such a large quantity?

EDIT: This is really getting off topic. We should really be discussing the tilt of the tower, nothing unrelated.

Instead of going around to every topic to discuss the "natural thermite" theory, could you just start another topic devoted strictly to "natural thermite reactions", please?

[edit on 2/10/2007 by sp00n1]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1
The molten metal seen dripping from the tower, IF its from a thermite reaction will either be pure iron from the reaction itself, or melted steel from the tower. Either way, that is a large quantity of molten material. How exactly does all of the aluminum and all this 600 mesh powdered rust come in contact in the exact same area in such a large quantity?
[edit on 2/10/2007 by sp00n1]


Well i am just posting what i have learned from doing research on government and professional research sites. They seem to conclude that their were thermite reactions and the planes may have started it.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   
ULTIMA1

You mentioned that the planes might have started the thermite reactions, what I was wondering is why did the South Tower fall first then? Since most of the explosion occured outside of the Building, and if the heat generated caused this reaction, why do we have the South Tower falling first?

From my observation, the North Tower seems to have been hit with most of the explosion being inside the building and toward the Central Core of the building.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
ULTIMA1

You mentioned that the planes might have started the thermite reactions, what I was wondering is why did the South Tower fall first then? Since most of the explosion occured outside of the Building, and if the heat generated caused this reaction, why do we have the South Tower falling first?

From my observation, the North Tower seems to have been hit with most of the explosion being inside the building and toward the Central Core of the building.


Well its hard to say. But we do see the motlen metal and thermite type reactions comming out of the South Tower before it collapses. Maybe its beacuse the plane that hit the south tower hit the side more and went through the building destroying more beams then the plane that hit the North tower, you can see the wing actual damaging the outer beams almost all the way down the side.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
ANOK issued an invite, so I thought I would add a little bit to get this thread rolling again.

Angular momentum toppling to the east



Top 30 floors toppling towards east side



Is this about how the top 30 floors looked just prior to disappearing? It would seem that milliseconds before this position, the massive core structure was not sheared yet and perhaps bending or ripping sideways through the upper 30 story block of floors. To release the block, the core needed to shear entirely through or break off. I cannot imagine that massive core structure breaking off even if it was slightly damaged by the aircraft. Presumably either action would result in the block toppling off the top of the tower and landing next to the base below.

However it seems to me, that shearing that core structure at that dividing line would also collapse the entire block ending the angular momentum toppling effect. Additional explosives at regular intervals would hasten the top-down explosive demolition at near freefall speed.

Was that toppling block planned, or did it almost get away from them? In the following video, what looks like cutter charges can be seen going off while the block is toppling and not falling or disintegrating.





Slow motion video shows cutter charges 38 seconds into video in lower left of building and later on in the front and finally the upper right hand of the video.

Google Video Link




David S Chandler

This is another in a series of kinematic analysis videos of events in the World Trade Center "collapses." This video was provided to me by "plaguepuppy." It measures two ejections from the side of the South Tower at over 100 miles per hour.




David S Chandler

This is a movie of the collapse of the South Tower of the World Trade Center taken with a hand-held camera. In the original video, the camera is moving wildly, so the details of the collapsing building are hard to see.

To make it easier to study the details of the collapse, I separated the movie frame-by-frame and wrote a program to transform the images in such a way that the image of the building remains fixed, even though the camera is moving. I then reassembled the sequence of still frames into a slow-motion version of the movie.






[edit on 10/8/08 by SPreston]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


That blue and yellow image is a distorted and edited version of something I originally made and posted to illustrate why the tilt would have a force opposing it.

Where did you source this from and why has the illustration of mass density been edited out?



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   

posted by exponent
That blue and yellow image is a distorted and edited version of something I originally made and posted to illustrate why the tilt would have a force opposing it.

Where did you source this from and why has the illustration of mass density been edited out?

It popped up on an image search I did a while back. I don't recall any writing with it. Sorry if I misused one of your illustrations.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Thanx for adding this, good stuff mate.

So exponent, how does that image show an external force?

Why not share with us all while you're here?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Thanx for adding this, good stuff mate.

So exponent, how does that image show an external force?

Why not share with us all while you're here?


The angled line you can see to the right of the exterior wall line was an inverted gradient filled triangle.

What I was trying to illustrate is that as the upper section of the building rotates, the leading edge compacts the mass on that side. Because of this, it has to transfer more energy to satisfy p=mv, and as a result an unequal force will be applied stopping (or at least slowing down) the rotation.

