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 Twin Towers: The Proofs Of Demolition

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Here is another detailed & comprehensive engineering report by Silverstein Properties Inc. dealing with the structural behavior of the Twin Towers during the 911 events.
Here is their analysis of the Fire Temps from the impact.



FIRE TEMPERATURES WERE LOWER THAN
TYPICAL FULLY DEVELOPED OFFICE FIRES
Examination of the fires on the impact floors provided
further insights. The teams from Hughes and ARUPFire
found that the releases of jet fuel acted like huge “matches”
to start fires, but - contrary to some speculation - the
“matches” burned out quickly and did not cause the fires to
be hotter or spread faster. Rather, the fires were fueled by office
furniture and floor contents that were initially ignited
by the jet fuel. The analysis showed that the fires on the impact floors were not as hot and did not spread as rapidly as
normal office fires, primarily because the dust and debris
distributed by the crashes inhibited the fires. The engineering
team determined average air temperatures in the impact
floors to be between 750” F to 1300” F (400” C to 700” C),
with higher temperatures at some perimeter locations. Tragically,
the fires were nevertheless hot enough to eventually
weaken the columns stripped of fireproofing ...

www.aisc.org.../ ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=21433 - 66.2KB

I don't know if this link works properly but this is where they say the pdf is located.

The consensus of the engineers who were actually able to do forensic research, hands on research, not you-tube videos, no offense to you-tube intended here, was that the destruction of the fireproofing and the continued heat from all the combustibles were enough to weaken the connections.




posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   
There is another report from the engineering team from LZA Technology/Thornton-Tomasetti that examined why Tower 2 fell before Tower 1.


THE COLLAPSE OF TOWER 2 DID NOT CAUSE OR
CONTRIBUTE TO THE COLLAPSE OF TOWER 1
The engineering analysis led by researchers from LZA
Technology/Thornton-Tomasetti examined the way in
which each tower collapsed. Once collapse initiated in each
tower, essentially all of the interior structure of the tower fell
straight down, with floors pancaking on top of one another.
The network of perimeter steel columns and spandrels acted
like a chute to funnel the interior contents into the tower
footprint. Some debris, primarily the perimeter columns,
was thrown outward from the face of the tower, creating a
lobe pattern of debris. Based on an extensive review of the
collapses, debris captured in photos and videos, and observations
of engineers involved in the Ground Zero rescue, recovery
and cleanup efforts, the team was able to identify the
actual pattern of debris from each building collapse (See Fig.
5). This analysis establishes that the collapse of Tower 2 did
not cause any significant structural damage to Tower 1. Because
the towers were offset, Tower 1 stood out of the way of
the falling Tower 2 walls, and pieces of debris only scraped
the surface of Tower 1


www.aisc.org.../ ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=21433 - 66.2KB

If that link doesn't work try this one: search.aisc.org:8080...

and click the 2nd article on the page.

This was a real eye opener for me. I have yet to find an engineering report from a reputable engineering firm that says that pre-planted explosives were necessary to cause the cataclysmic failure of the Towers. If any one has some links, please post them.....I'm not talking about you-tube commentaries but bonifide engineering reports.

I still have a lot of questions and I always try to keep an open mind.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by Sparky63]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
Here is another detailed & comprehensive engineering report by Silverstein Properties Inc. dealing with the structural behavior of the Twin Towers during the 911 events.
Here is their analysis of the Fire Temps from the impact.



FIRE TEMPERATURES WERE LOWER THAN
TYPICAL FULLY DEVELOPED OFFICE FIRES
Examination of the fires on the impact floors provided
further insights. The teams from Hughes and ARUPFire
found that the releases of jet fuel acted like huge “matches”
to start fires, but - contrary to some speculation - the
“matches” burned out quickly and did not cause the fires to
be hotter or spread faster. Rather, the fires were fueled by office
furniture and floor contents that were initially ignited
by the jet fuel. The analysis showed that the fires on the impact floors were not as hot and did not spread as rapidly as
normal office fires, primarily because the dust and debris
distributed by the crashes inhibited the fires. The engineering
team determined average air temperatures in the impact
floors to be between 750” F to 1300” F (400” C to 700” C),
with higher temperatures at some perimeter locations. Tragically,
the fires were nevertheless hot enough to eventually
weaken the columns stripped of fireproofing ...

www.aisc.org.../ ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=21433 - 66.2KB

I don't know if this link works properly but this is where they say the pdf is located.

