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: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
30 years is a long time and there has to be a lot of upkeep on those components.


How much upkeep would chemicl or mechanical beam cutters require?




posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

How much upkeep would chemicl or mechanical beam cutters require?


Chemical
Chemical cutters would obviously degrade over time, since they would start to react with the moisture in the air or whatever they were placed on or inside. Again, rodents and insects might find the compounds tasty (don't know why, but they'll eat almost anything).

You also run the risk of them accidentally being set off because of a freak chemical reaction in their environment.

Mechanical
One thing that can be strong enough to mechanically cut steel is a hydraulic cutter (Jaws of Life anyone?). Hydraulic lines will leak over time because either the seals or the lines themselves will start to corrode. Depending on the moisture in the air and if the metallic components are exposed to standing water, rust will set in. Also, the oil will start to degrade.

Air will also start to seep into the line through the connectors and degrade the oil's performance. The whole system would have to be unpressurized because keeping it pressurized the whole time would lead to seal/line wear even faster.

A second mechanical system would be to grind through the steel. But we can see this as being completely impractical. You would need a lot of grind wheels. Not to mention the hydraulic system to press the wheel against the steel (which goes back to those problems above). And it's not exactly the fastest way to cut steel.


The length of upkeep would depend a lot on how many workers there are looking after all of these things, how many components there are (the more components, the more upkeep), etc., etc.. The hydraulic system would definitely be a headache, as the whole system would need the oil flushed after a certain period of standing time.

You'd need to take care of all of these issues over the life of the building if you were to put them in.

As I have said, having any sort of "active" system that's in standby is a disaster waiting to happen. The only type of "built-in" system I would give a possibility to is one where the wiring was done, but the explosives/chemicals themselves were left out until the day the building was to be decommissioned.

I personally don't believe systems like these are practical or economically feasible.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
How much upkeep would chemicl or mechanical beam cutters require?


we'd need SOME kind of documentation on them. be it the "users manual", tech sheet, white paper or even a patent description.

otherwise its all just speculation of what they could be, what they could do, if they exist outside the oil drilling industry which uses them for pipes.

and we all know what speculation is worth in the end...



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

we'd need SOME kind of documentation on them. be it the "users manual", tech sheet, white paper or even a patent description.

otherwise its all just speculation of what they could be, what they could do, if they exist outside the oil drilling industry which uses them for pipes.

and we all know what speculation is worth in the end...


I agree with you, without the actual technical specifications, all I'm doing in my previous post is speculating on what the problems are. However, what I've said are common problems across the board of any system using those generic designs.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


Its good to have some input from people who appear to have some first hand knowledge in this area. I design & detail reinforced concrete structures & structural steel for a living & have some idea of what forces they can and can't withstand, engineering factors of safety, etc, but I have no experience whatsoever with demolition work or explosives (my main sources here are a few colleagues who work in the mining industry, and they are more interested in blowing holes in the ground than in bringing buildings down)

So how long would it take (roughly) to go in, rig up a building & bring it down?

Because whatever happened to bring down towers 1 & 2, what about No. 7?

All Larry Silverstein had to do was check his (recently increased) insurance policy was paid up, give the word and down she came, in what is generally accepted as a textbook controlled demolition.

Also, how many floors would you need to access? Is this sort of thing done just from the base, or would you place charges in the upper levels as well?
(I'm just trying to get some idea of the timeframe & scope of planning required).

Thanks for your comments and information.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   
For Damocles (and anyone else who wants to respond):

Has anyone thought about arc welding?


Arc welding uses a welding power supply to create an electric arc between an electrode and the base material to melt the metals at the welding point.


en.wikipedia.org...

What I mean is there was the Con Edison Station below the WTC complex. Before it blew, could it have arced out into the building (particularly 7) and done some damage to the steel? Enough that the steel would have been compromised?

Just something I've been wondering lately.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Arc welding requires the arc to be forced to concentrated on the area that going to be welded or cut.

