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.

 

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center

page: 15
35
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


hey, benoni.....I AM NOT the one claiming molten metal!

Thanks, but please scroll up and read what others have said.

My intent was merely to caution an immediate knee-jerk reaction to 'molten steel' in every instance, that's it!!

BTW....If I looked into a pit and saw metal glowing red, and said it's molten, because it resembled lava....well, then I'd be mistaken. Flowing molten metal (I assume of the types we're discussing) tend to glow brighter than red....maybe bright orangey to whitish? Depends....




posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


WW,

Even FEMA found and observed molten steel. It's in their report.


It is hard to tell if melting occurred in the inter-granular region as was observed in the A36 steel of WTC 7


Notice the two key words in that sentence?

I'm so sick of this argument. In the days, weeks and months after 9/11, all we heard about was the molten steel. But, then all of a sudden, every federal agency denied it's existence. John Gross comes to mind with his blatant lies. Why the cover-up about the molten steel?

Also, did you watch the video I posted with Bart Voorsanger, AIA specifically stating that the particular meteorite he is showing is a "fused element of steel...molten steel and concrete"? Did you miss that? They even show it.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

How did the floors fall 12 feet, or any distance for that matter with out resistance? In order to use this very basic equation, you would have to convince us that somehow an entire floor's columns instantaneously vanished in order for the upper floors to freefall for 12 ft.


They didn't vanish becuase there weren't any columns on any of the floors to begin with. As mentioned previously, the floors were entirely held up by a horizontal support brace connected from the internal core to the columns on the exterior of the structure, like an upside down suspension bridge. Between the internal core and exterior columns, the floor hung in open air. Thus, there was no resistance becuase there were no columns to offer any resistance.


The only way I can think of that happening is some sort of demolition... which brings us back on topic of thermitic material being found in the WTC dust.


OR, it can happen becuase there is very important information...like there being no vertical support columns holding up the floors..that these conspriacy web sites are deliberately withholding from you in order to get you to believe what they want you to believe, and sell you all sorts of books, DVDs, t-shirts, baseball caps, decals, and any other junk they're peddling in the process.

I think we can both agree is that a con job is still a con job, regardless of where the con job is coming from, correct?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter
Still incorrect. F=m*a is actually Newton's 2nd Law of Motion, not "the law of kinetic energy," and I am unaware of any such "law." In Isaac Newton's words, he described a net force causing a rate of change in the linear momentum of a body (not an acceleration per se).


All right, then, I bow to your expertise. Just how much force then *would* a 4,000 ton falling floor hit a stationary floor 12 feet beneath it?

The fact remains that when the floors fell, it hit with a force that the floor immediately below it wasn't able to withstand, and it fell in turn. We can quibble over a lot of the terminology and formulae, but in the end, it is still moot becuase these claims of thermite and controlled demolitions are still untenable.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Again GenRadek and Weedwhacker try to wave away the evidence by claiming highly qualified experts who were at the scene don't know what they're talking about.

From my previous post:

5 refer to "molten metal" including:

Ground Zero chaplain.

A paramedic.

A journalist.

Commissioner of New York Department of Design and Construction.

Chief Executive and Secretary of the Institution of Structural Engineers.

10 refer to "molten steel" including:

Fire-fighters

A Professor from Johns Hopkins Particulate Matter Research Center with expertise in metal analysis.

The public health advisor for the National Center for Environmental Health.

A Member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing.

Director of the Bureau of Public Information and Community Affairs, Department of Sanitation.

Vice president sales LinksPoint, Inc. which supplied equipment for documenting items recovered from the rubble.

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration compliance officer.

The Structural Engineers Association of Utah.

The President of a major demolition company.


A few more:


Peter Tully, President of Tully Construction
literally molten steel.



Rudy Giuliani, NY Mayor (not a reliable witness, but why would he lie about this?)
There were fires of 2000°F below the ground



Employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue
Fires burning and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.

www.sas.upenn.edu...


John Skilling, Chief Structural Engineer of the WTC
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.


When the NIST engineer was asked about the molten steel, he didn't say "it wasn't molten steel, it was some other substance". He didn't even say "we didn't investigate that". He said "I know of absolutely nobody, there's no eyewitness who says so, nobody who's produced it."

What the experts said "before they knew better":


Ronald Hamburger, chief structural engineer for ABS Consulting
It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building.



Van Romero, former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures. Albuquerque Journal, 2001
My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse,"...
Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that,"





[edit on 23-4-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilAxis


John Skilling, Chief Structural Engineer of the WTC
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.


Well done EvilAxis. I just want to point out that John Skilling had already passed away before 9/11. This quote is attributed to Leslie Robertson. Robertson was one of Skilling's partners when Skilling et al. designed the towers.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Thanks Griff for spotting that careless misattribution.
Of course it was Skilling's partner, WTC Chief Engineer, Leslie Robertson.

