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.

 

"We just heard another explosion" Amateur Video

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   
The towers performed as designed - they took the hit and remained
standing long enough for people below the impact zone to escape. What
the designers couldn't and didn't design for were the secondary effects
ie. the fire kindled by the jet fuel. It was the fires combined with
the structural damage inflicted on the buildings which ultimately lead
to the collapse. Explain why the collapse sequence starts at the impact
location and proceeds from there. I rather doubt someone can smuggle
explolsives into the building without notice, much less detonate it
Demolition companies use long lays of det cord (tubing fixed with high
explosive like PETN to detonate remote locations) - noboby mentions
seeing any.




posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
thedman,

If you bothered to read my previous post you would realize that even with the horrendous fire that would of ensued, the building would still be standing.

The building survived the initial plane crash which is what the below confirms. Both buildings stood for a combined 3 hours respectively, so obviously it did withstand the plane crash.


Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. - Source


Do i need to mention all this over and over again.

A white paper released on 2/3/1964 clearly states that the Twin Towers could have withstood impacts of planes traveling 600mph, a speed which was greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11.


The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.


Also why did NIST not test for explosive residue on the recovered steel.

I think these questions are far more important than "how did they plant the explosives" and so on. There is plenty of evidence to suggest some type of explosive was in the building. If you test for the residue that the explosive uses you can examine what type was used and where it maybe sold or available, that way it can be tracked with an intense investigation into it.

BeZerK

[edit on 4-7-2007 by BeZerk]



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Hmmmm I remember that day very well. I worked downtown and while it was happening we felt (the building we were in which was about 8 blocks or so away) the ground shaking and the sounds of explosions and we just looked at each other and said "now there goes the bombs." It just felt axiomatic at the time. The most amazing site was watching thousands of people marching up Broadway so calmly. Nobody was yelling and screaming or running yet we all had ashes of dead people in our hair. It was so damn eerie. Even more of an amazing site was when Guilianni ordered us to evacuate downtown and we left and walked uptown I stopped in Soho at my friends apartment and saw two guys in suits pushing their friend or their boss up the street in his office chair. He was so frozen with fear his expression, his body was literally frozen, no moving parts. He was just clenched into his chair as his friends calmly pushed him up the street.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk
Your claim in regards to the marble panels and windows was that it twisted from the impact is false.


Since the towers didn't even sway to their fullest extent imparted by the design, there is no way the panels were twisted off by the impacts. If so, they would have twisted off in a wind storm before 9/11.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
the towers were supposed to withstand a "low and slow" 707 lost in the fog looking for a place to land...such as the b-27 that hit the empire state building earlier.....

and there's reports of the building swaying 20-30 ft in both directions after the impact

also...the footage is edited....right before he he says "we heard another explosion" he was putting the supplies down..then there's an obvious edit before he says that...

[edit on 24-7-2007 by wenfieldsecret]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
the towers were supposed to withstand a "low and slow" 707 lost in the fog looking for a place to land...such as the b-27 that hit the empire state building earlier.....


That's not what I was saying. The force of the plane was less than the wind load design. That is, if the FOS was 5. At least this is what I've heard.


and there's reports of the building swaying 20-30 ft in both directions after the impact


Do you have video to back this up? 30 feet would be 1/7 the width of the building. I really doubt that it swayed 1/7 of it's width. But, as always, I could be wrong.

Edit. I was going off memory when I said 1/4. It's actually 1/7. But, I still stand by the priciple of what I said.

[edit on 7/24/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   
To even further my point. Watch this video. Notice the antennae the whole time hardly moves at all or doesn't move at all. A sway of 1/7 the width of the building would definately be visible I would think.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 7/24/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
I think the "edit" is him turning off/on the camera. Regardless I don't see your point...

[edit on 24-7-2007 by Vinci]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 02:24 AM
link   
i was wrong on the swaying.....it was 2 feet that was abnormal....i retract my earlier statement on the 20 ft...