I doubt that the station could have produced such pinpoint arcs as to cut key structural members. If the station went, the electricity would have crept through any and all paths of least resistance. Since it would have distributed its energy across the whole beam at once, none of the beams should have gotten a dose high enough to start melting it.

That would be a one-in-a-billion shot if it did.

Ha! I knew the knowledge from the Materials Processing course I had to take in college would be worth something.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by HLR53K
 


Thanks for the explaination. Isn't it great when knowledge comes back to you and you can actually use it? Happens to me from time to time. Sometimes not.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Disgustipated
 


Jeb bush is / was on the board of a security company immediately prior to 9/11.

Three guesses what complex in NY they had 'security' over...? Anyone?...
Yep, that's right folks, good ol' Bush's had a family member in charge of 'security' at THE WORLD TRADE CENTRE!

Check it out yourselves, research may be frustrating and tedioud at times, but it's our friend.

Another three guess what security firm was running 'security drills' that had the convenience of empty buildings for several weeks just prior to 9/11 at the world trade centre complex?

ah-huh, that's right again (you're good at this aren't you!).

Give that person a gold star.

As someone had already said, they wanted it to come down but they also wanted it to NOT look like a CD, so they could afford to be somewhat sloppy with the Thermite. (thermite = demolition chemical capable of extreme exothermic chemical reaction which cuts through steel litterally like a knife through butter)

All main supports of any building thats up for CD, are wrapped with thin strips of this stuff, taped onto supports at a 45 degree angle (to enable the cut section to simply slip away). The lower portions of the main support columns, that remained (however briefly) have been photographed and filmed. THEY ALL HAD 45 DEGREE angled CUTS at the ends, together with cooled molton steel that had been 'dripping off the cuts.

How anyone can apply any reasonable logic to this crime, and still not see whats in front of their faces is completely beyond me.

I guess it's basically fear.

If they can do this, and let's face it look as tjough they are getting away with mass murder, what else could they be capable of? 2012 anyone?

spikey

[edit on 11-6-2008 by spikey]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey


Jeb bush is / was on the board of a security company immediately prior to 9/11.





Are you sure about that? Which company again?



Check it out yourselves, research may be frustrating and tedioud at times, but it's our friend.


Please show me an accurate report of the above. Since you've obviously done your tedious and frustrating research I'm sure this shouldn't be a problem.

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
until such a time as someone can demonstrate a few key things to me, im still not giving the thermite theory a whole lot of credence.

yes, there is a patent for a "thermite cutter" on file, its been filed since 911

what i need to see is a demonstration of such a device, capable of cutting 2" thick steel horizontally (that angle everyone harps on is still a horizontal cut)

said cut made in a short amount of time

the cut should be clean enough to be mistaken for a cut made by an OA torch

the still hot ends of the steel should slide off each other rather than possibly fusing back together from the extreme heat said device would create.

has no one really ever bothered to look to see if such a device is not only real but suited to the job? i have and i cant find any tech specs, demonstrations, or manufacturers.

oh, and to one of the posters above me, "thermite cutters" are NOT a staple of the demo industry...at least not in the military. the military uses thermite grenades to start fires and render equipment (like howitzers and tank guns) inoperable, ours only burn straight down.

so, anyone got a source for this that i cant find?

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

and none of this BS about them being "top secret" cuz if they are then they were tested by the military and im telling you, no matter how secret, demo guys love to talk and brag to other demo guys about new toys and NO ONE ive ever met in 12 years in the military, with a high security clearance, ever talked about thermite cutters or anything of the like.

if they had, i wouldnt be here denying it, i wouldnt confirm it of course, but i wouldnt deny it.

so, just a little proof would be nice (and ive seen the patent application so no need to point that out again.)

thanks in advance


edit to add: just so that it doesnt appear that im trying to say that IF such a device existed that i would HAVE to know about it, im just saying that for my whole career i heard a lot of talk about really high tech secret stuff, much of which has never been made public, and these were not among them. could it be that i just never talked to anyone who had used them or knew anyone that had? of course...lot of guys i DIDNT know...but, since ive never heard of them, seen them, or used them...i for myself have to remain skeptical of their existence and write up all talk of them as speculation until its shown to be anything else. sorry if i was unclear


[edit on 11-6-2008 by Damocles]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
what i need to see is a demonstration of such a device, capable of cutting 2" thick steel horizontally (that angle everyone harps on is still a horizontal cut)


Actually, some of those columns were 8-inches thick. Just saying.


so, anyone got a source for this that i cant find?