The consensus of the engineers who were actually able to do forensic research, hands on research, not you-tube videos, no offense to you-tube intended here, was that the destruction of the fireproofing and the continued heat from all the combustibles were enough to weaken the connections.


Ok i have a question.

Did the Research look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.

NIST STATEMENT TO THE ABOVE QUESTION: "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

Also the above contradicts NIST below;

NIST: "None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degree C for as long as 15 minutes."
Nist Page 180.

NIST: Within the investigation of the recovered steel, Frank Gayle's group performed a paint defermation test which showed how paint would curl or change in a certain temperature range. So they took the samples and analized them to see what kind of temperature they were exposed to by looking at the paint. Less than 2 percent of the samples which have been pulled specifically from the fire zones, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire less than 2 percent seen temperatures of 480 degrees F* which is very low relative to the temperatures to "soften or melt" steel. "Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C* during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method devoloped by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." NIST page 181

Just something to think about.

Why wasn't there research given to NIST to consider, if it is accurate?

Take a look at Professor Steven Jones peer reviewed paper in finding thermate signature in dust particles collected from 9/11. This is a big eye opener. Steven Jones Paper

I do however recommend watching his speech in reference to the above paper it easier to understand. View Video Here - EYE OPENER

BeZerK

[edit on 28-6-2007 by BeZerk]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Aww man, I missed the best part of the debate.
Too bad I had to work and am currently on my way to work in a second. Once I actually get off, I'll try to catch up and post.

But ANOK, Omg, you are ridiculous! LOL!
A true 9/11 truther. You impress the hell out of me, you are really on your information; I could even learn some stuff from you. And as far as the squibs go, the debunkers really dont have an argument. Controlled Demolition is the only possibilty that debunkers fail to "consider". You might as well say the squibs 80 floors below the impact zone was caused by "wind".


Thx for all the feedback people, I'll be active in due time.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk


Ok i have a question.

Did the Research look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.

NIST STATEMENT TO THE ABOVE QUESTION: "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."


Are there any pics of steel columns or beams that have been sliced through like a hot knife through butter? There should have been several structural columns that displayed relatively clean burn marks, similar to steel that has been cut by a torch. I have not seen any pics that show this, nor have I heard of any of the forensic engineering teams reporting this. I'm not saying that they don't exist, just hoping someone has some pics of this to back up their theories.




NIST: Within the investigation of the recovered steel, Frank Gayle's group performed a paint defermation test which showed how paint would curl or change in a certain temperature range. So they took the samples and analized them to see what kind of temperature they were exposed to by looking at the paint. Less than 2 percent of the samples which have been pulled specifically from the fire zones, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire less than 2 percent seen temperatures of 480 degrees F* which is very low relative to the temperatures to "soften or melt" steel. "Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C* during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method devoloped by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." NIST page 181

Just something to think about.


So why didn't Frank Gayles group find beams & columns that displayed the characteristics of the high heat signatures of Thermite burns?



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk

Take a look at Professor Steven Jones peer reviewed paper in finding thermate signature in dust particles collected from 9/11. This is a big eye opener. Steven Jones Paper

I do however recommend watching his speech in reference to the above paper it easier to understand. View Video Here - EYE OPENER

BeZerK

[edit on 28-6-2007 by BeZerk]


Thanks for the links. I'll definitely check them out. Thermite is an amazing product. I've seen some videos of its use but have never personally witnessed its effects.

[edit on 28-6-2007 by Sparky63]



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Well, actually Sprark, they did, specifically I believe, Fema. Link:

Meallurgical Examination of Steel Suggest Explosives



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63

Originally posted by BeZerk


Ok i have a question.

Did the Research look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.

NIST STATEMENT TO THE ABOVE QUESTION: "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."


