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: 5
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

posted by Griff
I meant to write to them so that they can be schooled in their methodology. Since you know how the testing should be done, I'm sure they would appreciate your input. Question is: Would you be willing to "help" them out?


posted by CameronFox
Mackey was asked to be a reviewer for the paper that published this. He refused. They told him if he were to review papers there, he would have to submit his own at least once a year. (with a 50% discount!)

Mackey did read the paper and stated that he would have flunked it:


posted by Blazers7
Pardon me if I don't accept claims of some anonymous guy named "Mackey"from the "randi" internet message board


But but but Ryan Mackey is a NASA 'rocket scientist' . . . . . . .

well actually a Integrated Systems Health manager for NASA and the Military Industrial Complex. Mackey seems to have missed the boat regarding using ordinary common sense and simple deductive reasoning.

It doesn't take a 'rocket scientist' to see that Mackey is no 'rocket scientist'.

And keep in mind that Ryan Mackey's public position is directly proportional to his ability to profit from his employment by the military-industrial complex. Just following orders? Paid to disseminate disinformation?



The Short Reign of Ryan Mackey
Kevin Ryan

Just before the sixth anniversary of 9/11, Ryan Mackey, a new defender of
the Bush Administration’s conspiracy theory, posted a 200-page paper that
attempts to critique the NIST chapter of David Ray Griffin’s book,
Debunking 9/11 Debunking. Having heard from at least one full-grown,
educated person that Mackey’s paper looked like a sensible review, I
thought it might be worth a response. But for reasons that may shortly
become obvious to the reader, a point-by-point rebuttal of Mackey’s lengthy paper is not necessary.

Mr. Mackey refers to himself as a US government scientist, whose work
includes the production of “strike aircraft weapon systems”. This means that his involvement in the discussion of the truth about 9/11 should be taken with the understanding that the official story of 9/11 supports an historic increase in military spending, and therefore benefits people who work for the military-industrial complex.

Introducing himself, Mackey declares his allegiance to the James Randi
Educational Foundation (JREF), an online forum that represents itself as “a
nonprofit organization dedicated to raising public awareness of paranormal
and pseudoscientific fraud.” James Randi is apparently a magician, and a
leading member of the “Skeptics Society”, whose founder I recently debated on the issue of 9/11.

A brief visit to Randi’s forum indicates that the participants are largely
anonymous, and somewhat emotional, defenders of the official conspiracy theory. Most of their efforts appear to be focused on smearing those questioning the government’s version of 9/11, or defending that version with imaginative claims that even the government wouldn’t support. With this in mind, it’s not difficult to predict that this new work from the scientific hero of the JREF crowd is not particularly useful or informative.

. . . . . . . . .

Therefore, starting with zero available energy, Mackey simply assumes that a large aircraft would somehow be converted into many thousands of shotgun blasts, that would then ricochet around the building in every direction until all the fireproofing was removed from the Twin Towers.

. . . . . . . . . .

On the same topic, Mackey inadvertently stumbles upon an important fact
that ultimately destroys all hope for the official story when he says –

the temperature is an approximate maximum furnace temperature
and has no direct relationship with the temperature reached by the
steel
”.

With this statement Mackey acknowledges that gas temperatures cannot be equated with steel temperatures. So when NIST, throughout their report, refers to gas temperatures of around 1000 °C, that they have no actual evidence for, they are simultaneously admitting to us that the actual steel temperatures were far lower than that.

www.journalof911studies.com...




posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

But but but Ryan Mackey is a NASA 'rocket scientist' . . . . . . .

well actually a Integrated Systems Health manager for NASA and the Military Industrial Complex. Mackey seems to have missed the boat regarding using ordinary common sense and simple deductive reasoning.



Let's cheer for SPreston... another thought inspired post that contains....well actually no thought at all.

Have you stepped up and proven anything Mackey has got wrong? Have you asked him about his mistakes? ... I didn't think so.


It doesn't take a 'rocket scientist' to see that Mackey is no 'rocket scientist'.


you said this in another thread Spreston... and were shown just how wrong you were then:



It does not take a rocket scientist to see that Ryan Mackey is not a rocket scientist.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

After it was shown to you what a rocket scientist is... and that R. Mackey is indeed one... all you could do was post laughing faces.