It's pretty simple physics, but for some reason someone saw fit to edit it out of that image. I'll try and find the original but I probably deleted them, I never imagined it would come up in a thread like this!



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Hmmmm exponent you have a very limited knowledge of the physics you are trying to claim you understand.

An external force is not the 'pivot point' of the building. That is not external and it's not a force. It's so obvious you are arguing something you have no clue about, yet you act so confident in your claims.

An external force, in this instance, would be something external to the top and bottom section, something that would be introduced to the mechanism of the tilt to change its motion. What you have in your diagram is an internal force, the two bodies (top and bottom of building) acting on each other. These are normal forces associated with a tilting body acting under angular momentum.

Your diagram is making assumptions that cannot be proved to have happened the way you think. One assumption is that the plane, or fires, caused the central columns to become detached. It has been proved this could NOT happen. Even NIST admit this. The plane that hit WTC2 didn't even impact the central columns.

thewebfairy.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

So first you have to show how the top became detached in the first place.

Then you have to show how the bottom suddenly started collapsing from the weight of the top (your hypotheses not mine) when the top was 1. Under angular momentum and should have continued, 2. Was not sitting squarely on the top, so could not have created a symmetrical downward force. The majority of the mass of the top was hanging over the side of the building, thus as in the law of ‘angular momentum’ should have continued in its path.

How did the top suddenly get its energy to be focused symmetrically, and where did the energy come from for the top to suddenly crush thousands of tons of steel that was designed to hold its own weight plus some (5x I believe).

No matter how you look at this problem it cannot be explained without considering that ‘external force’. There is another way, make the building under the top section fall independently and instantly, which would take away the pivot of the top. The building falls faster than the top, this can be observed in the videos. If the bottom had fallen slower the top would still have continued its tilt. That proves the top didn’t cause the collapse. The top can’t do both.

Now exponent please think hard about this before you reply. I beg you to not go searching for the debunker answer to this on 911myths, educate yourself and find the truth. You are being deceived, and simple physics proves this.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Hmmmm exponent you have a very limited knowledge of the physics you are trying to claim you understand.

An external force is not the 'pivot point' of the building. That is not external and it's not a force. It's so obvious you are arguing something you have no clue about, yet you act so confident in your claims.

I never said anything about external forces, you did. The only external force of any reasonable magnitude acting on the building is Gravity.


Your diagram is making assumptions that cannot be proved to have happened the way you think. One assumption is that the plane, or fires, caused the central columns to become detached. It has been proved this could NOT happen. Even NIST admit this. The plane that hit WTC2 didn't even impact the central columns.

thewebfairy.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

I made no such assumption, next you'll be telling me I got the scales wrong. It was a very simple completely inaccurate image to illustrate a concept. Regardless of the conditions of core or perimeter columns, any rotation of an upper block will increase the mass density on one side. It is an inescapable result of the symmetrical construction.


The majority of the mass of the top was hanging over the side of the building, thus as in the law of ‘angular momentum’ should have continued in its path.

No it wasn't, why do you make such silly assumptions? Even at 30 degrees the centre of mass remains well inside the building footprint. How could it possibly progress outside it?


How did the top suddenly get its energy to be focused symmetrically, and where did the energy come from for the top to suddenly crush thousands of tons of steel that was designed to hold its own weight plus some (5x I believe).

The energy for collapse is provided by Gravity, there's no requirement for symmetrical force, as I explained there is an inherent bias towards this because any rotation leads to an increase in the amount of mass, and therefore the amount of momentum transfer for one side.


No matter how you look at this problem it cannot be explained without considering that ‘external force’. There is another way, make the building under the top section fall independently and instantly, which would take away the pivot of the top. The building falls faster than the top, this can be observed in the videos. If the bottom had fallen slower the top would still have continued its tilt. That proves the top didn’t cause the collapse. The top can’t do both.

This entire section is incorrect, you may be able to show debris exiting the building faster than the upper section descends, but you cannot show "the building" falling faster. Neither can your false dichotomy be applied.


Now exponent please think hard about this before you reply. I beg you to not go searching for the debunker answer to this on 911myths, educate yourself and find the truth. You are being deceived, and simple physics proves this.

By this logic, every physicist in the world who does not support your theory is either ignorant or complicit. If it is simple physics indeed, then why do people like Dr Bazant get it wrong. I urge you to read this paper and understand the conclusions, if not all the math (which I fully admit I do not understand completely)
/bazant-greening



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   



new topics




 
2
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join