Skilling was one of those who stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner and:


Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
Engineering News Record, April 2, 1964


THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...
3 page telegram from Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers.

The method of locating the support columns at the perimeter and the core, thereby creating large expanses of unobstructed floor space, (which GoodOldDave regards as the Achilles Heel of the design) is commonplace in contemporary skyscrapers. It is a robust solution which is not being called into question by architects.

Once more, this is all beside the point. Even if the three towers had been the most shoddy efforts in the history of architecture, they could not have undergone virtual free-fall, gravity-driven, progressive global self-destruction. Very few structures of any kind can achieve this, certainly not steel and concrete high-rises.


[edit on 23-4-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

You must have missed this post of mine?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
How did an entire floor's columns simultaneously vanish in order for the floors to fall 12ft? Thermitic material would explain that...



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Ppl....instead of linking back to one of your posts, why not address Dave's post immediately after the one you just referenced in your response?

Prove him wrong regarding the 'columns', OK?

Was the building constructed in a 'cantilever' fashion? That is, were the floors suspended from the central core out to the exterior supporting structure, without intervening columns to interrupt the flow of office space?

Does anyone know the answer, it's a very simple question, and could stop some of the bickering.

I find, sometimes, that two people can actually be discussing the same thing and argue without realizing that they are really focusing on minor details, and missing the bigger picture.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


because his post doesn't make any sense. He claims there is no vertical support columns for the floors, then mentions how the floors connect the core to the outer structure. Well, the core is made up of, you guessed it, columns. The outer structure is also....columns. I am not sure where he was going with his post on this page at all... If the floors are all that collapsed, the how the heck did the entire structure globally collapse as seen??



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Here's a video I haven't seen posted yet by the 'planted explosions' enthusiasts....



Comments?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Ppl....instead of linking back to one of your posts, why not address Dave's post immediately after the one you just referenced in your response?

Prove him wrong regarding the 'columns', OK?


OK. columns still give resistance even when failure occurs. The fact that there is a mass of column material in the way negates the act of "free-fall". OK?? A column undergoing compression and buckling will still give resistance.

You are a good pilot WW. Please let the structural engineering to those with the education. K?


Was the building constructed in a 'cantilever' fashion?


No. It was not. A diving board is cantilevered. Was any part of the WTC structure built as a diving board? NO! I twas not. It was designed as a simple span.


That is, were the floors suspended from the central core out to the exterior supporting structure, without intervening columns to interrupt the flow of office space?


No. That is not cantilevered. It is a normal span. Look it up.



Does anyone know the answer, it's a very simple question, and could stop some of the bickering.


Yes I do. And yes I've tried. But no one seems to listen?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


No, I listened, Griff. Thanks for clearing up some of the terms.

I had another question, it involved the riveting of the various beams an columns. Would the connections be considered a 'weak' point, when subjected to tortional stresses? Meaning, the stability of the structure certainly depended to a great degree on gravity. Plus, it had to have a certain amount of 'give', or flexibility, to side loads such as high winds acting upon the entire side.

BUT....once the integrity of the structure was compromised, AND the steel trusses and columns, while not melting, could have suffered a loss of tensile strength, isn't it possible that the weakening would allow what we observed?

I saw in both cases the collapse (however it was accomplished) begin AT the point of impact. Indeed, it is interesting that the second Tower to be hit, 18 minutes after the first hit, began the collapse first....because the injury was down lower, and more weight was bearinig down from above.

And of course, first Tower hit collapsed last, minutes after. Why?

And, finally....some more red meat for everyone, as I've asked before: Could the 'therm*te' that is being discussed have come from Saudi-planted bombs in the UnderGround Parking Garage? (ala 1993...)

Thnx.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Griff
 


No, I listened, Griff. Thanks for clearing up some of the terms.


You are welcome and I knew you would appreciate it as I would when asking a question on flying.



I had another question,


If I have it in my capacity to do so, I will answer. If not, I will tell you so. I have great respect for you.



it involved the riveting of the various beams an columns.


As far as I'm aware, riveting was not used in the towers.


Would the connections be considered a 'weak' point, when subjected to tortional stresses?


This is a very big contention of mine actually. I'll leave it at that as not to speculate.


BUT....once the integrity of the structure was compromised, AND the steel trusses and columns, while not melting, could have suffered a loss of tensile strength, isn't it possible that the weakening would allow what we observed?


Tensile strength refers to an action of pulling. At what point did the towers actually "pull apart"? I thought everything was in compression?


I saw in both cases the collapse (however it was accomplished) begin AT the point of impact.


Think about a chain. Where does it fail? From it's weakest point.



Indeed, it is interesting that the second Tower to be hit, 18 minutes after the first hit, began the collapse first....because the injury was down lower, and more weight was bearinig down from above.


Actually, I think you are quite right. Although, I believe they messed up and didn't realize this would happen first...i.e. the tilt.


And of course, first Tower hit collapsed last, minutes after. Why?


Exactly the same reason why you think so.