And keep in mind that Ryan Mackey's public position is directly proportional to his ability to profit from his employment by the military-industrial complex. Just following orders? Paid to disseminate disinformation?



Ut oh.... NASA is in on it now too!!!



The Short Reign of Ryan Mackey
Kevin Ryan


Bwahahaha. Funny how Kevin "Water Boy" Ryan was unable to refute ONE fact on Mackey's 300+ page beating that he gave Dr. Griffin. It's even funnier how Dr. Griffin, after requesting a copy of the white paper has failed to comment on it.

Journal of 911 Studies = J.O.N.E.S
Steven Jones was unable to find one error in Mackey's paper.

Sorry to the OP for the derail.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   


The difference being that when saying "nano-sized", we don't mean just a few particles being nano-sized, we mean all of them.


Well of course it would be all of them. According to the article that started this whole thread, these came from samples of dust taken from around ground zero. Thus, the samples are by definition dust sized. If they had collected golf ball sized pieces then the samples would have been golf ball sized.

It really doesn't matter what size the samples were, really. Although yes, the samples found are technically ingredients for thermite, they *also* happen to be ingredients for a skyscraper. The mathematical chance that they were even found dictates that the samples almost certainly came from the structure itself by some as-yet unknown process stemming from the collapse, rather than any extraneous explosives.


Now, if you can produce all particles being nano from sandpaper, I'd like to see it. Not to mention that you'd save the nanoenergenic industry millions of dollars in production costs each year.


Hence, the reason why I said too much is being made of this "Nano" moniker. The definition of a nanometer is one billionth of a meter. It's so small that five or six atoms make up one nanometer. The sample being discussed was tiny, obviously, but it certainly wasn't nano-sized.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox


in my opinion, even if the thermite was a thin painted on layer, does not prove it wasn't explosive microthermite. in fact, painting it on would be a stealthy way of rigging the building.


On the contrary, it would be a foolish way of rigging the building. The steel structural components of the towers...the very areas that would need to have been destroyed...were protected with fire retardant foam (as per the NIST report). Painting over this foam would have been a blatantly weird thing to do and it would have been immediately noticed by any of the army of maintenance personnel for the towers. Custodian William Rodriguez survived the collapse, and being a custodian he above all would have noticed such a thing.

This "painting with thermite" claim is clearly something that someone unfamiliar with the layout of the towers made up off the top of their head.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by godless
I was stupified when the official investigation claimed fire from the jet fuel caused a "pancake collapse" of the skyscrapers. That kind of collapse can only happen when all of the load bearing columns are completely compromised simultaneously, which sometimes happens in the more powerful earthquakes.




Hey everyone, quick, look its' an endangered species of human being that still has the ability to use logic! QUICK TAKE A LOOK!

That was my exact point that I brought up several times with people such as Bonez in the collapse arguement.

What you just said, sums it all up. UNLESS EVERY PART OF THE BUILDING DECIDED TO COLLAPSE AT THE EXACT SAME TIME IT WOULDN'T FALL UNIFORMLY!

Thats the bottom line, not one of the buildings that day should have experienced total failure instantaneously, yet 3 did. Most baffling being the WTC7, which with much less fire than 1+2 was able to experience complete failure of every column... instantly.

How can anyone support the official theory when not one part of it makes any sense? Fires 80 floors up in a building causes floors 50 stories below to instantly fail on command? Get real. This forum is full of ignorance, we should really change the moto.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Actually, looking at the electron micrographs, the particles are widely distributed in size and do not show evidence of being produced or separated over a narrow band of sizes.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by CameronFox


in my opinion, even if the thermite was a thin painted on layer, does not prove it wasn't explosive microthermite. in fact, painting it on would be a stealthy way of rigging the building.


On the contrary, it would be a foolish way of rigging the building. The steel structural components of the towers...the very areas that would need to have been destroyed...were protected with fire retardant foam (as per the NIST report). Painting over this foam would have been a blatantly weird thing to do and it would have been immediately noticed by any of the army of maintenance personnel for the towers. Custodian William Rodriguez survived the collapse, and being a custodian he above all would have noticed such a thing.

