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.

 

WTC lease holder admits WTC7 was intentionally demolished !

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Um, Ok. Sceptics who blindly believe the govornment army of paid "engineers, explain this one.

Steel melts at about 1350-1500 degrees celsuis.

education.jlab.org...

Jet fuel burns at 700c.

NOT hot enough to melt steel. especially not construction steel.

Try again.









posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
NOT hot enough to melt steel. especially not construction steel.

Try again.


"Yield level residual stress"

Temperature variations along the steel joists result in a structural buckle due to varying thermal expansion.

The steel does not need to "melt" to lose structural integrity along key points in the support build. When support joists fail and the frame of the building begins to collapse, the simple law of gravity takes care of the rest.

No one said the steel melted.
There's a lot more at play from an engineering standpoint than you're realizing here.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I am aware of what they are saying.

Still the ehat from the fires was hardly enough to weaken massive structural supports, especially when you see the relatively small area dtruck by the planes.

Judging my the smoke of the fires, the fire probably did not even reach max heat. Look how much jet fuel was blown out of the building on impact. the fires burned briefly. It only took such a relatively small fire one measly houir to do the damage? I dont buy it.

Add to that jet fuel is extremely volatile, and doesnt burn that hot, unlike diesel fuel, which burns very slow, hot, and long.

And Im still waiting for legit answers on WTC 7. No fires, no jet fuel, nothing.

It simply does not add up.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Still the ehat from the fires was hardly enough to weaken massive structural supports, especially when you see the relatively small area dtruck by the planes.


No, you're missing the point.

It isn't the heat of the fire itself.
It's the temperature variations along a relatively small section of support material that causes a buckling effect.
Structural steel is manufactured to expand and contract with temperature fluctuations. If that expansion and contraction occurs at varying degrees (even just a few hundred degrees variation), that is going to cause a structural failure.

And there were fires at WTC 7.

[edit on 18-7-2004 by Banshee]



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Why did the collapse begin few floors above the impact points? The floor, where the burning kerosine gathered, was not taking role in the collaose.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 08:20 AM
link   
OMG!!!! WHAT A SHOCK!!!!!

actually not realy.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


Steel melts at about 1350-1500 degrees celsuis.

education.jlab.org...

Jet fuel burns at 700c.
NOT hot enough to melt steel. especially not construction steel.



Im with you. The building is all steel, the heat would transfer to the rest of the building. Building 7 was on fire, WHY? Why where the people avacuated before anyone in the towers? Again I ask, if the planes, brought down the towers, with jet fuel and paper furnature. What made 7 fall, no fuel, no way of reaching the needed temp to concave on its self?



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Banshee

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Still the ehat from the fires was hardly enough to weaken massive structural supports, especially when you see the relatively small area dtruck by the planes.


If that expansion and contraction occurs at varying degrees (even just a few hundred degrees variation), that is going to cause a structural failure.

[edit on 18-7-2004 by Banshee]


this type of 'uneven' action would result in a pretzel type gnarling action of the steel. there is NO way both towers would have fallen down perfectly. i've seen all the counterintelligence arguments and weighed them.

it's a crock. and WTC7 is (one) of the lynch pins in the official lie.

the attempt at a cover-up is worse than sad, and falling for their bogus logic and physics is a folly, i for one, will not be victim too.

two words: no investigation.
three words: all evidence detroyed.
four words: baseless accusations start wars
five words: get rich quick with nazis
one word: massciviliansacrificestomolechandanewchaosfromwhichtoformthenewworldorder.

beware the ministry of truth!



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   
for important information regarding building 7 of the WTC....

please go read my post on page 10 of this thread, I think it will explain it all to you...



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
two words: no investigation.
three words: all evidence detroyed.


A criminal couldn't ask for more!



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Um, Ok. Sceptics who blindly believe the govornment army of paid "engineers, explain this one.

Steel melts at about 1350-1500 degrees celsuis.

education.jlab.org...

Jet fuel burns at 700c.

NOT hot enough to melt steel. especially not construction steel.

Try again.









OK, it seems there are some people here with an incomplete understanding of material science and structural engineering. That’s ok. We all have to learn sometime.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of structural engineers and fire science specialist that do not work for the U.S. government. Where are they?

1) To start with. You do not have to melt steel to lose structural integrity.

From a previous thread, (thanks Valhall) the yield strength vrs. temperature for a particular steel alloy:



As you can clearly see, the strength of the steel drops pretty quickly once you start getting over 700 degrees F (or 371 degrees celsius).

2) There has been a number of claims that since jet fuel only burns at 700 degrees Celsius, the fire could not have gotten hotter than this. This is simply not true. Fire science investigators have recorded temperatures well over 1000 degrees Celsius in test burns of common household and office furniture assemblies.

www.doctorfire.com...

www.bre.co.uk...

Now, for the two towers we have to consider the additional heat released by the combustion of the fuel. Remember that there is a difference between heat and temperature. Suffice to say that the burning fuel released a tremendous amount of heat into the buildings in a relatively short time period.