Are there any pics of steel columns or beams that have been sliced through like a hot knife through butter? There should have been several structural columns that displayed relatively clean burn marks, similar to steel that has been cut by a torch. I have not seen any pics that show this, nor have I heard of any of the forensic engineering teams reporting this. I'm not saying that they don't exist, just hoping someone has some pics of this to back up their theories.




NIST: Within the investigation of the recovered steel, Frank Gayle's group performed a paint defermation test which showed how paint would curl or change in a certain temperature range. So they took the samples and analized them to see what kind of temperature they were exposed to by looking at the paint. Less than 2 percent of the samples which have been pulled specifically from the fire zones, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire less than 2 percent seen temperatures of 480 degrees F* which is very low relative to the temperatures to "soften or melt" steel. "Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C* during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method devoloped by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." NIST page 181

Just something to think about.


So why didn't Frank Gayles group find beams & columns that displayed the characteristics of the high heat signatures of Thermite burns?


The pic below shows the steel looking like a hot knife sliced through it like butter.



And this is how explosive charges are placed on Steel beams to slice it. As you can see they are placed at an angle.



In relation to Frank Gayle finding beams and steel, the only point i can make is that NIST did NOT test for thermate residue on steel, im pretty sure they had steel that had the markings of explosives, its about conducting certain tests to ensure it was indeed explosive material. The NIST report confirms that they did not test for the residue. WHY NOT? When there were numerous people that reported hearing explosions etc.

BeZerK



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
sorry i havent had time to read thru the thread so dunno if this has been posted somewhere, but note the widespread explosions in the North Tower around the exact moment the plane hits the South Tower. Classic diversion?
www.youtube.com... (if youtube malfunctions click this)




[edit on 29-6-2007 by Shar_Chi]

[edit on 29-6-2007 by Shar_Chi]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
sorry i havent had time to read thru the thread so dunno if this has been posted somewhere, but note the widespread explosions in the North Tower around the exact moment the plane hits the South Tower. Classic diversion?
www.youtube.com... (if youtube malfunctions click this)




[edit on 29-6-2007 by Shar_Chi]

[edit on 29-6-2007 by Shar_Chi]


That is actually an amazing video, before the plane has even struck the building there is obvious signs of an explosion in the North Tower (Tower on thr right), before impact you can see a flame eject on the right hand corner of the impact hole and you can even see, if you look closely, some debri falling from the North Tower


BeZerK

[edit on 29-6-2007 by BeZerk]

[edit on 29-6-2007 by BeZerk]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Bezerk posted:


Here is an interesting link i found - Source
I checked this out and there were reports of engine blocks melted(as in the pic of the firetruck i posted earlier)but the gas tanks never exploded.I thought i saw a site somewhere that had reports of the dust cloud being extremely hot after the wtc collapses.I'll see if i can find it.Btw,thanks Bezerk for the link to that burnt cars website.It was very interesting seeing those pics.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
Here is another detailed & comprehensive engineering report by Silverstein Properties Inc....


Silverstein Properties Inc. ROTFLMFAO! That's like having the mob investigate their own crimes. No, it wasn't us...Oh OK you’re free to go…lol

Read what they're trying to claim…


The engineering team determined average air temperatures in the impact
floors to be between 750” F to 1300” F (400” C to 700” C), with higher temperatures at some perimeter locations. Tragically, the fires were nevertheless hot enough to eventually
weaken the columns stripped of fireproofing ...


The steel was subjected to these temps for less than an hour. The steel will never get as hot as the fire. The fire didn’t get hot enough to even allow the steel to be malleable. Fireproofing doesn’t even need to be added to the equation. So how did they fail then? Muslim magic?


… Steel is heated to varying temperatures, usually between 1700oF to 2000oF but can reach as high as 2400oF, depending on the carbon content. Depending on the amount of work required to the piece, it may be necessary to reheat the piece one or more times. (1,150oC to 1,260oC)

Source

Ding! Ding! Ding! Doesn't your common sense tell you here that no way could those office fires could have ever got hot enough to cause the steel to fail? That’s why no other steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire before folks…
I ain't kiddin’ ya, look nothing up my sleeve.