And, finally....some more red meat for everyone, as I've asked before: Could the 'therm*te' that is being discussed have come from Saudi-planted bombs in the UnderGround Parking Garage? (ala 1993...)

Thnx.


Good question. Why haven't we figured it out yet?



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


What amaizes me is how you all managed to jump on me on the "molten metal" without even THINKING of the numerous other sources of what it could have been. Weedwacker showed the alternate sources of the "molten metals" and it is quite telling how none of you managed to even THINK of these things. You dont even know if it was the actual structural columns that were melted or the numerous other sources that could have been molten, and melted by other chemical reactions besides therm*te.

If you read the entire report on that part Griff, it did mention the eucticitic (check spelling on that) mixture in the report, but notice, it did say its from therm*te, but from other sources. And what I posted on the Iron Burning also give a better explaination for that event the FEMA reported. I'm not denying metals were corroded, burned, and turned into a partial melted state, but what I am saying is that there are numerous other methods metals can come to these states without the use of therm*tes.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Well I'll bet you havent. But I'll also bet you dont even know what oxidation is and what it means in a chemistry setting.


But then again, I do believe metallurgists, historians, and chemists who studied it and mentioned it in the link I provided explain it best. But then again it was already handwaved away by you and everyone else, which makes me wonder why even bother showing you anything that explains things you have no clue about is worth it.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
because his post doesn't make any sense. He claims there is no vertical support columns for the floors, then mentions how the floors connect the core to the outer structure. Well, the core is made up of, you guessed it, columns. The outer structure is also....columns. I am not sure where he was going with his post on this page at all... If the floors are all that collapsed, the how the heck did the entire structure globally collapse as seen??


Bait and switch. I was discussing how the floors fell. I wasn't discussing what happened to the support columns as yet.

For that, you haven't been reading ExilAxis' posts. He posted...or at least, I believe he was the one who posted it, I'll need to double check... a quite beautiful photo of one of the support girders that shows it had been bent over in a ghastly angle before tearing like a piece of paper. NOT cut, NOT melted, but TORN. It's clear that as the floors fell the columns were being pushed/pulled sideways by their connections to the floors and they were literally torn and/or broken to pieces.

Thus, I do not have to tell you that whatever vertical structural strength the columns may have had, it was negated once the forces of the collapse began pushing and pulling them horizontally.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
OK. columns still give resistance even when failure occurs. The fact that there is a mass of column material in the way negates the act of "free-fall". OK?? A column undergoing compression and buckling will still give resistance.


You are leaving out the significant fact that the horizontal support braces were designed to hold up only the one floor, and were rated to hold up only that one floor's worth of weight. It wasn't holding up the one floor's worth of weight plus the weight of all the floors above it, the way most other buildings are designed and the way the doubting Thomases incorrectly believe they were.

Once the floors began to fall, the stress would have been transferred to the vertical support columns in the core and on the exterior walls horizontally, rather than vertically. It would be like a leg on a chair, which can easily hold a 300 pound man sitting on it but will snap quite reaily with only minimal force when you pull off the leg sideways .

The question was never over the floors "having mass". The question is whether the "mass" was enough to significantly withstand the forces of an increasingly greater mass collapsing down upon it. Both the investigative reports and every video of the collapse in existence clearly shows that they couldn't, and I have yet to see any argument from the conspiracy side showing that they could.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
And, finally....some more red meat for everyone, as I've asked before: Could the 'therm*te' that is being discussed have come from Saudi-planted bombs in the UnderGround Parking Garage? (ala 1993...)

Thnx.


No, becuase every video of the collapse in existence shows that the structural failure begain up at the ninety-somethingth floor, where the aircraft hit, and proceeded downward in a chain reaction. It didn't start down in the underground parking lot.

Thus, whichever scenario actually happened, it necessarily has to take into account that it had to have happened at the location where the aircraft crashed into the buildings.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Griff
 


What amaizes me is how you all managed to jump on me on the "molten metal" without even THINKING of the numerous other sources of what it could have been. Weedwacker showed the alternate sources of the "molten metals" and it is quite telling how none of you managed to even THINK of these things. You dont even know if it was the actual structural columns that were melted or the numerous other sources that could have been molten, and melted by other chemical reactions besides therm*te.


I'll go with the FEMA report that actually shows photos of the melted steel for 1,000 Alex.


If you read the entire report on that part Griff, it did mention the eucticitic (check spelling on that) mixture in the report, but notice, it did say its from therm*te, but from other sources. And what I posted on the Iron Burning also give a better explaination for that event the FEMA reported. I'm not denying metals were corroded, burned, and turned into a partial melted state, but what I am saying is that there are numerous other methods metals can come to these states without the use of therm*tes.


I agree with you. So, why all of a sudden did the "experts" start denying the existence of any molten metals? One has to wonder, no?

[edit on 4/24/2009 by Griff]

[edit on 4/24/2009 by Griff]



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join