It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 06:36 PM
This is a raging inferno;

This isnt!

This the raging inferno after burning out of control for over 28 hrs. Its burned until it burned all of its fuel out. Temperatures got up to white hot in some areas. Some steel actually experienced deformations. It was still standing. It had to be demolished using explosives.

This is a pancake collapse.

This isnt!

[edit on 2/7/2007 by sp00n1]

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 11:36 PM
Crazy video man this explains it all. check the WTC movie

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 02:20 AM

Originally posted by sp00n1
Okay kids, dont try this if you cant follow simple directions...

Unless you know a professional fire fighter who can do or supervise the experiment to ensure that you take the right safety precautions I would advise against doing the experiment. Personally I like the idea of the experiment so don't misinterpret what I'm saying.

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

Just where would you obtain a fireproof container from ?
Iv never heard of them .

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 03:17 AM
sp00n1, thank you for your good work in this thread. The way you use your knowledge and apply sound logic and reason is an inspiration to the rest of us.

Thanks, keep it up!

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 03:43 AM
first of all, save for the fact that i disagree with the parameters of your tests, ive found this to be a good thread


Originally posted by sp00n1
The controlled demo theory is often subjected to a disconfirmation bias, whereby the theory received undo scrutiny due to people prior beliefs and assumptions.

i take exception to that statement personally. not insult really just exception.

its a popular theory that the demo job was done by military explosives guys.

i was one of them. (explosives guy not one of the guys that rigged the wtc's) and i dont believe that the towers were brought down by explosives.

not because they couldnt be...since starting into discussions with people that believe it was an inside job ive personally doodled out dozens of ways it could be done. easily. even from the top down.

the one problem i could never overcome in my theorizing to keep it so natural looking and covert.

ill admit logistically its a nightmare, there would need to be a large number of people in on it from the top down. and while ill say its unlikely that NO ONE talked since then, ill concede its possible, for the sake of arguement.

but, for the sake of arguement also, i will ask, do you have any idea how much demo it takes to cut steel?
i once did some calculations, in the spirit of being open minded and just providing information so that if people want to discuss explosives they at least had some real information about it. well it turns out that my calcs were wrong. i was going off specs of the core coulumns i got from a misinformed source and so my calcs were way low. and in doing it i had only calculated cutting 50% of the cloumns, which some might argue wasnt enough to drop the building. even then it was like...50lbs/floor this was also figured using linear shape charges which are no where near what you would need if you were going to brute force blast them (putting the explosive inside a column for example)

so, having a scientific backround, ill ask you a question to which if you answer no ill offer a friendly challenge to you.

have you put as much research into explosives and how they could have been used as you have put into deciding thats waht caused the collapse? do you know the properties of various types of explosives so that you can apply that data to your knowledge of structural steel?

the answers may suprise you.

like i said, i could have done the collapse with explosives...maybe not with the finese' (ive said many times if it was a demo job they are gods) but ill never say it couldnt be done. i will say i dont think it could be done so covertly. i will also say i disagree with yuo when you say it was a demo job. this is my opinion based on working with high explosives.

to be truely open minded is to be willing to rule out all possibilities even if you think you are sure. if someone shows me definitive proof there were explosives there, ill change my opinion in a heartbeat. but in the many many many videos and photos ive seen online, ive yet to see anythig that makes me go "holy hell, that was explosives" but im still waiting,.

i hope to god this post doesnt turn into another flamefest bloodbath. simply stating an opinion. and offering a serious challenge for you. you seem to be qualified to take said challenge. wouldnt be fair of me to ask you to do the research if you didnt have the type of backround you do.

if your research leads you further into the probablility that it was explosives, please let me know. id love to see what you come up with.

Nobody wants to believe the US govt would blow up their own people,
yeah, im one of them...just not naieve enough to think it COULDNT happen.

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 06:25 PM
Sounds reasonable, dam. I am no explosives expert, though i do understand some of the chemistry and i have *some* experience with small quantities of explosives.

I have attempted to model both gravity driven and explosives driven collapses. My models are nowhere near "scientific quality" since they are; not to scale, not exact replicas, and ignore a number of details. It is impossible to get the blueprints, so theres not much hope of making and exact model.

With the gravity driven collapses, i do not even bother trying to initialize them with fire. Instead, i drop weight onto floors to mimick the supposed "pancake" or "pile-driver" theories.