This is what steel looks like heated up for hot forging…
Hot Forging

Do we see anything like this in the towers? Do you still think that less than an hours worth of office fires could do that to the massive central column construction? Because the columns would have to have got that hot to fail completely as they did. You have to take into account the columns lengths, the relatively small area of actual fire, and the fact that columns would act as heat sinks, wicking heat away along their lengths, thus cooling them down.

OK, any of that convince anyone yet? No? Well OK, how about adding this to the mix…


GAITHERSBURG, Md. -- Early tests on steel beams from the World Trade Center show they generally met or were stronger than design requirements, ruling them out as a contributing cause of the collapse of the towers, federal investigators said yesterday. Engineers with the National Institute of Standards and Technology have conducted preliminary tests on some of the 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, said Frank Gayle, who is leading the board's review of the steel.

Source

Hmmmmmmmmm!

Do I really need to go on?…lol

But anyway, after saying all that, even if the fires had got hot enough to cause the columns to fail, THE TOWERS WOULD STILL NOT FALL VERTICALLY TO THEIR FOUNDATIONS WHILE IGNORING THE FORCES OF RESISTANCE, ANGULAR MOMENTUM, INERTIA, AND A BUNCH OF OTHER PHYSICAL LAWS. Excuse me for shouting but people keep plugging their ears whenever this fact is stated. Physical laws CAN NOT be broken, they DON’T change. Regardless of the material used or the constructions design.
All three buildings broke some or all of those laws that day. But strangely WTC 1, WTC 5, WTC 6, and many other building close to the towers, acted exactly as they should. But… but… but… they were a different type of building….lol

WTC 5 (sry huge pic)...
www.cbp.gov... " target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

What caused the outer steel mesh to break up and eject itself laterally up to 600ft?
Can any of you explain to me the mechanism that caused these ejections of sections weighing in the tons (a ton is 2000lbs). What caused them to break apart, snap? Hot steel doesn’t snap. It bends. That’s why a global vertical collapse from the failure of columns, due to heat, is absurd in the least. They had to have been cut to do that, and in a controlled way. A collapse that is uncontrolled will never be perfectly symmetrical, regardless of whether it ignored the resistance in its path, or not. But they did ignore the resistance in their paths. Unless of course that resistance was removed, just bellow the collapse wave, using explosives in a timed wireless system. That way all the floors explosives would have been independent of each other so the aircraft impact would not affect the set up. Whatever floors the plane impacted wouldn’t need the explosives, so solving that de-bunking problem. But of course I’m just guessing on this…


This is NOT caused by gravity…
www.911myths.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Also note the pieces of building all cut to the same lengths.

The plane that hit WTC2, the South Tower, you know the building that started to topple as Allah pushed the detonation button? Didn’t even hit the central columns. Most of its fuel was ejected out of the building as the fuels forward momentum continued on through the hole, created by the plane cutting the buildings corner. So there was very little if no damage to the central column structure.
The structure held 80% of the vertical load. It was a structure in it’s self and could stand by itself. It held the building up, not the other way around. So if the floor trusses failed as NIST claimed, causing a pancake collapse, the central core construction would have stayed standing as the building fell away around it.
The core system probably had at least a 2x load safety factor (anyone know for sure?). So they could in fact hold twice the weight of the building. In other words you could take away the 20% of the outer mesh and they would have still stood.
Put all those facts together how could they add up to a global vertical collapse? Only with hollywood physics, or help from Allah....


What pulverized all the concrete and office furniture and whatever else was in there?

Where is the concrete?...
www.w3.org..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Also let this sink in for awhile…

WTC's were actually estimated to COST ABOUT 5 TIMES AS MUCH TO REMOVE AS THEY WERE TO BUILD, and this would be happening SOON, CREATING A HUGE CAPITAL LOSS FOR THE OWNERS: within 20 years according to structural architects who analyzed the issue for the previous owners. However, to keep this from being widely known, making WTC's THE LARGEST LEMON PROJECT THE WORLD HAS KNOWN and to keep their resale value, these architects were fired before they completed their very expensive architectural report for the owners, once this was understood by the owners.