I was on that floor when the second plane hit my building. The building swayed about two feet, then righted itself. (The building does—did—that normally, even in a windstorm, though obviously not as severely.)


and my point is that we dont hear the explosion...we cant tell if it's loud...or quiet....or near or far....



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Jet fuel blew down the elevator shafts and ignited - the jet fuel was in an
aeresol and formed a fuel-air explosion.


How do you figure the fuel was in an aerosol? Also where is your evidence that this happened? How did any of the fuel escape the initial impact explosion?

Also you claim the fuel ran down the elevators and then exploded? How is that possible? What caused the fuel to explode in the basement? You do realise that jet fuel has a very high flash point for safety reasons? It's harder to get it to ignite than regular gasoline/petroleum. It's almost impossible to ignite unless it is atomized.

Seems to me you really haven't thought about what it is you're claiming?



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
This was post collapse - burning debris rained down for blocks around
the towers.


Take another good long look at the towers collapsing. Do you see any burning debris? I don't. All I can see is pieces of steel in equal lengths and large pieces of the facade being ejected with great force. Pieces of the outer structure were thrown 600ft laterally. How did your fire driven pancake collapse do that? I also see the many of the pieces of steel trailing heavy smoke as they vaporize. I also see what remained of the inner column structure vaporise into dust and just disappear.

www.wtcnuke.com...



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
You do realise that jet fuel has a very high flash point for safety reasons? It's harder to get it to ignite than regular gasoline/petroleum. It's almost impossible to ignite unless it is atomized.


Actually kerosene/Jet A has a very low flash point and can be ignited on a hot ramp by the sun. This is why ramp personnel have to roll out the hydrants near a fuel spill until it is cleaned up.It will not ignite if you stick a match in it, it would extinguish the match, but if you put it in a hot piece of concrete and let the sun bake it for a awhile it can flash.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk
This is what you get for $3 Million:

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."



So true. But, to take it one step further. At the end of their answer, they state that testing for thermate would be inconclusive because sulfur is in gypsum. Well, thermate also contains barrium nitrate which is NOT a construction material anywhere (as far as I know). So, why didn't NIST mention anything about the barrium nitrate? To hope that the average dumbness of the average American would shine through and they wouldn't know this. Just my opinion.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
It will not ignite if you stick a match in it, it would extinguish the match, but if you put it in a hot piece of concrete and let the sun bake it for a awhile it can flash.



So, how does that fit with the fuel going down the elevators and exploding? If an open flame would be extinquished, then how did it explode like that? Or are you saying that the concrete inside the towers was as hot as pavement left in the sun? If so, people's shoes would be melting everyday at work.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Well I was really not commenting on that, only that what was being said was incorrect. In my experience the fuel is most flammable when its fumes or in a mist. I would supposed that considering that there was an initial explosion, that would change things and make the fuel hot enough to flash all on its own. The act of it thinning out and mixing with air would make that situation worse as far as I can see. However if you stuck a match in a bucket of it, that would not have enough heat to ignite it before the match was extinguished. One the other hand when there was a fuel spill, then SOP was to leave the equipment running in the spill area because the backfire of a vehicle stood a much greater chance of igniting something then just the heat of the engine did.

So take from that what you will, I am not really getting into this debate to that extent.
Its really not any different then Kerosene or Diesel fuel beyond its additives, if that helps any.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Actually kerosene/Jet A has a very low flash point and can be ignited on a hot ramp by the sun.



A major problem with gasoline is that it has what is known as a low "flashpoint." This is the temperature at which it produces fumes that can be ignited by an open flame. Gasoline has a flashpoint of around 30 degrees Fahrenheit (-1 degree Celsius). This makes fires much more likely in the event of an accident. So engine designers sought to develop engines that used fuels with higher flashpoints.


Source


Fuel for a piston-engine powered aircraft (usually a high-octane gasoline known as Avgas) has a low flash point to improve its ignition characteristics. Turbine engines can operate with a wide range of fuels, and jet-aircraft engines typically use fuels with higher flash points, which are less flammable and therefore safer to transport and handle. The first jet fuels were based on kerosene or a gasoline-kerosene mix, and most jet fuels are still kerosene-based.