The only way i can get the collapse to progress under gravity is if the floor supports are woefully weak. Essentially, the floors are hanging precariously on hair thin supports. The end result tends to have a number of intact floors piled on top of each other. Often times the collapse does not complete.

These models demonstrate what volumes of scientific text already states, "Progressive collapses slow as the progress. They do not accelerate."

Just like dominos, if you want to get them to progressively knock the next out of the way, it takes lots of time and patience setting them up just the right distance away. And even under optimum conditions, things often go wrong.

The only way i can damage the concrete floors is if i drop one very heavily weighted floor a substantial distance onto a firmly affixed floor. And then the damage is nothing like the dust seen on 911. In order to get a concrete slab to break apart into pieces and create dust, it needs to be dropped from over 30 feet with lots of weight.

My explosive models are driven by thermite, flash powder, and a number of other concoctions. The logistics are certainly difficult in getting the timing right, but i dont have the same equipment demo companies do. These models match much more closely what i saw on 911, although it is certainly not exact.

If 50 pounds per floor is --all-- it would take, i could easily see that being hidden. It could be disguised as equipment, it could be hidden above ceiling tiles, it could be hidden inside of columns, etc. I actually figure that 50 lbs sounds a little light. If they had to, i could conceive of them hiding up to a ton on each floor, but that sounds like major overkill.

I dont know exactly what would have been used. My theory is something along these lines;

Linear shape charges could be placed about every 30 feet or so on the main columns. They could be hidden inside of columns. They could be disguised inside of large gauge electrical conduit. They could be painted. They could be hidden behind steel plates.

C4 bricks could be placed on each floor hidden inside of hvac equipment, electrical equipment, phone equipment, whatever. Electricians wont touch HVAC. Hvac techs wont touch electric. Nobody is going to touch equipment they dont understand.

Thermobarics could be hidden inside of CO2 tanks on each floor. Explosive gases or fluids could be piped in through the sprinkler system at the last minute. This allows for direct control of delivery; this floor, not that one, this room, not that one...

Devices could charge batteries or capacitors off of the buildings own electrical system. Timers could be initialized off of the buildings own phone system. There is no need for large quantities of det cord running around in the open.

Security's main focus is on people. Once people have been cleared, they are of no major concern. Security is not likely to go ripping up the building looking for hidden explosives. Even if security guards saw demo charges, they probably wouldnt know what it is. Plus, they would never imagine the upper echelons of security allowing for the wiring of the building for demolition, that is inconceivable. Security is more worried about truck bombs in the basement, which even that they failed miserably at.

Demo could be modeled on a computer. Logistics of timing could be figured out with excellent precision, then tested on large models in remote locations.

Now, allow me to illustrate your bias demonstrated in just your last post;

*How much explosive is required to cut steel?

Lots, thats why fire couldnt do it.

*Demo requires well placed charges and perfectly choreographed, god-like timing.

Yes, thats exactly why fire couldn't do it.

Throughout your demonstration of how difficult it is to demo a building, you never once thought twice about a spontaneous collapse caused by fire? How does a humongous skyscraper spontaneously collapse itself? How does it pull off the logistics? Not just once, but three times???

Spontaneous fires cause a spontaneous collapse that spontaneously progresses in perfect symmetry?

If you think its sooo easy for fire to do that to a building, why do you think explosives would require a prohibitive level of logistics?

If you think fire could spontaneously collapse a building, why couldnt explosives have helped initialize it? Why could explosives have helped complete it?

It seems to me that if you could completely demolish two humongous buildings just by dumping a few thousand gallons of kerosene down the elevator shafts, demo companies would have jumped on that a long time ago.

Why waste time and money on all the prep and all the logistics when kerosene is obviously so much more effective and efficient?

[edit on 2/8/2007 by sp00n1]

[edit on 2/8/2007 by sp00n1]

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 06:48 PM
excellent post spoon

yes, im biased. but ONLY to the point i dont think there were preplaced explosives in the buildings. im even willing to admit i could be wrong about it and im open to alternative explainations, but until i find one that makes sense i have to go with what you see is what you get.

ill even go so far as to concede taht linear shape charges would be easy to hide honestly....but again, my 50lbs/floor were woefully short based on misinformation i had. as soon as i can find real data, ill redo the calcs just for fun.

but, if we can both agree it takes a lot of energy to cut steel, even more for a c4 bruteforce blast...then i have to do you hide the actual detnation? even if subsequent blasts COULD be covered by the sounds of the do you hide the first one?

you said you had experience with small amounts of explosives, thats good, at least you have an idea what im talking about. imagine 50-100lbs going off...its impressive to say the least.

i will agree when you say that the wiring for it 'could' have been easily hidden, i even modeled out one where the detonators were simply connected to cat5 cables and set off via the internet...but, what about what was likely damaged in the crash? theres no way to know exactly where that plane was going to hit. that leaves the chance for evidence to be left behind. teh last thing you want is some firefighter stumbling on the remains of one of your charges after the fact...

i have no idea what DID bring down the only trying to help rule out what didnt or at least make sure that if explosives is the best theory that everyone is thinking it with accurate data.

