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.

 

Why Should the WTC Towers Suffer Complete Collapse?

page: 16
6
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by OrionStars

Gravity, by natural collapse or conventional controlled demolitions, cannot cause granulation of steel, which is what is occurring in that photo,


I see no where in that picture "granulation of steel". Neither do you. You see a huge debris cloud. Period.


When granulation takes place, it is not going to be seen from a distance. It will eventually pile up on the ground. When laboratory analyzed for element composite, that is when it will be known, pertaining to granulation of steel high in high iron element. I bothered to study the metallurgy report posted by gottago. It stated that "dust" is extremely high in FE and other metals mixed to make steel alloy.

That metallurgy report is what the Bush administration did not want revealed to the general public. Unfortunately, they did not get their demand on that, which is a feather in our cap for proving what did happen on 9/11/2001, and who actually did it.

NIST and FEMA did not release any metallurgy reports. Nor did Eagar mention them in his PM article, which became the WH original "official" report. Then NIST and FEMA had to set pre-conceived conclusions in order to make the "evidence" fit the PM article conclusion. Which is why NIST and FEMA reports make no logical sense per the laws of nature.




posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Those are facade and perimeter walls sections under the arrow. They are too small for core supports.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago

I agree I don't see granulating steel, that's quite a jump, but what the heck is causing all that?


Thermal heat energy from the inside expanding and violently removing all the attachments of the exterior facade and perimeter walls, which were attached to the outside of the buildings. As the disintegration took place, much of it lost any connection, and high pressure from the inside exploded it outwards.

I ran across the following highly interesting article on the history of the twin towers. Perhaps others will find it as highly interesting as I did.

www.simplytaty.com...



-Tower One was 1,368 feet (414 meters) tall

-Tower Two was 1,362 feet (412 meters) tall

-Architects: Minoru Yamaski & Associates and Emery, Roth & Sons.

-The Twin Towers were the tallest until the Sears Tower surpassed them.

-About 50,000 people worked in the complex, which housed the offices of more than 430 businesses from 26 countries and 9 chapels of 6 different faiths.

-Each tower consisted of 104 passenger elevators and 21,800 windows.

-Automatic window-washing machines cleaned 600,000 square feet of glass.

-The foundation of each tower extended more than 70 feet below ground, resting on solid bedrock and was visible for 20 miles from ground

–Had its own zip code, 10048

–Had 110 floors

-The towers were the best known examples of "tube buildings," which are strenghtened by closely spaced columns and beams in the outer walls.

-Constructed on six acres of landfill

-Built of aluminum and 200,000 tons of steel

–425,000 cubic yards of concrete

–600,000 square feet of glass

–12,000 miles of electric cables

–Weighed 1.5 million tons

–Contained 198 miles of heating ducts

–Used 23,000 fluorescent light bulbs


Where did it all go? It is not in all the photos posted across the Internet. Granulation metallurgy report, you provided us, say high thermal energy almost completely granulated steel and all other non-biological products inside those towers. That is why the photos show all that aluminum clad steel facade and perimeter wall still looking very recognizable and vertical.

The edges were so cleanly exploded out. At least for those sections not being granulated as well. There was not nearly enough facade and perimeter wall sections, which should have been there. Core and inside core steel framing are almost non-existant in any photos.

200,000 tons of steel should have still been there be it natural collapse or conventional controlled demolitions. There is nowhere near 200,000 tons of steel in any photos.

It took them around two years of periodic shipping in by purchase orders to move in all that steel. There was nowhere near 200,000 tons of steel cleaned up after 9/11/2001, or enough time utilized to clean up 200,000 tons of steel.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by gottago
 


Those are facade and perimeter walls sections under the arrow. They are too small for core supports.


I didn't add the arrow; I just picked this photo off the net so I didn't have to upload it. It's not in that area at all, but above the intact building in the dark area of the dust cloud.

To pinpoint: it's the sunlit spot in the right/center of the dust cloud, just above the line of major structure being ejected outward and downward, in the shadowed area where the dust is being shot upwards at an acute angle. It is the tip of a core column beginning to fall to the right.

Edit to add: Orion, do you have any solid figures about just how much steel was carted off? I've seen estimates that vary wildly, nothing solid. If you have a link on that I'd very much like to read it.

[edit on 12-2-2008 by gottago]



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


With all due respect, I do not see any core column tip or otherwise. I do see exterior double interior violently blown off but no sign of any core unit. I can try saving the picture to my desk top and zooming in. Then if that does not work, I will need a very powerful magnifying glass. That all seriously written. I need to validate what you are seeing, in order to validate according to my own requirements concerning validation.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by gottago
 


With all due respect, I do not see any core column tip or otherwise. I do see exterior double interior violently blown off but no sign of any core unit. I can try saving the picture to my desk top and zooming in. Then if that does not work, I will need a very powerful magnifying glass. That all seriously written. I need to validate what you are seeing, in order to validate according to my own requirements concerning validation.