Source

I was comparing jet fuel to regular gasoline. Jet fuel does have a higher flash point for safety reasons.

BTW I worked on the flight in the Red Sea for 8 months. We had temps of 120f on the flight deck. I never saw or heard of jet fuel igniting from the suns heat...

[edit on 26/7/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 06:26 AM
link   
The flashpoint of Jet-A is 100 degrees Fahrenheit, though I have heard it stated that it can flash as low as the 90’s.


Jet Fuel:
o Flash Point: >38 °C (100 °F)
o Autoignition Temperature: 210 °C (410 °F)


Point is that flashpoint has nothing to do with such things as sticking a match into the fuel. Flashpoint is the ambient heat required to ignite fuel when mixed with air. Fire point is the point at which something like a match can ignite fuel:


The flash point of a flammable liquid is the lowest temperature at which it can form an ignitable mixture in air. At this temperature the vapor may cease to burn when the source of ignition is removed. A slightly higher temperature, the fire point, is defined as the temperature at which the vapor continues to burn after being ignited. Neither of these parameters are related to the temperatures of the ignition source or of the burning liquid, which are much higher.


Oh, and yeah, I suppose that if you’re stuck as a mechanic in Nome Alaska, then it would not be an issue for you. They rotate the more experienced crews in the warmer environments where the ambient heat on the ramp can easily reach 100 deg Fahrenheit.

Also you were working with Navy JP-5 which has about the highest flash point of all avgas as its used in carrier ops, and much higher then normal commercial Jet-A/JP-8.

[edit on 7/26/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk

A white paper released on 2/3/1964 clearly states that the Twin Towers could have withstood impacts of planes traveling 600mph, a speed which was greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11.


The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.


[edit on 4-7-2007 by BeZerk]


What is your source?

(Aside from Loose Change Final Cut)

Do you or anyone else have a link to this report?



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:41 AM
link   

So true. But, to take it one step further. At the end of their answer, they state that testing for thermate would be inconclusive because sulfur is in gypsum. Well, thermate also contains barrium nitrate which is NOT a construction material anywhere (as far as I know). So, why didn't NIST mention anything about the barrium nitrate? To hope that the average dumbness of the average American would shine through and they wouldn't know this. Just my opinion.


I have made about 10k exothermic weilds in my job. I used to do 100 a day we would have to work with more then one mold as it was unsafe to use a mold that hot as it might cook the shot off to early... Do you know what thermite is? It is aluminum, and ferrous oxide. Thats right rust and aluminum. You see aluminumis a very reactive metal, and when the 2 come together, and you apply heat, the breaking of the bond release tremendous amounts of energy. Testing for thermite would be like testing for the 1st 3rd and 10th most common elements on the planet. It just doesn't make any sense at all. I mean you can literaly make it in your kitchen.

My parents own a junkyard, they recently had a stack of 150-200 cars burn granted there were no gas tanks, no tires on these cars as they were in the proccess of crushing, the plastics inside the cars caught on fire from pure heat (An employee who had worked about a week cut the wheels off a car with a torch and set it on the stack) The fire's combined with the weight above crushed roofs, floor pans, and completely melted away sheet metal.The damage to the vehicles was simply amazeing, 13 diffrent fire departments from 4 counties responded. The power lines 50 feet away from the cars melted and snapped from the heat. Fire can destroy steal, I've seen it with my own 2 eyes.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Markshark4
 

Well, I couldn't find the actual document but I did find evidence through NIST's website that it did exist. It was released in February 1964, it was 3 pages, and it was titled "“Salient points with regard to the structural design of The World Trade Center towers"

Here it is: wtc.nist.gov...

The pertinent parts are on pages 14-17 of 39. With the evidence of the document on page 14, 1st bullet point under "Available sources of information" and the evidence of the speed considered on page 15.

As for a link to the actual document, I'm wondering if NIST will ever provide one.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join