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 steel experiment you can try at home

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Okay kids, dont try this if you cant follow simple directions...

Okay?

1) Find an I-Beam composed of A36 structural steel if you want to be historically accurate, but even a 1-inch diameter run of the mill steel rod will do.

2) If you are using an I-beam, stand it on end inside of a large, fireproof container. If you are using a rod, try to find a way to brace it. For best results while using a steel rod, brace it horizontally across two cinder blocks, with the mid section unsupported.

3) Apply weights to the beam or rod. Dont over load it so that it fails, but maybe about 75% of failure load will do. To be historically accurate, 20% of failure load will be more than sufficient.

4) Taking appropriate safety precautions, put a few gallons of gasoline, kerosene, or diesel into the fireproof container.

5) Using a fuse of some sort, remotely ignite the fuel.

6) Wait until the fire is out and it has had time to cool!!

7) Observe the results



Considering that the NIST's models failed, i dont think you will have much success in reproducing 911. The NIST models grossly over-exaggerated the conditions seen in the WTC according to their own report!

The NIST attempt to model the WTC failure;

* Used less than half the number of columns found in the WTC, they randomly removed large numbers of columns to "simulate" the planes' damage.

* Applied 4 times gravity load

* Used non-fireproofed steel

* Used fires far hotter than that which the columns were exposed to, according to their own report. Controlled burn natural gas fires burned well over 900 degrees Celsius, even though jet fuel burns around 600 in open air.

* Applied direct flames to the beams for far longer than the duration on 911. They maintained direct contact for hours, even though their own report states that a majority of the fuel burned off within the first few second, the remainder was consumed within the first ten minutes, and the rest of the fires were smoldering fire retardant office materials




posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   
The problem is not a lack of evidence pointing to something other than what the official report says, but a lack of people genuinely interested in the ramifications of such.

The fact is, the majority of people do not really care that 9/11 is more than it appears to be, so long as they are free enough to live their little lives.

That is sad, but so long as it is true nothing will change.

The only thing positive I see is that the 9/11 truth movement is gaining ground in convincing people that there is more to the story. You are a part of that so I commend you. Hopefully your efforts convince one more person that otherwise would just be a follower of the official story.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
This simple experiment demonstrates, conclusively, that jet fuel did not bring down the towers. The only other plausible explanation is that controlled demo was used.

This totally undermines the official story, and all those that would continue to espouse that bs.

This is real science kids! The hallmark of science is repeatability. If an experiment cant be repeated, its bunk.

The NIST could not reproduce the "fire brought down the towers theory", and neither can anybody else. Therefore, its busted. Call the mythbusters and demand that they bust that myth. And, while you at it, get them to reproduce the "top down controlled demo theory" so that people can no longer claim its impossible to take a building down from the top down.

I love it how when im talking to somebody about WTC7, they say, "The fires did it." I then mention the white hot flames in the windsor building in Madrid for 26 some odd hours, it didnt collapse. Theres never been a steel framed building collapse... They say, "Well, a jumbo jet didnt crash into it!" Well, guess what, NEITHER DID WTC7!!

Another thing, wtc7 was a typical "bottom up" demo, too.... How could fires on one side knock it straight down into its own footprint???



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
The debunkers dont have anything to say?

Of course! Prove all their assumptions and arguments entirely lack scientific backing, and they ignore it!



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
This experiment is pointless.

They didn't say that the steel beams were melted, they said that the rivets holding the beams together were weakened by the heat, and that caused their failure. THe only way to experiment on this, besides engineering programms that study material and structural failure, which have been done and show that thats how it happened, to to replicate part of the structure, and put as much force on it as they would've experienced in reality, and then heat them with massive jet fuel fires.

This 'home experiment' basically ignores the hypotheses as to why the structure failed.


This simple experiment demonstrates, conclusively, that jet fuel did not bring down the towers/quote]
You performed the experiment?



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Rivets?

Load bearing structural supports haven't relied on rivets for a long time. You'd have to go back to the 50's to find structural components that rely on rivets.

Engineers realized long ago that two rivets in the same structure have vastly different strengths and tensile properties.