I highly doubt it, unless you and I can come up with one. But, on a side note, do you really believe that if "they" have one that "they" would disclose to us that it is possible? Especially since there's so much light on the subject now.


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?


so, just a little proof would be nice (and ive seen the patent application so no need to point that out again.)


I do have to say. At least there is a patent for thermate cutter charges. Unlike a precedence to show that gypsum corrodes/errodes steel like that.


Edit: And wouldn't this information be really, really, really important to us engineers who specify gypsum around steel columns as fire-proofing? Why didn't NIST investigate further? Why is the main thing that changed from the NIST report only wider evacuation stairwells and exits? Instead of really finding out what happened and talk about "gupsum corroding steel at high temperatures" when gypsum is used as a fire retardant?

Not to pick on you Damocles but come on. Fair is fair.


[edit on 6/11/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Damocles
what i need to see is a demonstration of such a device, capable of cutting 2" thick steel horizontally (that angle everyone harps on is still a horizontal cut)


Actually, some of those columns were 8-inches thick. Just saying.


id be more open to the idea if it could be demonstrated on even the 2" sections...the 8" sections would be a neat trick in my opinion though lol



so, anyone got a source for this that i cant find?


I highly doubt it, unless you and I can come up with one. But, on a side note, do you really believe that if "they" have one that "they" would disclose to us that it is possible? Especially since there's so much light on the subject now.

yes but with so many willing to talk about them like they are fact, id like something to back it up. from anyone. anywhere. cuz what i know of thermite pretty much negates the fact that they could do anything close to what is claimed. but as always you know im willing to admit im wrong if it can be shown that i am in fact wrong. i just dont think i am on this issue. too many "little things' bother me.



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?

i think you'd be hard pressed to find where ive said otherwise. i dont quite have the backround to explain WHY FEMA's explaination is sci-fi but their explainations of this are just as probably just as odd to me as they are to you though im sure you have more knowledge to support your stance on why its so odd.
but i think youve also read enough of my stuff to know that my opinion for much of "their" explaination is just a matter of "well, we have to tell them SOMETHING" lol




so, just a little proof would be nice (and ive seen the patent application so no need to point that out again.)


I do have to say. At least there is a patent for thermate cutter charges. Unlike a precedence to show that gypsum corrodes/errodes steel like that.


this is true and you'll get no disagreement from me over the matter honestly. fact is im more willing to believe that thermite cutters are possible than i am willing to accept femas weak explainations of that matter, but thats just me.

all i really want to see is that if we're all going to collaborativly look for explainations for some of these events that we base it in fact, not speculation.

but thats just me.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
id be more open to the idea if it could be demonstrated on even the 2" sections...the 8" sections would be a neat trick in my opinion though lol


That's why I said that. I thought you'd get a kick out of it.


but as always you know im willing to admit im wrong if it can be shown that i am in fact wrong. i just dont think i am on this issue. too many "little things' bother me.


I don't think you are either. I just like messin with ya. But, you know about how I feel the way thermate could have been used.


but i think youve also read enough of my stuff to know that my opinion for much of "their" explaination is just a matter of "well, we have to tell them SOMETHING" lol


It's funny how much that coincides with what I believe. Amazing how we can have totally different views, but come to the same conclusion.


all i really want to see is that if we're all going to collaborativly look for explainations for some of these events that we base it in fact, not speculation.


