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.

 

So if the buildings where brought down by explosion

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by HLR53K
 


well thats just it, these cutters would have had to be placed INSIDE the box columns...meaning someone had to get access to them, all of them, cut a hole in the side, then start lowering them down to the desired location, for each cut made.

much as i hate to say this cuz i would really really really be annoyed if someone took it out of context, but it would be much easier to blow them with HE.

but, in the interest of keeping an open mind...were there any reports or photos of the columns that had cuts that would resemble those made by a chemical cutter? i havnt seen any but, i wasnt looking for that and i havnt seen all of the photos.




posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


Hey Damocles,

I'm not sure if you read my thread about the Tesla earthquake machines or not. If you get a chance, would you let me know what your thoughts on that idea is?

Short story:

This machine vibrates at the natural frequency of the steel.

Do you think this could potentially be used to "loosen" the welds on the steel?

Sorry to go a little off topic here.

Edit: Forgot link.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 6/13/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Interesting idea.

I would have to lean towards no, but it might be possilble. Since the microstructure of the steel of all the beams are just that much different from one another (due to the steel creation and quenching process), it's impossible to find a single frequency to affect them all. That, and there's so many things inside the building that would dampen out the vibrations.

Since I'm sure the WTC towers were designed to withstand earthquakes of some magnitude, a small little vibration shouldn't be able to shake the building apart. I wonder how you would find the natural frequency of the WTC towers in the first place.

You don't "loosen" welds as much as you just break them, since a weld is a filler that's molecularly "blended" through heat between the two surfaces, but I know what you're getting at. Since the welds are designed to already hold up that much force, I doubt the additional vibrations would be enough to break them.

The mass that's moving on Tesla's device would have to be significantly larger than anything that you could stick in your pocket, that much I know for sure.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Just because there was rust on the beams and you found a water jet cutter doesn't mean that one was used.


What water jet cutters, we are talking about chemical or thermite cutters?

Als as far as when they were placed it could have been anytime there was a down day or over a weeekend.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The quote you posted only said "jet cutters" and I went to the website you linked and it didn't elaborate any further and that link on the site was broken.

I got some free time outside of work and did some digging and here's what I found from Schlumberger's site (referenced in your quote):
www.slb.com...

[edit on 14-6-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Sneering is really unattractive Soloist.

Not particularly insirational either TBH, especially is you require an answer to the sneering.

Enough said?

spikey.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Interesting idea.


Thanks.


I would have to lean towards no, but it might be possilble. Since the microstructure of the steel of all the beams are just that much different from one another (due to the steel creation and quenching process), it's impossible to find a single frequency to affect them all. That, and there's so many things inside the building that would dampen out the vibrations.


I'm sorry to have to say, that natural frequencies of buildings are a known phenomenon. I didn't pull this out of my ass.

Yes, the individual parts have different NF but when a building is constructed, it is constructed as a whole. The building's different parts all have different centroids but when together, the centroid becomes a common variable to the entire building. Same applies with NF.


Natural Frequency and
Building Design
! Design Buildings OUTSIDE their
Natural Frequency … Otherwise they
are Subject to Collapse

! General Rule …
– Short Buildings are Stiff and Have High
Natural Frequencies
– Tall Buildings have Low Natural
Frequencies


www.csupomona.edu...'s/Microsoft%20PowerPoint%20-%205%20%20Natural%20Frequency%20of%20Buildings%20Lab%201%20Week%205.pdf


Since I'm sure the WTC towers were designed to withstand earthquakes of some magnitude, a small little vibration shouldn't be able to shake the building apart. I wonder how you would find the natural frequency of the WTC towers in the first place.


Earthquakes and NF are common but not the same. When an earthquake resonates at the building's NF, collapse usually occurs. Even when the building was designed for mega earthquakes.