Source

"We decided to 'Pull It', and we watched the building collapse."

How convenient for Larry and the Port Orthority...


Oh btw here’s another pic of squibs caused by demolition explosives going off out of sequence, on a building other than the WTC complex.

www.mediumrecords.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Look familiar?

Edit; you think i could rant that long withour makiny ani mysteaks...lol

[edit on 29/6/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Anok,

Great work.

I stated also in a post above that NIST concluded the following:


NIST: "None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degree C for as long as 15 minutes."
Nist Page 180.

NIST: Within the investigation of the recovered steel, Frank Gayle's group performed a paint defermation test which showed how paint would curl or change in a certain temperature range. So they took the samples and analized them to see what kind of temperature they were exposed to by looking at the paint. Less than 2 percent of the samples which have been pulled specifically from the fire zones, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire less than 2 percent seen temperatures of 480 degrees F* which is very low relative to the temperatures to "soften or melt" steel. "Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C* during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method devoloped by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." NIST page 181


Also in NIST was asked the following question:

Did NIST look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.

NIST STATEMENT: "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

BeZerK



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by earth2


Everyone was saying but nobody took a picture of the magma, figures.
Ill tell you why he need's to prove it because that what a good investigator does. Its investigation 101. Without proof you have no case sorry.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

the search lasted all of 10 seconds. feel free to drop a few derogatory remarks while you dismiss everything thrown at you.



[edit on 29.6.2007 by Long Lance]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by earth2


Everyone was saying but nobody took a picture of the magma, figures.
Ill tell you why he need's to prove it because that what a good investigator does. Its investigation 101. Without proof you have no case sorry.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

the search lasted all of 10 seconds. feel free to drop a few derogatory remarks while you dismiss everything thrown at you.
[edit on 29.6.2007 by Long Lance]


He asked for his so called "magma" pictures, i posted him pictures showing molten metal.

And guess what? He jumped ship and picked another topic.



BeZerK



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk

He asked for his so called "magma" pictures, i posted him pictures showing molten metal.

And guess what? He jumped ship and picked another topic.



BeZerK



goes to show that i should *really* stop posting before i finish reading a long thread....


i wonder why these people still try, by now everyone of us has got like 100 links bookmarked and several key images hosted or at least saved to disk. their work is an exercise in futility and could easily backfire.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by BeZerk

He asked for his so called "magma" pictures, i posted him pictures showing molten metal.

And guess what? He jumped ship and picked another topic.



BeZerK



goes to show that i should *really* stop posting before i finish reading a long thread....

i wonder why these people still try, by now everyone of us has got like 100 links bookmarked and several key images hosted or at least saved to disk. their work is an exercise in futility and could easily backfire.


All you can do is keep fighting, even converting one person to realize the truth on the issue at hand is all worth it.

Its all about educating the public. Most dont know about because there only point of reference is the media, unfortunetely most have know idea or have never heard of media blackout.

BeZerK



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk
...most have know idea or have never heard of media blackout.

BeZerK


Well the media is easy to control because they don't know any more than any of the rest of us. They just read tele-prompters with scripts supplied by, in the case of 9-11, government agencies. Same with the printed media, they just print what they're supplied with. Mass media is not investigative, and even if it was they wouldn't get past the conspirators anyway...



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:27 AM
link   
I think the government *if it was staged* did this to spread our kind of government to other countries I mean our type of government is spreading as fast as communism did back then... Don't it seem kinda strange?



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by BeZerk
...most have know idea or have never heard of media blackout.

BeZerK


Well the media is easy to control because they don't know any more than any of the rest of us. They just read tele-prompters with scripts supplied by, in the case of 9-11, government agencies. Same with the printed media, they just print what they're supplied with. Mass media is not investigative, and even if it was they wouldn't get past the conspirators anyway...


Sad to see really.

Please watch the following in relation to the media its fantastic.

Peace, Propaganda and the Promsed Land

BeZerK



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join