Rivets are made by taking a cylinder of steel, heating it to red hot, then pounding it into shape on the structural member. As they cool, they shrink. If two different rivets were hot-forged slightly differently before they cool, the resulting deformation will shrink different amounts resulting in different static tensions in the rivets.

Rivets are exposed to different heats and different forging techniques, resulting in completely different properties. Heat treatments change properties vastly.

Forging a metal below crystallization temperature "cold-works" the crystals, resulting in grain size reduction, thereby inducing stress. This stress hardens the metal, and decreases elasticity, making it more brittle. Heating a metal back above crystallization temperature (which differs substantially for low-carbon alloy steels, usually around 1650º F) allows for recovery, recrystallization, and grain growth, a process known as annealing. Annealing makes a metal more elastic and less brittle, which means it can be deformed much more easily.

When you're building the tallest structure in the world, you need consistent properties in order to do the math. Engineers realized long ago that rivets differ far too greatly, and hence they cannot accurately model building properties.

Bolts are much easier to calculate. Bolts have consistent strengths and tensile properties. Bolts can have nuts tightened on to a specific torque.

All load bearing structural support members relied on welds and/or bolts. Rivets would only have been used on non-structural support members.

From the NIST in regards to WTC BOLTS:

All bolts and washers for applicable structural joints were to conform to ASTM A325, except in locations where ASTM A307 or ASTM A490 bolts and washers where specifically called for in the structural drawings (Sec. 501.100).

High-strength bolts and washers were to be installed in conformance with Specifications for Structural Joints Using ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts.

(Research Council on Riveted and Bolted Joints of the Engineering Foundation, 1966.)

wtc.nist.gov...



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
And, even if it was the "rivets" or in actuality the bolts and the welds that failed, how come nobody can reproduce these results?

How come NIST was able to apply four times gravity load without a failure?



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Besides, you dont take two steel members that can withstand 10kips of shearing force and affix them together with bolts that can only withstand 1kip. It makes no sense.

Structural members are almost always joined together using bolts of the same type, strength, and grade of material. Joints must be within a certain tolerance of the rest of the member.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1
Rivets?Load bearing structural supports haven't relied on rivets for a long time. [...]
Bolts are much easier to calculate.

Bolts, rivets, studs, whatever. It wasn't the steel beams that were structurally weakened to the point of failure, the critical element was the bolts, rivets, little things holding them together.
So if we want an accurate experiment, we need to see what happens to quarter inch bolts when heated and put under the pressure of the whole building, post impact.

As far as fireproofing, one of the tragedies of 911 was that the fireproofing in the original construction was done by a company that was mob connected, and it was the fireproofing that was blown off by the impact.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Like i said. The Bolts were most likely made from exactly the same material and, regardless of the exact material, they MUST withstand the same shearing, tension, compression, torsion, etc as the rest of the member, within very tight tolerances.

[edit on 2/7/2007 by sp00n1]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   
And considering the NIST models modeled EXACTLY what you are speaking of, since they built and exact replica, why cant anybody reproduce the results that you are claiming happened? Especially considering that NIST applied 4 times gravity load?!?!?!



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Unless they can reproduce the hundreds of factors that went into the collapse, I'll only be taking their tests with a grain of salt.

Also, for your experiment, how does heating a beam disprove a whole building collapse? As for you saying "flame retardant office materials", looking around my office right now, the only thing that's fire retardant is my chair..

The precursor to this event was a plane crashing into a building. It sheared off the fireproofing for the steel, which made it more succeptable to fire. It's a well known fact that kerosene/jet fuel only burns for a few minutes at most, and in the case of the twin towers, it ignited any supplies in the offices that have any chance of burning.

Now, the buildings would be losing structural integrity. Just think of the game Jenga.. Without the full supporting structure, I believe the slightest wind may have also played a crucial role in the collapse. You have to remember wind will cause skyscrapers to sway on any normal day..

We've never seen the likes of these forces being acted upon each other, and hopefully will never have to experience it again. Unless we can reproduce everything that happened that day, I doubt we will ever fully understand what exactly led to the collapse.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
This experiment is pointless.