You don't "loosen" welds as much as you just break them, since a weld is a filler that's molecularly "blended" through heat between the two surfaces, but I know what you're getting at. Since the welds are designed to already hold up that much force, I doubt the additional vibrations would be enough to break them.

The mass that's moving on Tesla's device would have to be significantly larger than anything that you could stick in your pocket, that much I know for sure.


Have you even looked into and/or considered this? Or just poo-poo'd it away with gut feeling?

But, I don't want to take this thread off-topic. If you'd like to discuss more, please feel free to post in the thread I linked to.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


My major isn't civil engineering so buildings aren't something I know a whole lot about. New things to learn.

I'm not as much saying that it isn't completely possbile as much as it's slightly off the beaten path, if you will, in regards to the WTC towers. Like one of the posters in your thread said, I would expect to see more large chunks of the building falling.

But if used in conjunction with the airplane impacts, I could see it being used to cause the weakening members to fail. Somewhat of a reach, but not completely out there like the space beams I keep seeing people mention.

I'll continue to read that thread you linked.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
My major isn't civil engineering so buildings aren't something I know a whole lot about. New things to learn.


From your posts, you seam smart enough to grasp this. That's a compliment even if it doesn't sound like one.



I'm not as much saying that it isn't completely possbile as much as it's slightly off the beaten path, if you will, in regards to the WTC towers. Like one of the posters in your thread said, I would expect to see more large chunks of the building falling.


You could be right about the large chunks. But, who's to say. This was unprecedented right?


But if used in conjunction with the airplane impacts, I could see it being used to cause the weakening members to fail. Somewhat of a reach, but not completely out there like the space beams I keep seeing people mention.

I'll continue to read that thread you linked.


Which shows me that you are at least open minded. Rare commodity around here. I'm interested in your input.

Like I said, I'm not married to this and only throw it out there as a plausible.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

if not can we at least then all finally agree that these "thermite cutters" are pure speculation?


I can fully agree with this. Can you agree that the corrosion/errosion of the steel in the FEMA report being caused by gypsum is also speculation as there is no precedence for this?


sorry to come back to this but i misread it the first time i think so i want to clarify it somewhat.

i read it as the gypsum being the cause of the steel erosion as being FEMA's theory. but after i asked you for the link to the thread you authored about the steel erosion, i read the report and didnt find gypsum being even suggested as a source for the sulpher in that report. (link for those unfamiliar with this particular report. thanks again griff) yet, i have read others have speculated that the drywall COULD have been (well some would say WAS) the source for the sulpher that lead to the steel erosion. were i to be honest, and not too lazy to go check every post ive made, id have to probably admit that i could have stated that i wouldnt rule it out. (amazing what you recall, or think you recall, when you come back to a topic long afterwards huh?))

so, to make sure i have this correct finally: griff youre asking if i would be willing to agree that the hypothesis that sulpher from the gypsum drywall coupled with heat from a fire is responsible for the erosion of some of the structural steel in buildings 1&2 (never heard of it being blamed in 7 so i wont go there)? is that the actual question?

if so my answer wont change...i still find it to be speculation. i say this because ive never read a fema report that blames the drywall specifically therefore there was no testing done that was listed in this particular report to substantiate it so it is most likely one of those grabbing at straws explainations by some in the OCT crowd to explain the steel erosion much like the cries of "THERMITE CUTTER CHARGES" from the alternative theory crowd for the same event.

and it has about as much merit and evidence to support it as the thermite cutter charges. which is to say it sounds just sexy enough that someone with no knowledge of it will think it sounds just plausible enough so they'll rally around it and scream about it til their throats bleed.

just wanted to clear this up so that theres no miscommunications or false assumptions but mostly because i dont think i read it correctly the first time and wanted to make sure i answered it from the proper frame of reference.

reply to post by Griff
 


intersting....but as im sure you know engineering isnt really my forte. im much better at blowing them up in a spectacular fashion
(well, not this particular type of engineering anyway, but the rest is just betwixt a few of us lol, for now
)

[edit on 15-6-2008 by Damocles]



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


Thanks Damacles,

I find it amazing how people jump on an idea just because it fits their point of view (both sides). Without any evidence, precidence and/or experimentation to back it up.