However, this thread is about WT7 and there wasn’t any jet fuel in the building, or was there? As it turns out, there was an diesel fuel powered emergency generator system in the building. This system had a main, 5,000 gallon fuel tank on the first floor and a remote “day tank” situated near the generator set on an upper floor (I forget which floor exactly, but it was in the middle of the building somewhere). A funny thing about emergency generators is that they are designed to start up automatically when there is a power failure. When the fuel level in the day tank drops, it is replenished by fuel pumped from the main tank.

Metallurgical examination of steel samples from WT7 also indicate that the steel suffered from a sulphonization reaction during the fire that may have lowered the strength and melting temperature even further. The source of the sulfur has not yet been determined; however sulfur is a common component in many building materials.

Modern buildings are designed to be fire resistant for a certain length of time, typically 4 hours. WTC burned for over 7 hours. If there was structural damage related to the tower collapse, the collapse of this building was inevitable.

Finally, where do you get the notion that “construction steel” is somehow stronger or better than ordinary steel?


[edit on 19-7-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bangin

Originally posted by billybob
two words: no investigation.
three words: all evidence detroyed.


A criminal couldn't ask for more!



Not true. Samples of the building steels were salvaged and are being subjected to numerous metallurgical tests.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Istvan
Why did the collapse begin few floors above the impact points? The floor, where the burning kerosine gathered, was not taking role in the collaose.

Actually, go find the view of the collapse that was narrated live by Dan Rather, THE PENTHOUSE FALLS FIRST!



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by roxdog

Originally posted by Istvan
Why did the collapse begin few floors above the impact points? The floor, where the burning kerosine gathered, was not taking role in the collaose.

Actually, go find the view of the collapse that was narrated live by Dan Rather, THE PENTHOUSE FALLS FIRST!


All that indicates is that the core columns failed first. Remember that the first plane strike was more direct, the mass of the plane plowed into the core area. The second plane struck at an angle which damaged more of the exterior columns.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Not true. Samples of the building steels were salvaged and are being subjected to numerous metallurgical tests.


Please provide a link/source, Howard. You didn't think I'd simply take your word for it, did you?


This is the first I have heard of these tests. All other sources say the steel was recycled/sold.

Edited: Found this link on ATS, originally provided by none other than Howard. I'm going to read through it now.

www.house.gov...

8.2.8 Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination
Two structural steel samples from the WTC site were observed to have unusual erosion patterns. One
sample is believed to be from WTC 7 and the other from either WTC 1 or WTC 2.
8.2.8.1 Observations and Findings
a. The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation
and sulfidation.
b. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the
formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
c. The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.
CHAPTER 8: Observations, Findings, and Recommendations
8-11 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
d. The high concentration of sulfides in the grain boundaries of the corroded regions of the steel occurred
due to copper diffusing from the high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steel combining with iron and sulfur,
making both discrete and continuous sulfides in the steel grain boundaries.
8.2.8.2 Recommendations
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 constitute an 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 was 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. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if
any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.


That's it? A limited test with additional studies needed to get some real answers? Blah.

[edit on 7/19/2004 by Bangin]



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 10:58 AM
link   


All that indicates is that the core columns failed first. Remember that the first plane strike was more direct, the mass of the plane plowed into the core area. The second plane struck at an angle which damaged more of the exterior columns.


Building seven was not hit by a plane.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Wait, just a question from a newbie who probably shouldn't be asking anything....

Does it matter -why- the building was demolished/collapsed? The fact remains that it became a big pile of rubble, just like the others, and as such had tremendous impact on the site as a whole.

Now to speculate whether or not it was torn down to prevent it from falling down, or because getting the building out of the way would add more fuel to the emotional media firestorm, or because steel fell down and went boom doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Unless I'm just one of the unwashed masses who happens to live within eyeshot of the whole scene...and what do I know, I had a river between me and catastrophe.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bangin

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Not true. Samples of the building steels were salvaged and are being subjected to numerous metallurgical tests.


Please provide a link/source, Howard. You didn't think I'd simply take your word for it, did you?


This is the first I have heard of these tests. All other sources say the steel was recycled/sold.

Edited: Found this link on ATS, originally provided by none other than Howard. I'm going to read through it now.

. . .
That's it? A limited test with additional studies needed to get some real answers? Blah.

[edit on 7/19/2004 by Bangin]




wtc.nist.gov...

www.boulder.nist.gov...

www.wpi.edu...

www.tms.org...

www.google.com...


These things take time.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by roxdog


All that indicates is that the core columns failed first. Remember that the first plane strike was more direct, the mass of the plane plowed into the core area. The second plane struck at an angle which damaged more of the exterior columns.


Building seven was not hit by a plane.


Sorry, I thought that is what you were talking about. The penthouse collapsed first on the north tower also. Again, all this indicates is that the core area failed first.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Suburblurker. The point of this is there are many people here on this board that see everything in terms of a conspiracy. (that is after all the point of this board). Some of them see a conspiracy in EVERYTHING, even to the point if there is a cloud overhead, they think that it was deliberately created by HAARP to deprive them (and them alone) of sunshine.

An event such as 9/11 is just another excuse to trot out the pet theories.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join