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 07:24 PM
Indeed, it does seem a little quiet....

[edit on 2/8/2007 by sp00n1]

posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 08:02 AM
Spoon & Damocles,

I have been thinking along the lines of a thermite based material (nanothermate possibly) used to sever the core at the base and the mechanical floors (severing it into three pieces). This would cause the core to fail and drag all floors along with it. We wouldn't have seen this happen on the inside. What we would see then is the outer shell collapse from the weekest point (impact floors). This would start the collapse without the telltell sounds of explosives. Then, to aid in the global collapse, some form of explosives were used (the sounds hidden in the collapse itself).

Do you two think this scenario could be plausible?

One other thing. People will say "but the core structure stood for a few seconds after the collapse". My theory on that is that the thermite didn't cut those huge columns in enough time to sever the base until after the collapse. The way the "spire" collapsed is what tells me that the core was severed by more than fire and kinetic energy from the collapse. Those columns were imbedded into bedrock. How could they just fall straight down into themselves after the force of the collapse was already passed them?

posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 03:00 PM
Super thermite is pretty explosive. Id think you would get a pretty big bang from that. Perhaps if the initial explosions were in the central core, the sound would be muffled as the shock waves lost energy by ripping through all of the steel and concrete.

Im sure you guys have all seen the molten medal dripping from the crash zone. I think they may have used some sort of ceramic containers to hold thermite in or around the columns perhaps. I believe they could have severely weakened the columns around the crash zone in this manner before initializing the collapse with a smaller amount of explosives explosives.

As for the core left standing, then falling... that cannot be explained by either of the currently prevailing gravity driven collapse scenarios. Pancake theory would have left the core columns totally intact even after the collapse, as was shown in the animation on PBS's "Why the towers fell". This was obviously wrong so the revised it to the "Pile Driver Theory" which essentially asserts that gravity driven mass tore everything apart into tiny little pieces without the entropic effect of the resistance slowing down the collapse. Phones, bones, cement, steel, and body parts were all turned into confetti by this 'theory'. The exact mechanism for how this was accomplished is still not explained. According to the pile driver theory, no core columns should have been left standing.

So the fact that there was something like 50-60 storeys left standing after the collapse doesnt seem to add up. Plus, the fact that these columns then fell apart into pieces no bigger than 30 feet seems especially odd. A number of witnesses describe numerous explosions in the basement before the collapse began. Perhaps they were severing the links to the bedrock foundation so that these columns would fall in the collapse?

If it wasnt fire, and it wasnt conventional explosives, what was it? Missiles and energy beams fired from the holographic planes that weren't really there?

[ And on a side note; fireproof containers suitable for conducting experiment from OP would likely include materials composed of; cement, ceramics, or metal. For instance, oil drums (without oil obviously), old gas tanks (without gas obviously), cement slabs, terra cota slabs, etc. My idea of safety precautions includes digging a hole in the sand, place fireproof container in hole, make sure there are no combustibles within ten feet radius around perimeter or 30 feet above, igniting it remotely with Nichrome wire and a battery. If you dont know what you're doing, dont do it. Fuel vapors will make a big fireball initially. ]

[edit on 2/9/2007 by sp00n1]

posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 03:18 PM

Originally posted by sp00n1
If it wasnt fire, and it wasnt conventional explosives, what was it?

To quote IRobot. "That is the correct question".

posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 07:11 PM
your thermate theory hangs on a pretty crucial piece of information no one seems to agree on

was the core a bunch of freestanding steel columns, or were they encased in concrete? every elevator shaft ive ever seen was encased in concrete but i dont have enough information about the wtc construction to know for sure.

