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: 12
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk
[
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


Thanks for the pics and the Links. They are very interesting, especially the one showing the diagonal demolition charge being set.




posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Come on debunkers, this stuff is simple logic, the Towers cannot exhibit a gravity driven collapse sequence while at the same time maintaining all the characteristics of a controlled demolition; it's a contradiction. Also those were some great molten metal pictures, especially the one that looks like Lava, almost figured it was fake. I also have a better quality pic of the thermite flowing from out of the building.


Just look at that! That's everything BUT aluminum. To the left above 80 is fire, to right along side 80 is thermite at work.


Aww, could you ask for a more beautiful collapse? How neat, where is the resistance though kids?



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   
A key input in understanding how the
it is clear that a great deal of the building was forced outward, away from the lower supporting structure, we must arrive at an assumed percentage of the building that is no longer transferring its load to the lower structure. What percentage of the building, in your estimate, or in NIST, FEMA or the Purdue study (or elsewhere) is still available to crush the lower half, say, in this photo previously posted.

First time here, I tried to post the pic by Urban legend from page one of thread...



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet
www.cs.purdue.edu...

Any other requests or are you going to debunk Purdue's data?

Dont call bluffs if your not prepared to have your called.


Boy they sound really positive of their results. BTW, I was reading through it and they got their data from the government sources. So, basically the only thing they did was to take the government sources and make an animation of it. PERIOD.


We discuss impact damage the structural core might have sustained and its possible
behavior under structural and thermal loading. Our simulations indicate that the worst damage
to the core structure was in stories 95 through 97 of the tower. We estimate that a core collapse
mechanism could be initiated if the tower core column temperatures were elevated to about
700oC.


Actually, they are agreeing with what I've been saying all along. That the core had to fail in some manner. They believe jet fuel could have done it. I don't. I believe something failed those core columns. Even bush said himself that the plan was to place the bomb high enough to trap people. What if the terrorists placed a thermobaric of some sort? That's one bomb. I'm still looking into this theory though. Any info would be appreciated.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   
I also don't understand the scenario by which the "squibs" would be produced. Okay, assume an elevator door was open so that the air crushed from above was forced down the elevator. Okay, at the lower end of the elevator, a big rush of air comes out. What concentrates the air so that it will blow out a specific window and not the others? When the air enters into the building below from the elevator shaft, the whole floor would increase in pressure, not a specific area. Wouldn't that be right?
There were no hallways from a given elevator to a given window that would have contained the pressure from spreading thoughout the floor.
What am I missing?



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet
Support columns of the WTC strength and magnitude require more than just a little stick of dynamite taped to the column... we're talking in an 8 foot section at least 3 horizontal taped levels of dynamite or even C4 if you want to be silly to be able to create an large enough explosion to fracture the column enough to allow it to fail completely.



And yet you believe that plane crash + fire + gravity can do it? I don't get this type of mentality. No offense ment.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk
I'd like to know if the University tested any of the steel?

If not, then the information you provided is USELESS.

BeZerK


Don't forget the structural drawings also. How did they do finite element analysis without knowing ALL the elements?



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by An Urban Legend
Well, actually Sprark, they did, specifically I believe, Fema. Link:

Meallurgical Examination of Steel Suggest Explosives


Thanks for the link. This is something I had not see before.
I also reviewed the references that this report was based on. At the bottom of the sheet this site is referenced:

www.wpi.edu...

Here is an interesting quote regarding the liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur that formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.


A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity.

"The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain."

Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says.


Its interesting that the 911research.com site has the headline:

Forensic Metallurgy
Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives

911research.wtc7.net...

But nowhere in the following article is the word explosive, or thermite mentioned. And the reference sites listed at the bottom of the article site possible sources for the presence of sulfer in the eutectic reaction.

Some of those mentioned are:

contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines.



The 911.com article did make this interesting comment:

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.
911research.wtc7.net...

Also in the refence material sited as a source by the 911research.com site noted above is this interesting quote by Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. They analyzed samples of steel from Tower 7 & a structural column from Tower 1

they confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report.


In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity.

"The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain."

Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says


So it look to me like the sources for the 911research.com article , which has been presented to support the use of Thermite, have presented several alternatives to Thermite as the source of the eutectic reactions.

I hope ther is more research on this by qualified engineers.
Like I said there are a lot of questions that still need to be answered. Thanks to all the believers for sharing their info and ideas.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63


Couple things.




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.

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


According to NIST's sketch of the temperatures of the columns, the perimeter was cool.


was that the destruction of the fireproofing and the continued heat from all the combustibles were enough to weaken the connections.



Do you know the theory is that the trusses pulled the outer columns inward? How could that happen when AISC is saying the connections were weakened?

Can they make up their mind?

Steel melted.
Steel didn't melt, only weakened.
Molten steel.
No molten steel.
Pancake collapse.
No pancake collapse.
Connections weakened.
Floor trusses pulled outer columns.

Etc., etc.. If the investigation was a thorough one, why have we got all these theories that they can't prove?



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63

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...


Couple things here too. The towers did not fall straight down. They did not pancake.

Also, tower 2's collapse didn't hurt tower 1. But, tower 1's collapse was enough damage to WTC 7 for it to collapse hours later? Being farther away from tower 1 than tower 1 was from tower 2? Not logical.


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.


You'll never find one. Because planted explosives don't have to be the cause of the core failure. There are plenty of things that could have been done other than conventional demolition.


