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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
knew there was a reason i respected you Griff


And I you. That's why I don't understand the vitriol from some sometimes. Maybe I do bring it on myself with my delusions of grandeur. Who knows.

Bottom line is: I'd rather be proven wrong than be ignorant on a subject. But, some would learn that honey attracts flies better than vinegar.




posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
In building 1 and 2, since there was no concrete around the steel collumns (except basement levels) "explosions" would not have been necessary.


Actually, I have read in the NIST report that the columns had spray on fireproofing and a couple inches of gypsum covering them.

My belief is that if thermate was used, it was to sever the horizontal supports to the columns and not the columns themselves. Kind of like thermite welding but more shaped and enough to sever the beam.

www.youtube.com...

It would cause the columns to buckle on the inside due to Euler's buckling and the collapse would look as it did from the outside. Only way I can conceivably see thermate being used. For collapse initiation.

Unless we can find proof that thermate shape charges do exist that can sever columns.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   
(grumble grumble grumble) stupid internet connection, see actual post below

[edit on 3-6-2008 by Damocles]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
The kabooms (or lack thereof) on 911 are debatable.

ive never ever claimed there were no loud sounds or "explosions", ive claimed that these sounds were incidental to the nature of the events. things explode in fires. explosions do not equal bombs in all cases.


Thermite cutting charges don't really 'explode'.

yes i know, ive used thermite. but the real reason that "thermite cutting charges" dont "explode" is because they dont exist, and if they do no one can point me to a manufacturer. i believe a patent as been filed SINCE 911, but to the best of my knowledge this product is not in mass production nor was it in production prior to 911 making the chances of there having been "thermite cutting charges" in teh buildings pretty unlikely.

unless of course we're all going back to the whole "well 'THEY' have super secret stuff we dont know about" which is of course speculation and in that case i want us to reopen the case for godzilla in thermoptic camo being responsible. (bsb, if youre reading this thread, sorry, i had to go there....again)

There are eyewitness accounts of some types of 'booms' occurring on 911 as mentioned and illustrated earlier in this thread.

yes, but again, how suprising is it that things in a fire may "explode" or how suprising would it be for someone to hear a loud noise and say to somone else "wow man, sounded like a bomb going off" and after a few retellings its suddenly "man, a bomb went off"?


Explosives or no explosives, catastrophic failure of support columns by thermite would have caused an 'explosive' failure mode due to massive weight shifting and air compression events.

sure would have. yet oddly enough no one has been able to demonstrate thermite/mate being able to cut through 2"+ thick steel horizontally in nice clean (torch marks aside) lines that dont have the cut misshapen due to gravity.


I do know that in controlled demolitions, there are different types of devices to 'crack' different types of supports/collumns.

yes the most common methods are either brute force blasting using large charges placed against the column or linear shape charges (in the debate thread i linked to in my first post here i have a link to a manufacturers website for LSC's and used their data as the model for the demo calcs i did to illustrate just how much HE it would take just to crack the core...at the 66th floor where the steel wasnt quite as thick as it was on say...the 10th floor.

In building 1 and 2, since there was no concrete around the steel collumns (except basement levels) "explosions" would not have been necessary.

wouldnt be necessary if thermite cutter charges were in fact available in 2001 and did half what some people seem to think they do.


Like I said earlier, thermite does not "explode". It burns extremely hot and fast.

it does not however, based on anything ive seen it do, make nice clean (relativly) horizontal lines in very thick steel.

now, if you have some tech data on these cutter charges, like i said i would love to see it just for the sake of learning something new.

but no one i know or have ever worked with has even seen a thermite cutter charge. but hey, we're just former military demo guys...

general question, does anyone who believes the thermite theory base this belief off of anything other than Jones or those Youtube videos?



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Ask NIST this and they say that the cap fell at freefall energy. How is this possible when buckled columns still have strength and resistance?

I don't remember this conversation. Course I really have to say I'm starting to turn a blind ear to you. Not because you don't have anything to say, but because you say it with vitriol.


1-The strawman is where you ask "what degraded the steel". You're asking it in this way because you then want to move on to asking why NIST didn't do the collapse event all the way to the bottom. This is convenient for you becaus eit ignores the fact that NIST gives the collapse initiation event. And in there they clearly stated that the heat encountered by the steel wasn't enough to weaken it to caus ethe collapse. So no degradation.

2-Because I expect more from you as a professional. Saying, "I just don't believe....." is an argument from incredulity that would make my brother cringe. Matter of fact, it does when I talk to him about it.....



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
You're asking it in this way because you then want to move on to asking why NIST didn't do the collapse event all the way to the bottom.


And you can tell the future and predict what I'm going to ask next? Telling.

Tell me: What exactly is NIST's theory then? I thought the loss of strength to the structural columns was a major point in their hypothesis?


However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.


wtc.nist.gov...

I'll be expecting that apology now. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
2-Because I expect more from you as a professional. Saying, "I just don't believe....." is an argument from incredulity that would make my brother cringe. Matter of fact, it does when I talk to him about it.....


So, I can't have an opinion as a professional? Telling.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I have a question about WT7...that building that was damaged but didn't collapse. I remember seeing the owner of the Trade Center saying that...I hope I've got this right...in the afternoon on the day of the attacks, they consulted with structural engineers and decided that the building was either unstable or too badly damaged to save, so the decision was taken to "pull it"...demolish it using explosives. It was shown quite clearly being blown up and collapsing in on itself.