Thermite charges: No evidence of cutter charges using thermite that I'm aware of.

Gypsum: No evidence, precidence or experimentation to back that claim up.

So, both sides are speculating at this point.

I believe if I read your post correctly, that is what you were saying also.

So, I wonder why this strange phenomenon has been swept under the rug?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
sulpher from the gypsum drywall coupled with heat from a fire is responsible for the erosion of some of the structural steel in buildings 1&2 (never heard of it being blamed in 7 so i wont go there)? is that the actual question?


Actually, one of the two pieces that were tested was from 7. Just thought I'd clear that up.

It's actually in my OP of that thread. They (FEMA) says something like "the melting as was observed in the A36 steel from WTC 7" or something to that effect.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I find it amazing how people jump on an idea just because it fits their point of view (both sides). Without any evidence, precidence and/or experimentation to back it up.

thats actually easy...because it fits their need, or their belief, or most commonly IMO their need to believe.

people that blindly follow the govts story NEED to believe that their government wouldnt lie to them, that the govt has their best interests in mind, that the government is by and large honest and incapable of doing anything so attrocious. they need to feel like they havnt been believing a lie. as a result, they are going to believe the governments official story and defend it to the death because they NEED to.

fire never brought down a steel framed building? well no steel framed building ever had a jet rammed into it at speed. government cant explain why exactly the buildings collapsed? not important, "they" said it was inevitable so it must be true. no wreckage to speak of at the pentagon? well it must have just totally disintigrated. nothing but a hole in PA? well the ground was kinda soft there afterall...

conversly, i feel that many people who believe many of the alternative theories already have an inherent distrust of "the man" and need a theory that validates their distrust. they NEED to believe that the government is behind all of this and so it doesnt matter what the theory is, as long as it implicates the government they will find a way to justify it in their minds to make it fit.

fire never brought down a steel framed building before? must have been a black ops demo team. no explosions? must have been something silent...how about thermite, yeah that sounds like it could work. no video of a plane at the pentagon? has to be a coverup, why would they point the cameras only at the ground and why only near parking lots? no anti aircraft at the pentagon? well it cant be because shooting down a jetliner over a city is just insane, it cant be becuase to let an aircraft hit one building could save 1000's of lives elsewhere in the city, has to be cuz the govt let the plane hit the building. the planes didnt look real? obviously holograms...oh hologram technology isnt that good yet? well then it was obviously a real time CGI job. explosives dont explain the collapse and thermite is an unproven theory? well must have been a spaced based energy weapon. but how do you explain the tritium? oh, thats from the micro nukes.

and i hope no one thinks im taking a shot at them personally, im not. im just trying to get everyone to examine their own hearts and honestly decide if they believe what they believe because thats where the evidence takes them or if its because they have an inherent NEED to believe so that they can have some sort of validation.

there are a LOT of people here at ATS that believe what they do because they have personally done their own research and their opinions are based upon where the evidence took them. THOSE people i applaud. but the people that watched CNN or watched Loose Change and NEVER asked any of THEIR OWN questions need to wake up.

i dont care what you think, just so long as youre thinking for yourself.




So, I wonder why this strange phenomenon has been swept under the rug?

because many people dont like to question the nature of god either, for to do so would challenge their beliefs

either that or its because, you know, like, thinking for yourself is like hard and stuff....so like, its just so much like, easier ya know, to like totally let someone else do the, ya know..thinking...and stuff.



[edit on 15-6-2008 by Damocles]



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
The quote you posted only said "jet cutters" and I went to the website you linked and it didn't elaborate any further and that link on the site was broken.