No, it's not. It would show how much it takes for steel to loose it's integrity.


They didn't say that the steel beams were melted,


Nor did the OP. Where'd you get that from?


they said that the rivets holding the beams together were weakened by the heat, and that caused their failure.


Not sure on this, but I believe the use of rivets for structural steel building materials was stopped a long time before the WTC towers were built. Did you mean bolt connections?


THe only way to experiment on this, besides engineering programms that study material and structural failure, which have been done and show that thats how it happened, to to replicate part of the structure, and put as much force on it as they would've experienced in reality, and then heat them with massive jet fuel fires.


Can you show us these suppossed engineering programs where they have conclusively proven that it is possible? Thanks.


This 'home experiment' basically ignores the hypotheses as to why the structure failed.


No, it shows how steel acts in heat.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1
Forging a metal below crystallization temperature "cold-works" the crystals, resulting in grain size reduction, thereby inducing stress. This stress hardens the metal, and decreases elasticity, making it more brittle. Heating a metal back above crystallization temperature (which differs substantially for low-carbon alloy steels, usually around 1650º F) allows for recovery, recrystallization, and grain growth, a process known as annealing. Annealing makes a metal more elastic and less brittle, which means it can be deformed much more easily.


You sound like you have a background in engineering or materials science. Do you? Just curious. I couldn't have explained it better myself.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluesquareapple
Unless they can reproduce the hundreds of factors that went into the collapse, I'll only be taking their tests with a grain of salt.


But, yet you take their reoprt conclusions seriously?


Also, for your experiment, how does heating a beam disprove a whole building collapse?


Because column buckling is what they say is the culprit.


As for you saying "flame retardant office materials", looking around my office right now, the only thing that's fire retardant is my chair..


How about the very walls that your office is built of? They use gypsum board for a reason. That reason is it's ability to be fire retardent. Look it up if you don't believe me. It's rated at 2 hours. Longer than the fires at the towers.


The precursor to this event was a plane crashing into a building. It sheared off the fireproofing for the steel, which made it more succeptable to fire. It's a well known fact that kerosene/jet fuel only burns for a few minutes at most, and in the case of the twin towers, it ignited any supplies in the offices that have any chance of burning.


First, prove the fireproofing was sheared off....not just by what the government says.

Second, the supplies you mention that burned. How hot do they burn compared with other hydrocarbon fires (jet fuel)? Clue: They are comparable.


Now, the buildings would be losing structural integrity. Just think of the game Jenga.. Without the full supporting structure, I believe the slightest wind may have also played a crucial role in the collapse. You have to remember wind will cause skyscrapers to sway on any normal day..


Wow, this is the first I've heard that wind brought the towers down. BTW, do you know what the wind was on 9/11?


We've never seen the likes of these forces being acted upon each other, and hopefully will never have to experience it again.


What, structural damage and fire? Potential energy converting to kinetic energy? What forces have we not seen before?


Unless we can reproduce everything that happened that day, I doubt we will ever fully understand what exactly led to the collapse.


We could build the cap for WTC 1 and a few floors below it. Drop the cap a distance of 12.5 feet and see if it pulverises the whole thing. Oh, to be on spot, we'd have to have this experiment in fire also.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
The NIST experiment used NON-fireproofed steel They used less than half of the columns. Yet, no collapse. Plus, there is absolutely no scientific analysis showing any correlation to the impact of fireproofing under these conditions. The non-fireproofed steel was certified by ATSM E119 to withstand compression forces at temperatures over 1200C for over 2 hours, far worse than conditions according to the NIST's own report.

The building code for NYC specifies flame retardant standards for all sky scrapers. This includes, furniture, carpeting, walls, ceiling tiles... the only thing there was to burn was copy paper. The carpets and furniture would smolder, but fully involved flames? No.

Comparing WTC towers to jenga? Ha! Skyscrapers have soooo many redundancies, "a plane crashing through it is like pushing a pencil through a window screen." According to one the the Architects that worked on the WTC. He said that in an interview before 911. The buildings were designed to withstand multiple jumbo jet strikes. The NIST report even rules out the plane crash as having any significant impact on the collapse. They say the blame rests entirely with jet fuel fires. Have you ever read the NIST?