How could they wire a badly damaged or unstable building or that size...and it was a large building....for explosive demolition in a matter of a few hours? Don't jobs like this take weeks to arrange? Does anyone know more about this?

Caitlin



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by Nola213

Theres plenty of video of ground level smoke from explosions due to explosives in the basements. This smoke can be seen rising before the second plane hit.



FYI - that smoke is coming from some cars that were set on fire after the first plane hit.

If I provide a video, would you retract this statement and never repeat it again?


BTW, we're still waiting on this video. It has to show that those cars are indeed the culprit for the smoke. Not just a video of some burning car somewhere.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

And you can tell the future and predict what I'm going to ask next? Telling.



What's so hard about making that prediction?

It's your standard line of argument and I've seen it a dozen times already.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Tell me: What exactly is NIST's theory then? I thought the loss of strength to the structural columns was a major point in their hypothesis?


However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.


wtc.nist.gov...

I'll be expecting that apology now. Thanks.


Show me where NIST says that the steel reached 1000C.

They say that in their tests that the steel reached 650C, which in their opinion isn't enough to cause the steel to weaken enough to cause the collapse initiation. If you have info that says something different, you can have your apology.

Cuz all I've seen is another explanation - thermal heating/expansion; thermal cooling/contraction; and creep that resulted in loads being transferred from the core columns onto the exterior columns.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


So, I can't have an opinion as a professional? Telling.


Having an opinion is fine. Everyone has 'em.

But I would have a hard time bagging on someone in MY former industry - where I spent 20 yrs reaching a very prestigious position - without any hard evidence. My brother feels the same way since a structural engineer's field is so rigorously governed by maths and NOT opinion.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by caitlinfae
so the decision was taken to "pull it"...demolish it using explosives. It was shown quite clearly being blown up and collapsing in on itself.



"Pull it" is a term used by old fire fighters. It comes from the times when radios weren't in use for the guys inside the building.

If the guy in charge saw the building in danger, the guys inside were warned to get out by pulling on the hose.

So when LS uses "pull it" in that documentary, he's expressing the decision to pull the frefighters that were in the collapse zone out of the area to save their lives.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


BTW, we're still waiting on this video. It has to show that those cars are indeed the culprit for the smoke. Not just a video of some burning car somewhere.


ANd I'm still waiting for a response from the first poster.

I watched it again last nite. It shows burning cars at the base of the towers after both hits, so maybe it's not exactly what the OP was stating.

But I'd also like to see some evidence of his statement also.Namely smoke from 2 before the it got hit.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
"Pull it" is a term used by old fire fighters. It comes from the times when radios weren't in use for the guys inside the building.


This is not true...

'Pull it' is a demolition term that was used when buildings were 'pulled down' by chains and it is still used as a term to mean demolish a building.


(unidentified construction worker): “Hello? Oh, we’re getting ready to pull building six.” Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: “We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area”.



Female receptionist: Good afternoon, Loizeaux Company.
Jeff: Um, sorry, do I -- is this Controlled Demolitions?
CDI: Yes it is.
Jeff: Ok, I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to briefly -- just ask a question I had?
CDI: Well what kind of question?
Jeff: Well I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.
CDI: Ok, what type of term?
Jeff: Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the, the term "pull it," I was wondering what exactly that would mean?
CDI: "Pull it"?
Jeff: Yeah.
CDI: Hmm? Hold on a minute.
Jeff: Thank you.
CDI: Sir?
Jeff: Yes?
CDI: "Pull it" is when they actually pull it down.
Jeff: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.
CDI: Ok.
Jeff: Bye.
CDI: Bye.

Source



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


This is not true...

'Pull it' is a demolition term that was used when buildings were 'pulled down' by chains and it is still used as a term to mean demolish a building.



First, you should go find some older fire fighters if you want to claim it as not true.

Second, are you saying that they "pulled" 7 with chains?



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
They say that in their tests that the steel reached 650C, which in their opinion isn't enough to cause the steel to weaken enough to cause the collapse initiation. If you have info that says something different, you can have your apology.

Cuz all I've seen is another explanation - thermal heating/expansion; thermal cooling/contraction; and creep that resulted in loads being transferred from the core columns onto the exterior columns.


BullSh*t. I'm getting VERY tired of you. Why must you argue everything I say? Is it your sole mission on here to follow me through the threads?


3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.


wtc.nist.gov...

Read that again.

NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel.

Try again Butz.


Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.



NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.


wtc.nist.gov...

Don't sit there and try and tell us that NIST doesn't say that the structural steel loosing strength didn't cause collapse. Because you are showing your ignorance yet again. Good day to you.

Apology?




[edit on 6/3/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 6/3/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Seymour,

What really makes it funny is that you claim the "twoofers" don't have a single original thought but yet I have not heard ONE word from you that I can't quote directly out of "debunking9/11.com". Why don't you go play in traffic?



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Show me where NIST says that the steel reached 1000C.


Show me your claim first.

Here, I'll refresh your memory.


Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Yeah, well the reason I say that is that NIST never said anything near what he's claiming. Matter of fact, they clearly state that the heat encountered would NOT have had enough of an effect on the steel that would make it collapse.


Time to put up or shut up. I want the quoted section from NIST where they say this.


Cuz all I've seen is another explanation - thermal heating/expansion; thermal cooling/contraction; and creep that resulted in loads being transferred from the core columns onto the exterior columns.


Seen from where? Debunking9/11? JREF? NIST?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join