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


Sometimes, I think we are in the minority my friend.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
"Also, tower 2's collapse didn't hurt tower 1. But, tower 1's collapse was enough damage to WTC 7 for it to collapse hours later? Being farther away from tower 1 than tower 1 was from tower 2? Not logical"

Not logical either that the towers maintained a profile by which a pancake could occur. The pictures say massive HOROZONTAL ejection. As you point out, the official story people say that WTC 7 was structually damaged by the tower collapse! They trip over themselves, on one hand stating a pancake (centered load crushing lower floors), while on the other hand, agreeing that the load did NOT stay centered and in fact was dispersed horozontally so much that a building 650? feet away (WTC 7) was structurally damaged!!! Can't be both, can it?



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Also, tower 2's collapse didn't hurt tower 1. But, tower 1's collapse was enough damage to WTC 7 for it to collapse hours later? Being farther away from tower 1 than tower 1 was from tower 2? Not logical.



I agree with you that the collapse of Tower 7 is very hard to explain.
I have not been able to wrap my mind around the idea that this building was totally destroyed my damage caused by falling debris.

I am not comfortable making any conclusions on this matter.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by questionman
There were no hallways from a given elevator to a given window that would have contained the pressure from spreading thoughout the floor.
What am I missing?


You are missing nothing. The whole floor would have been pressurized. Not just a flow of air. Try this. Take a straw, place it on a tissue and blow. You can blow a hole in it right? Now, take the same straw and place it 1/4 inch from the tissue. Can you blow a hole in it as easily? Nope. Why? Because the air is not being forced through a tube but is actually being allowed to depressurize in the ambient air. Just my opinion.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
I hope ther is more research on this by qualified engineers.


You would think so wouldn't you? Especially since it is NIST's job to figure out what happened and make recommendations for new building codes. Why was this information disregarded? Even if the reaction was from sulfur from drywall, it is still important in an engineering standpoint. Why were alot of things disregarded by NIST?


Like I said there are a lot of questions that still need to be answered. Thanks to all the believers for sharing their info and ideas.


Too bad the government has been trying to stonewall an investigation since September 10th.

[edit on 6/29/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by DisabledVet
You my find this interesting... Purdue university did a complete simulation of a plane impacting the WTC.


Nice use of words. That's exactly what it was. Just a simulation. Just saying it's only a computer animation. Not a computer model of the finite element analysis of the crashes/fire/collapse.


Why don't you read the supporting documentation instead of making an uneducated comment. If you HAD actually read the report you would see that it IS A FINITE ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS.

I guess you see only what you want to.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   
"Why don't you read the supporting documentation instead of making an uneducated comment. If you HAD actually read the report you would see that it IS A FINITE ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS.

I guess you see only what you want to"

What percentage of the building did the Purdue report say was blown away horozontally (and therefore was NOT available to crush the building below?)

Certainly, any ommission of such a pertinent fact would suggest an incomplete study as best.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisabledVet

Originally posted by Griff
Not a computer model of the finite element analysis of the crashes/fire/collapse.


Why don't you read the supporting documentation instead of making an uneducated comment. If you HAD actually read the report you would see that it IS A FINITE ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS.

I guess you see only what you want to.


Let's look at what I said. My statement is still correct. Unless I haven't seen the whole simulation. I haven't seen where collapse is initiated and/or collapse down to foundation happens. If there is one, please post the link. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
"You are missing nothing. The whole floor would have been pressurized. Not just a flow of air. Try this. Take a straw, place it on a tissue and blow. You can blow a hole in it right? Now, take the same straw and place it 1/4 inch from the tissue. Can you blow a hole in it as easily? Nope. Why? Because the air is not being forced through a tube but is actually being allowed to depressurize in the ambient air. Just my opinion."

Well, its more than an opinion, its a condition that is verifiable. Opinion, like belief, can be distinct from fact, whereas, fact is fact.
To date then, no cogent explanation exists for the "squibs", other than within the controlled demolition theory. Thank you.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by questionman
To date then, no cogent explanation exists for the "squibs", other than within the controlled demolition theory. Thank you.


Well. Demolitions could account for it but other things could too IMO. Also, I don't discount it being the air being forced either. Until someone comes up with the calculations and/or computer model for it being possible or not we don't know. But, I do believe an overpressure of a bomb could achieve those. Always, just my opinion.



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

Originally posted by An Urban Legend
Come on debunkers, this stuff is simple logic, the Towers cannot exhibit a gravity driven collapse sequence while at the same time maintaining all the characteristics of a controlled demolition; it's a contradiction. Also those were some great molten metal pictures, especially the one that looks like Lava, almost figured it was fake. I also have a better quality pic of the thermite flowing from out of the building.


Just look at that! That's everything BUT aluminum. To the left above 80 is fire, to right along side 80 is thermite at work.


Aww, could you ask for a more beautiful collapse? How neat, where is the resistance though kids?


LOL...

Ok the amount of thermite required to create a cascade of that magnatude would be greater than the actual amount of metal cascading down the side in the picture. Further, thermite has a phosphorous base to it which produces copious amounts of white smoke. So NO IT IS NOT THERMITE YOU ARE 100% WRONG

Second in your little video of the collapse without resistance is well...because of the controlled nature of the demolition...

DONT YOU SEE WITH YOUR EYES...why does that collapse not start from the TOP DOWN as in the WTC collapse? Because of the controlled demolition UNLIKE the WTC where the mass of debris falling from the top causes the pancakeking of the building. You just disproved your own theroy...




top topics



 
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join