And guess what, WTC 7 didnt have any plane crash into it, so how do you explain that?


Yes, griff. I have three undergrad degrees; Comp Engr, Elec Engr, and Physics. I have studied lots of matsci and metallurgy. Matsci is an important component of understanding semi-conductors and computer bus conduction and electrical properties.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1
Yes, griff. I have three undergrad degrees; Comp Engr, Elec Engr, and Physics. I have studied lots of matsci and metallurgy. Matsci is an important component of understanding semi-conductors and computer bus conduction and electrical properties.


I have a question for you. What do you think of Dr. Thomas Eager? Remember he is the materials science professor at MIT that started the whole "the fires melted the steel" mumbo jumbo. Then, he was the one to suggest pancaking. How anyone can really listen to this man after that is beyond me. Sorry to go off topic.

Edit: But people to this day, point to his "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse" paper as if it were the bible.

[edit on 2/7/2007 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
But, yet you take their reoprt conclusions seriously?


I never said that.


How about the very walls that your office is built of? They use gypsum board for a reason. That reason is it's ability to be fire retardent. Look it up if you don't believe me. It's rated at 2 hours. Longer than the fires at the towers.


Simply having a door open or having any hole bigger than a pin will negate any ability put forth by these walls.. And yes, everyone follows fire regulations 100% as they were designed..


First, prove the fireproofing was sheared off....not just by what the government says.

Second, the supplies you mention that burned. How hot do they burn compared with other hydrocarbon fires (jet fuel)? Clue: They are comparable.


Petroleum/plastic products burn at about 1200ºF, whereas jet fuel burns at 1500ºF. There may have been other factors contributing to warping of the steel, I don't know though.. Clue: Weighs over 150,000 pounds..


Now, the buildings would be losing structural integrity. Just think of the game Jenga.. Without the full supporting structure, I believe the slightest wind may have also played a crucial role in the collapse. You have to remember wind will cause skyscrapers to sway on any normal day..

Wow, this is the first I've heard that wind brought the towers down. BTW, do you know what the wind was on 9/11?


You're obviously too busy picking apart my post to notice the post as a whole.


We've never seen the likes of these forces being acted upon each other, and hopefully will never have to experience it again.

What, structural damage and fire? Potential energy converting to kinetic energy? What forces have we not seen before?


Again, you're too busy picking apart the post to notice what I'm saying. I never said forces we've never seen, I said: We've never seen the likes of these forces being acted upon each other, and hopefully will never have to experience it again. You're too busy trying to make people seem foolish because they don't have the same opinion as you.


We could build the cap for WTC 1 and a few floors below it. Drop the cap a distance of 12.5 feet and see if it pulverises the whole thing. Oh, to be on spot, we'd have to have this experiment in fire also.


Great sarcastic remark you made here.. Amazing way to prove what would happen if the top floors of the WTC would magically jump 12.5 feet into the air..



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluesquareapple

Originally posted by Griff
But, yet you take their reoprt conclusions seriously?


I never said that.


OK...what do you believe then? I'll give you that I made a conclusion not based on your comments.



Simply having a door open or having any hole bigger than a pin will negate any ability put forth by these walls.. And yes, everyone follows fire regulations 100% as they were designed..


That doesn't explain fires spreading to other undamaged floors. And, if they were not following design drawings or specs on one of my projects, I'd shut the whole project down. I'm sure they had quality control on site at the time of construction. If they didn't, then the Port Authority could be a possible blaim point.



Petroleum/plastic products burn at about 1200ºF, whereas jet fuel burns at 1500ºF. There may have been other factors contributing to warping of the steel, I don't know though.. Clue: Weighs over 150,000 pounds..


By your own quote, hydrocarbons burn less than jet fuel.



You're obviously too busy picking apart my post to notice the post as a whole.


I'm not trying to pick you apart. Just trying to put some sense into it.



