Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

History Channel Special: "The 9/11 Conspiracies" August 12, 2007

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The core was holding at least half of the building's loads, and the perimeter columns were weakest where the planes had impacted them. If you severed the core structure at the base, then all of the loads would be redistributed onto the perimeter columns, they wouldn't be able to take it, and the collapse would begin right where the plane impacted.


So we can establish that squibs shooting out the side of the building are in fact not squibs? I will argue further from there, if you concede this point.




posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc
So we can establish that squibs shooting out the side of the building are in fact not squibs? I will argue further from there, if you concede this point.


Read the second paragraph of that post. You may have missed it earlier because I went back and edited it in after I posted the first one.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by ccaihc
So we can establish that squibs shooting out the side of the building are in fact not squibs? I will argue further from there, if you concede this point.


Read the second paragraph of that post. You may have missed it earlier because I went back and edited it in after I posted the first one.


I've never really looked into the OKC, but isn't your statement about the 3 extra bombs a conspiracy theory in of itself? Also, there are huge differences between the OKC and the WTC buildings. I don't think it's comparable. He wasn't trying to collapse the building he was just trying to blow the utter *snip* out of it.

*Mod Edit - Please do not use foul language or circumvent the censors.*



[edit on 8/4/07 by niteboy82]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   
The 3 removed bombs were reported by FEMA, the US Forces Command Daily Log, and in a DoD Atlantic Command memo, and there are at least two affidavits that reference them as well.

The FEMA situation report:




The rest of them are here: www.whatreallyhappened.com...


The point is, it isn't impossible to smuggle bombs or explosives into a building.

[edit on 4-8-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Ok, but it is impossible to smuggle a ridiculous amount of bombs in. How would they have carried them through the elevators without someone noticing.

I don't know how many times I have to reiterate this. Do you have any idea how many pounds of bombs it would take to do what you say it needs to do?



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc
I don't know how many times I have to reiterate this. Do you have any idea how many pounds of bombs it would take to do what you say it needs to do?


Do you?

Let's see what you've come up with.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by ccaihc
I don't know how many times I have to reiterate this. Do you have any idea how many pounds of bombs it would take to do what you say it needs to do?


Do you?

Let's see what you've come up with.


Usually when you're trying to prove something(in this case bombs blew up the wtc) the burden of finding information is on you, but I'll give a try.


We already know that Hoffman's article treats 4 x 10^11 joules as the amount of energy available for release in the towers from a gravitational collapse. And according to his conclusion this is less than one tenth of the energy required. Therefore we need to multiply this figure by at least 9, giving 36 x 10^11 joules of energy required from some other source. (And as Hoffman keeps saying the effects need more than ten times this amount of energy, and he’s being conservative, then this is an absolute minimum).

Now if this was to be provided by explosives, then how much might be required?

Well, a metric ton (1,000 KG) of TNT has 4.184 * 10^9 joules ( www.answers.com... ). A ton is a lot of explosives, but not enough for us: we have to get to 36 x 10^11 joules. Which suggests we would need 860.420 tons (aka 860,420 kilogrammes, or 1,896,901 pounds) of TNT to produce the WTC collapse and its observed results.

Nearly 1.9 million pounds of explosives placed without noticing? Per tower? How many detonators do you think might be required for that? How much cabling? Is this sounding just a tiny bit unlikely to anyone?

There are more powerful explosives, of course: C4 will offer 34% more energy, for instance, reducing out requirements to 642,104 kilogrammes. Let's assume the conspirators used something ten times more powerful still: now we're down to 64,210 kg, or 141,558 pounds of this mystery explosive. Per tower. We're being generous here, but this still isn't sounding very plausible.
from my favorite website on debunking 911 myths.

www.911myths.com...

You can say it's biased, but facts aren't biased.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
There is a formula that has been around that figured the amount of thermite needed to make that one trail that is seen pouring out the window of the WTC.

The formula pretty much stated that it would be in the thousands of pounds. I will try to find it and post it.

I agree that it would be next to impossible for a building that is the size of the WTC towers to be armed to collapse. There would have to be a massive cover up within all the maintenance, elevator, security, and other crews to allow a job of this magnitude to go on undetected. It's not like the WTC was closed every night. Many companies stayed open 24/7 and those that didnt had their offices cleaned nightly.


This in fact is a huge difference and can not be compared to the alleged extra bombs at the Murrah Building. As was posted, that building was made to kill as many people as posible where as the CT claims the building was wired for collapse.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
There is a formula that has been around that figured the amount of thermite needed to make that one trail that is seen pouring out the window of the WTC.

The formula pretty much stated that it would be in the thousands of pounds. I will try to find it and post it.

I agree that it would be next to impossible for a building that is the size of the WTC towers to be armed to collapse. There would have to be a massive cover up within all the maintenance, elevator, security, and other crews to allow a job of this magnitude to go on undetected. It's not like the WTC was closed every night. Many companies stayed open 24/7 and those that didnt had their offices cleaned nightly.


This in fact is a huge difference and can not be compared to the alleged extra bombs at the Murrah Building. As was posted, that building was made to kill as many people as posible where as the CT claims the building was wired for collapse.



Phew, thought I was the only one on these forums.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   
If thermite was used, here is the formula.....

How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:


A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.

Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.

That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.

Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:

Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.

To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.


Example:

Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.

18,000 pounds?? Holy Smoke Batman. How does that get put in place...

Let me find some more info on how much to take the tower down.... if its available.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Yeah, 911myths came to the same conclusion as you obvious, albiet 20,000 pounds instead of 18k.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
this is only for the amount of material that was flowing out of the south tower.

Thermite or Nano-thermite what ever your thermite flavor of the week is ...burns uncontrollably. It also burns vertically. The thermite would pretty much have to be harnessed inside containers with detonators attached to allow this action. How would these harnesses and detonators survive the impact of a plane and the fires that followed? If thermite was in fact installed on all the colums needed for a collaspe, then why the squibs? Would thermite cause a squib?



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Just a heads up on this show... If anyone really cares to see it..

It will not be on Aug 12th.. it will be on Aug 20th..
www.history.com...

SO Aug 20th at 9:00pm... I am guessing E.S.T or something.. I will try and get a torrent of it tho.. and share important parts of any..



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Thermite or Nano-thermite what ever your thermite flavor of the week is ...burns uncontrollably.


I don't know where you got this from, but it reacts almost instantaneously. Small particles of aluminum are explosive, not high-explosive but fast enough to burn up in a split second and make a bang when lit.


It also burns vertically.


I think you meant to say, gravity tends to pull the materials downwards. It doesn't necessarily "burn vertically", and nanoenergetics don't really "burn" at all; detonate is a better word.


The thermite would pretty much have to be harnessed inside containers with detonators attached to allow this action.


Or applied with a sol-gel.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Obfuscation...

It would take a small amount of conventional explosives at the basement level of the central core to bring down the core. So why are we adding up thermite? If the question is - could there have been explosives planted in the buildings in addition to the planes? then why are you picking the less logical theory of thermite on numerous floors? Why not center on what the evidence points toward - that there was explosive damage to the lower level of the central core that caused it to drop faster than the perimeter walls. Why?

Is this because in order to stop being close-minded and consider there was more damage to those buildings than the plane impacts you would be seen as thinking "the government did it"? Well, that's just downright myopic. There is circumstantial evidence that the cell who flew those planes into those buildings may have had ancillary cells that were able to access those buildings. And NIST's findings PROVE that the central core fell straight down ahead of the outside walls which requires something catastrophic happening to the base of the central core.

So throw up a few more thousand pounds of kumquats and thermite - big deal. It's obfuscation.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Is this because in order to stop being close-minded and consider there was more damage to those buildings than the plane impacts you would be seen as thinking "the government did it"? Well, that's just downright myopic. There is circumstantial evidence that the cell who flew those planes into those buildings may have had ancillary cells that were able to access those buildings. And NIST's findings PROVE that the central core fell straight down ahead of the outside walls which requires something catastrophic happening to the base of the central core.


What??

Where is this proof??? I have never heard this...

And some nice sexy Grade A Pittsburgh Steel to show how big these columns were.






posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Obfuscation...

It would take a small amount of conventional explosives at the basement level of the central core to bring down the core.


Please elaborate on "small amount". And please back up basement bombs with proof.

Bsbray, thank you for the information on the Thermite. I will look into your posts. ( you would still nedd a LOT )



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   
small amount = less than 20,000 lbs

Demolition charges, shaped charges, or backpacks with IEDs - I don't care, pick.

What do you mean "back up basement bombs with proof"? Yet another silly statement. What proof would I give you? A video of the explosives set in place? Mustafa stating he set charges in the basement? Those are the only tentative "proofs" there would be, now aren't they? Don't be ridiculous. You've got to mean something other than what you said - at least in order to make sense you do.


BPI

posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I don't understand the "tons of explosives" statement. According to the official story it takes 0, just the planes. But if you believe extra explosives may have been used then it automatically jumps to "tons of explosives." If you believe the planes themselves brought down the buildings, then wouldnt just a couple of explosives be needed to insure the building would completely collapse? Or to insure the direction of its fall?

I don't know all the businesses names that were in the buildings, but I'm pretty sure whoever financed the opertion could've afforded to rent a couple offices in the buildings. As previouly stated, the hijackers were here for a while for their training, who's to say others couldnt have been working inside the buildings for the same period. They go to and from their offices with briefcases a couple times a day or night ... explosives could've been brought in.

I'm not saying I believe explosives were used, I just think saying it would be impossible is naive.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by BPI
I don't understand the "tons of explosives" statement. According to the official story it takes 0, just the planes. But if you believe extra explosives may have been used then it automatically jumps to "tons of explosives." If you believe the planes themselves brought down the buildings, then wouldnt just a couple of explosives be needed to insure the building would completely collapse? Or to insure the direction of its fall?

I don't know all the businesses names that were in the buildings, but I'm pretty sure whoever financed the opertion could've afforded to rent a couple offices in the buildings. As previouly stated, the hijackers were here for a while for their training, who's to say others couldnt have been working inside the buildings for the same period. They go to and from their offices with briefcases a couple times a day or night ... explosives could've been brought in.

I'm not saying I believe explosives were used, I just think saying it would be impossible is naive.


I sincerely doubt there were rooms in the WTC that were open for rent.

Also, I like how 20,000 pounds of explosives is a small amount. You do realize that's 10 tons of explosives?





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join