I'm all for that. I'm sick of speculating.


but thats just me.


You're not alone brother.


[edit on 6/11/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 6/11/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 6/11/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
www.hawkscafe.com...

Schlumberger’s “Casing and Tubing Cutters” document has, “Cutters used to sever tubing or casing .. Jet cutters cut casing in a flat plane perpendicular to the casing wall. Chemical cutters burn the casing .. Applications: .. Burr- and flare-free cutting with chemical cutters; Bomb for heavy drillpipe or casing [base of box columns 4” thick]”.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Interesting, but that quote is a bit hard to follow. Also, the PDF that's linked in that site you provided is broken.

It would have been nice to read that technical sheet.


From what it looks like, from some simple searching, a "jet cutter" is short for a water jet cutter. You would need a very high pressure system provided, obviously, by some effecient pumps.

Makes sense, since Schlumberger is an oil company, where water should be plentiful.

Some water jets can cut through 4" of metal, but it's a slow cut. It's slow because all a water jet does is use a...well, jet of water to propel an abrasive of some sort onto the metal. All it's doing is slowly wearing away the metal at a concentrated point.

They only seem fast in videos because they're cutting metal between .003" and .05" thick.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
ive read some stuff on these pipe cutters on other sites but i just find it a little far fetched that someone gained access to the box columns, lowered these devices in and "set them off" so to speak. these would leave clean horizontal cuts, almost perfect cuts and yet....theres nothing in the debris to suggest this happened.

with no disrespect to ultima intended, my opinion is that its a case of trying to fill in a blank with just any answer that MIGHT work.

again...speculation.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
ive read some stuff on these pipe cutters on other sites but i just find it a little far fetched that someone gained access to the box columns, lowered these devices in and "set them off" so to speak. these would leave clean horizontal cuts, almost perfect cuts and yet....theres nothing in the debris to suggest this happened.

with no disrespect to ultima intended, my opinion is that its a case of trying to fill in a blank with just any answer that MIGHT work.

again...speculation.


I agree with you there. No offense, but Ultima is trying to pound a circular peg into a barely larger square hole.

There are just too many support beams to cut through effectively with a water jet cutter in the amount of time it took between the airliners' impacts and the collapse of the towers.


Ok, Ultima, I reread your quote and it makes sense now. A water jet cutter takes off some thickness and a chemical "cutter" does the rest. But that would mean that someone had to be there to stop the water jet cutter and then plant the chemical "cutter". Otherwise, there would be no way for the chemical "cutter" to do its job on the thinned out section without being cut itself by that water jet and adbrasives. So the time issue still stands.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
with no disrespect to ultima intended, my opinion is that its a case of trying to fill in a blank with just any answer that MIGHT work.

again...speculation.



Originally posted by HLR53K
I agree with you there. No offense, but Ultima is trying to pound a circular peg into a barely larger square hole.



Well i am still waiting for any other explanation for the results on the steel from FEMA tests.

Also what was the casue of towers and building 7 collpase when no steel buidling has ever collasped from fire and other WTC buidlings had longer lasting fires and more structural damage and did not collapse.


[edit on 13-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well i am still waiting for any other explanation for the results on the steel from FEMA tests.

Also what was the casue of towers and building 7 collpase when no steel buidling has ever collasped from fire and other WTC buidlings had longer lasting fires and more structural damage and did not collapse.


[edit on 13-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]


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

You still haven't addressed my concern about the issue of time. It would take much longer than the time between airplane impact and collapse to:

1. Start cutting
2. Stop cutting
3. Removed the water jet equipment
4. Attach the "chemical cutters"
5. Set them off

The other issue you have to address is why there were no trucks carrying the massive number of pumps needed for an operation like that out of the buildings. And since there were no convoy of trucks seen leaving the buildings, where are the pumps in the rubble?

You never explained how exactly the water jet and chemical cutters would have been placed on the support beams. All you did was show a quote about what water jet cutters can do.







 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join