Again, you're too busy picking apart the post to notice what I'm saying. I never said forces we've never seen, I said: We've never seen the likes of these forces being acted upon each other, and hopefully will never have to experience it again. You're too busy trying to make people seem foolish because they don't have the same opinion as you.


It is not my intention to make people look foolish. If that is the impression I made, I apologise.


Great sarcastic remark you made here.. Amazing way to prove what would happen if the top floors of the WTC would magically jump 12.5 feet into the air..


It wasn't sarcastic. Why magically jump 12.5 feet? The coclusion made is that the upper floors falling onto the lower is what made the building come down. My analogy is simply taking away one floor and letting the cap freefall onto the lower floors....same principle.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Thomas Eager?

Well, if i recall correctly, he hypothesized about the collapse. He did not state any direct proof, just a theory. He based his hypothesis on no scientific measurements and without examining the steel or even seeing the site.

He also violated the very fundamentals of science. He started with a conclusion, then worked backwards. He assumed that fires brought down the tower, then worked backwards to fit facts to his conclusion. In psychology, that is known as either selection bias or a confirmation bias.

The controlled demo theory is often subjected to a disconfirmation bias, whereby the theory received undo scrutiny due to people prior beliefs and assumptions. Nobody wants to believe the US govt would blow up their own people, so they grasp at straws to find reasons why its impossible. People will use ad hoc ad hominem, or use excuses like; they couldnt hide the explosives, they didnt have time to plant the explosives, explosives wouldnt work, the collapse of the WTC simply cannot be explained by explosives for various reasons, "if they did that, i would know about it, that would require millions of people that wouldnt stay quite, and etc. While i strongly encourage scientific scrutiny and debate, i reject close minded debunking.

Controlled demo is definitely possible. Explosives could be hidden inside of empty columns or in closed off utilities areas. Tenets were moved around numerous times in the weeks before 911. About half of the floors were vacant. Employees reported numerous power shutdowns while seeing strange "engineers" in blue jump suits going in to closed off areas. Bomb dogs abruptly pulled out of the buildings, despite on-going bomb threats. Employees reported hearing lots of heavy machinery operating on adjacent floors in the weeks before 911, at least those employees that survived to tell the story. When Marvin Bush's security company took over security in 1996, their first project was to rewire the security system, plenty of time to lay wires for explosives as well. Planting the explosives would maybe take a team of 20-30 very very very well paid people. Why blow the whistle? How many people see stuff at work every day, and dont blow the whistle because they will; loose their jobs, loose their lives, gain nothing in return, and probably not even be believed.

As i recall, the media instantly starting the brainwashing campaign soon after the collapse, repeatedly stating, "Intense fires melted steel" over and over and over again. He was probably just as brainwashed as the rest of us. Although, being a scientist, he knew jet fuel could not melt steel.

As i remember, his theory went something like this;

*Intense fires caused linear expansion of the steel.

*Expanded steel had no where to go, so it buckled under the extra compression forces.

*Eventually the steel expanded and buckled sooooo much that the joints snapped and the buckled steel completely failed.

*Trusses sagged and snapped

*Floors "pancaked"

All in all, i dont think much of it. Its all theoretical and not backed by one shred of evidence, any facts, or any historical precedents. I dont see how the steel could expand soooo much that it starts snapping.

Plus, he theory would require a very gradual progression of events. You would start to see signs of lost structural integrity. NIST's own report measured the oscillations of the building to determine its strutcural integrity, and according to their own results, the buildings maintained most of their structural integrity after the impacts and during the fires.

Buildings deflect and oscillate to certain periods, determined by Hooke's law, F=kx. Using differential equations, you can model the oscillations to determine structural integrity.

So, according to Eager's theory, you should see; increased period and deflection of oscillations if there is wind, clear signs that the building is beginning to collapse, leaning off to one side as the weight is distributed un-evenly, and then the top should start over to one side. Even if the top fell straight down, which nobody has shown the math that explains where the energy came from that is required to totally pulverize all floors below, so it should fall off to the side.

And, once again, NIST's own models failed to show any support for his theory.

[edit on 2/7/2007 by sp00n1]

[edit on 2/7/2007 by sp00n1]




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join