[this part is pure speculation]
but wouldnt that much thermite on those floors (we are talking about 47 coulumns on each floor) have given off a lot of light? aside from the fact that it would/should have started fires on each of those floors? even if it was right before or during the collapse, that much thermite and melting steel should have given off a lot of smoke on those floors no?

admittedly, if it was timed right no one may have noticed as the building was collapsing.

posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 08:07 PM
I think people are missing all the material on the planes that would have casued thermite or thermite-like reactions.

Plus the fact that molten aluminum from the plane comming into contact with other material on the plane and builidng materials.

posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 09:08 PM
for reference ultima...aircraft arent my area so you may much magneseum (sp) is on a standard aircraft today? cuz you do raise a doesnt take much to make things real hot real fast

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 12:48 AM
It could have done with explosives. People reported just a few weeks
before the explosion that the power was shut down for the WTC.
So the security cameras and everything was off-line.
Just look at my link above and watch the video.
It explains lots of stuff. Steel can not be melted with that fire.
There was a different type of fire spewing out of the WTC.

"This is, This isn't"
those photos are correct, those buildings were a big inferno
but the steel still stood up.
Silverstein had that complex insured against terrorist attacks and
such. So after the building collapsed he collected for both.
I believe he won around $7billion.
If you have not seen that video that I posted up, then watch it.

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Damocles
your thermate theory hangs on a pretty crucial piece of information no one seems to agree on

was the core a bunch of freestanding steel columns, or were they encased in concrete? every elevator shaft ive ever seen was encased in concrete but i dont have enough information about the wtc construction to know for sure.

If the core columns were incased in concrete, how would fire weaken them? It goes both ways.

[this part is pure speculation]
but wouldnt that much thermite on those floors (we are talking about 47 coulumns on each floor) have given off a lot of light? aside from the fact that it would/should have started fires on each of those floors? even if it was right before or during the collapse, that much thermite and melting steel should have given off a lot of smoke on those floors no?

admittedly, if it was timed right no one may have noticed as the building was collapsing.

Probably. Which is why it's only a working theory and not totally what I believe. That is why I asked both of you if it was plausible. Thanks for the imput.

Edit: I have a problem with spelling weaken etc. I always want to write weeken. Blah.

[edit on 2/10/2007 by Griff]

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Damocles
was the core a bunch of freestanding steel columns, or were they encased in concrete? every elevator shaft ive ever seen was encased in concrete but i dont have enough information about the wtc construction to know for sure.

There may have been concrete in the core in certain locations or up until a certain floor, but I've seen a History Channel show interviewing an elevator survivor, and he said he kicked the drywall between the elevator shaft and a bathroom right out. This fits with what NIST has claimed about the building in general (though I really don't believe that it was like that all the way down to the base).

but wouldnt that much thermite on those floors (we are talking about 47 coulumns on each floor) have given off a lot of light?

Probably depends on how long nanothermite reactions last, right? From what I've read, they're like really slow high explosives, but that that still comes out in fractions of a second. And we have seen flashes in videos that get attributed to any number of things.

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 03:55 PM
All this heat, buckling the steel columns and weakening the rivets/bolts whatever. Everybody has Uni degrees in this/that etc etc. Look at the evidence in many live video streams and or photos of the 30 or more people hanging out the sides of the walls where the towers were hit. These people may have died in vain, but the reality is they gave their DYING TESTIMONY, which cannot be refuted. they were basically telling us that THESE STEEL COLUMNS WERE NOT THAT HOT, .....LOOK THEY'RE HOLDING ONTO THEM. DON'T BELIEVE THE OFFICIAL REPORT ABOUT THIS STEEL GETTING HOT. IF IT WAS HOT, WOULD THESE PEOPLE BE HANGING ONTO THEM FOR LIFE.
We owe these people a great service. They died giving us their evidence. Let's not disbelieve them. Let us take their evidence and shove it down the throat of those who say melting steel and failing colums. We owe these people much more than we are giving. They gave their lives. WHAT ARE YOU PREPARED TO GIVE TO BRING THE TRUTH OUT...TASROB (AUS)

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 05:25 PM
griff, bsb. you guys made some great comments id like to comment on after i sleep. another insomnia binge

but griff, yes, it does work both ways.

bsb, when i say flashes im personally not meaning the little flashbulb like ones we see in a few vids that could be anything. i mean light up a whole floor like its sunrise in the dark type flashes. think arc welder....only really big.

and waht was that survivor doing in the elevator shaft? is it possible that hist channel wasnt real clear in the editing where he started and where he was going?

lol well, guess thats all i had to say. im going to sleep now.

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:23 PM

Have the debunkers been debunked?

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in