You did not see about the JET FUEL CUTTERS?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
because many people dont like to question the nature of god either, for to do so would challenge their beliefs


But, we are talking about beliefs that could potentially have serious consequences.

If we take the belief that gypsum can indeed corrode steel like this, then shouldn't we be finding this out? Since most (if not all) steel structures are spec'd with gypsum as a fire retarder not an accelerant?

Wasn't NIST taxed with finding the answers to these questions? Again, why is it being ignored?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


oh lol see i misread you again. i thought you were asking why the phenomenea of people just latching onto random theories was being disregarded and its because people dont like to objectivly evaluate their own beliefs.

as to why the gypsum steel erosion isnt being looked at, why would they? was it fema that actually postulated this theory or was it someone on a 911 forum? the report i read from your link didnt actually list gypsum drywall as a culprit unless i missed it, which i may have.

i thought it was FEMA saying (paraphrasing here) "well, it could have been from sulpher" at which time the CT crowd said "SEE!!! THERMITE!! THERMITE HAS SULPHER!!" and the OCT crowd started screaming "SO DOES GYPSUM DRYWALL!!! IT HAD TO BE THE DRYWALL THERE WAS LOTS OF IT THERE!!!"

of course then a smartass like me is going to ask, how much sulpher was there? was it disproportionate to the rest of the steel? steel manufacturing uses coke, which contains sulpher, so was the sulpher level out of range with the rest of the steel or did it just happen to be there and someone ran with it to prove a theory?



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
i thought it was FEMA saying (paraphrasing here) "well, it could have been from sulpher" at which time the CT crowd said "SEE!!! THERMITE!! THERMITE HAS SULPHER!!" and the OCT crowd started screaming "SO DOES GYPSUM DRYWALL!!! IT HAD TO BE THE DRYWALL THERE WAS LOTS OF IT THERE!!!"


Well lets look at exactly what the FEMA report states.
911research.wtc7.net...

Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration. In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3. Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.



[edit on 15-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
just to make sure i was going off the right report griff, i went back to this one again, but i used acrobats search feature to look for some key words.

i tried:
gypsum
drywall
sheetrock
sheet rock
plasterboard
plaster board

none of those appeared in that report, at all. so im not sure where the drywall theory really came from but IMO it wasnt THAT report at least.

but its no secret that ive not read every line of every report that "they" put out on the subject.

really starting to think that the drywall theory was put out by the OCT crowd as a counter to the thermite theory.

and more and more i get this sick sinking feeling that at some point in the past i myself may have suggested drywall as a source for the sulpher FEMA suggests may have been a factor in the steel erosion.

if i did suggest such a thing, um...my bad
not going to now say its not possible, im going to say that i myself have no basis for which to make such a statement.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


I think you're still not getting what I'm saying.

FEMA found some pieces of steel that were corroded/erroded from the sulfur. FEMA says that this could have started before collapse and aided collapse. FEMA concludes that more investigation into this phenomenon is needed.

NIST was taxed with finding these aswers and changing codes that would prevent something like this. They have ignored this and no answer is given.

So again, the next time I Spec gypsum around a steel column, am I potentially putting people's lives at risk because of this?

Because as far as I'm aware, the only codes that have changed due to NIST's report are ingress (entrances), egress (exits) and widening of evacuation staircases.

I haven't heard a peep from them in regards to gypsum corroding/erroding steel in fire.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
really starting to think that the drywall theory was put out by the OCT crowd as a counter to the thermite theory.


It was. With no precedence to back it up.


and more and more i get this sick sinking feeling that at some point in the past i myself may have suggested drywall as a source for the sulpher FEMA suggests may have been a factor in the steel erosion.

if i did suggest such a thing, um...my bad
not going to now say its not possible, im going to say that i myself have no basis for which to make such a statement.


I not sure if you did. What I'm sure of though is that, in knowing you, you would have made that disclaimer when postulating at the time. If you did.

[edit on 6/15/2008 by Griff]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join