Phew, Orion, I didn't want to waste my upload space but here is a version with the core column circled in red. I tried to explain the location as clearly as possible, but obviously a picture is worth a 1000 words.





posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
Phew, Orion, I didn't want to waste my upload space but here is a version with the core column circled in red. I tried to explain the location as clearly as possible, but obviously a picture is worth a 1000 words.




Thank you. I was able to hone in on what you meant from your description but appreciate the visual clarification.

However, I do have to validate, if I can, and no offense intended. For instance, if someone agreeing with DEW stated it was a core support, I would still have to validate myself. It is part of the requirement for validation I long ago set for myself, in order to force myself to maintain as much objectivity as possible.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


I did what I promised to do. I zoomed in, and it is very possible it was a core column from the top of WTC 2. It was WTC 2, is that correct? I believe part of the hat trusses survived intact as well.

It was leaning and pulled back in when DEW created the vacuum. Thus, part of the center cores, at the top of WTC 2, were already compromised, and broken free on one side of the building, held on by the other center steel still attached to their collars, plus, the inside steel framing inside the core supports.

I never could fully accept conventional controlled demolitions being able to pull back that top leaning 23 degrees to the outside. There is not enough vacuum implosion power in controlled demolitions. There is in thermonuclear energy DEW.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by gottago
 

It was WTC 2, is that correct?


It was WTC 1, the north tower, with the antenna. You're looking south.

Here it is on video from roughly the same POV; you can also see the core column toppling in it: (Use the link, the embed never works for me.)


Google Video Link


This is WTC 2:




You've also got another core column in the middle of the dustcloud caught on that pic, btw.


[edit on 12-2-2008 by gottago]



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago


This is WTC 2:




You've also got another core column in the middle of the dustcloud caught on that pic, btw.


[edit on 12-2-2008 by gottago]


reply to post by gottago
 


I thought the photo stated WTC 2 in the credit at the bottom. I apologize if that was wrong.

The video does not seem to be working.

As for what is being pointed at as a core column on WTC 2 above, would that be where the red arrow is pointing? Or are you referring to the opposite side of the building (right side)?



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Gottago is talking about this...



But if you look real close, or zoom in with photoshop or something, it looks more like the corner of the exterior facade than an interior column. Just my opinion...



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


It could be part of a hat truss. It is quite difficult to clearly distinguish exact steel pieces. However, the perimeter walls and facade had a highly distinctive look in comparison. Those are easy to identify.

I did see one photo, in which it looked as if one partial hat truss actually ended up intact, for at least that much recognizable steel portion, on the ground. But where are the rest of it and them? They were huge, with each one running from the 107th floor to the roof. They were arranged in heavy grid fashion north-south and east-west.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


You have to zoom in to really see it, and when you do it looks remarkably like the buildings corner facade...

Look at the bottom part in the top pic...




posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


That does not look like any part of a hat truss. I agree. I am just not quite certain what it is. It is the wrong color to be a core support or hat truss part. Could be facade. As I recall, the perimeter walls were painted yellow, and it is definitely not yellow.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Thanks Anok, that was indeed what I was referring to.

Its position near the center of the building mass and that fact that its vertical indicates to me at least that it's a core column about to topple.



OS, that pic is much to far into the collapse to be seeing part of the hat truss assembly somehow appearing vertically and disassociated.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago

OS, that pic is much to far into the collapse to be seeing part of the hat truss assembly somehow appearing vertically and disassociated.


The tops became detached from the bottoms early on. That piece could be anything according to what I viewed. It is difficult to tell if it is inside or outside what is left of the perimeter walls, at the angle from which the photo is shot.

In proportional relationship to what is obviously facade and perimeter wall sections exploding away, it looks to big too be one tube of three, of the perimeter wall or any section of the fork design on the facade. It does not look like a full section of three tubes and spandrel plates of a section of perimeter wall.

Perhaps, if someone is an expert with computer imaging, in order to clarify the section of the photo in question, could someone please be kind enough to try to do that? Thank you.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 12:58 AM
link   
It could be HVAC ductwork or exhaust venting. It depends on where that was located in the towers. As I recall, the towers had 198 miles of HVAC duct.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Interesting. Do you know how many truckloads were actually taken out? Just curious to see if we can compare.



[edit on 2/13/2008 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars


I thought the photo stated WTC 2 in the credit at the bottom. I apologize if that was wrong.



Unless some one is wanting to re-write history and have WTC 1 fall before WTC 2, I don't think you owe any one an apology. WTC 1 is clearly seen to the right.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
You have to zoom in to really see it, and when you do it looks remarkably like the buildings corner facade...


It does, in fact, look remarkably like the corner...unfortunately, we'd have to grab the top of the building and rotate it on its vertical axis relative to the bottom a pretty good bit considering it doesn't line up with the corner below it. With as complicated as this collapse is, I don't think I want to add that factor - my head might explode.

[edit on 2-13-2008 by Valhall]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join