This "painting with thermite" claim is clearly something that someone unfamiliar with the layout of the towers made up off the top of their head.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by GoodOlDave]


Better read up on your history of the Twin Towers.

It was very public knowledge before the 9/11 the Twin Towers were in the middle of a very, very expensive ASBESTOS fire retardant removal project. Workers had been going floor to floor removing asbestos fire retardant, and replacing that asbestos fire retardant with some spray on chemical nobody would have known was the right new chemical or not.

www.asbestos.com...



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by SPreston

But but but Ryan Mackey is a NASA 'rocket scientist' . . . . . . .

well actually a Integrated Systems Health manager for NASA and the Military Industrial Complex. Mackey seems to have missed the boat regarding using ordinary common sense and simple deductive reasoning.



Let's cheer for SPreston... another thought inspired post that contains....well actually no thought at all.

Have you stepped up and proven anything Mackey has got wrong? Have you asked him about his mistakes? ... I didn't think so.


It doesn't take a 'rocket scientist' to see that Mackey is no 'rocket scientist'.


you said this in another thread Spreston... and were shown just how wrong you were then:



It does not take a rocket scientist to see that Ryan Mackey is not a rocket scientist.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

After it was shown to you what a rocket scientist is... and that R. Mackey is indeed one... all you could do was post laughing faces.






And keep in mind that Ryan Mackey's public position is directly proportional to his ability to profit from his employment by the military-industrial complex. Just following orders? Paid to disseminate disinformation?



Ut oh.... NASA is in on it now too!!!



The Short Reign of Ryan Mackey
Kevin Ryan


Bwahahaha. Funny how Kevin "Water Boy" Ryan was unable to refute ONE fact on Mackey's 300+ page beating that he gave Dr. Griffin. It's even funnier how Dr. Griffin, after requesting a copy of the white paper has failed to comment on it.

Journal of 911 Studies = J.O.N.E.S
Steven Jones was unable to find one error in Mackey's paper.

Sorry to the OP for the derail.



Neither Jones or Ryan bothered with either of Ryan's 180 page and 300 page re-definition of the term "long-winded." There was only a few pages of actual argument to pull out of near 500 pages of Mackey ramble.

Jim Hoffman deals with those here....

Maintaining the Mirage:
A Foray Into the Fallacy Factory
of the Demolition Deniers
A critique of Ryan Mackey's essay: "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking:
Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin's Latest Criticism
of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation"
by Jim Hoffman
Version 0.9; May 18, 2008
Version 0.7; March 16, 2008
Version 0.6; December 14, 2007
EDITOR'S NOTE: This review originally critiqued Version 1 of Ryan Mackey's essay, which consisted of 180 pages of comments criticizing analysis by David Ray Griffin of NIST's investigation. This review remained incomplete while two other authors addressed aspects of Mackey's essay:

* The Short Reign of Ryan Mackey by Kevin Ryan
* My Response to Ryan Mackey and the Self-Crushing Building Theory by C. Thurston

Following the publication of these, Mackey generated Version 2 of his essay. More than 300 pages in length, this version has lengthy fallacy-rich sections addressing Thurston's and Ryan's articles almost line-by-line.

This review will never be a complete reply to Mackey's essay. An attempt to create such a reply would be misguided since it would lend legitimacy to Mackey's method: generating masses of criticism of the targeted information using arguments with superficial plausibility -- the emphasis being on quantity -- while employing a vast array of propagandistic techniques, factual distortions, and logical fallacies. The rationale behind that method seems clear enough: create a smokescreen of baseless arguments and distractions, clothed in claims of intellectual superiority and scientific legitimacy, such that the audience might be reassured that there is no need to look at the evidence of controlled demolition.

Introduction

In early 2007, Dr. David Ray Griffin published his fourth book..."

Plenty more at...


911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
This has been picked up by WJFK here in D.C. and let me tell you that the government workers were calling in and backing this story more than I thought. I would have thought the D.C. area would have rejected this story more.


www.wjfk.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   


Better read up on your history of the Twin Towers.

It was very public knowledge before the 9/11 the Twin Towers were in the middle of a very, very expensive ASBESTOS fire retardant removal project. Workers had been going floor to floor removing asbestos fire retardant, and replacing that asbestos fire retardant with some spray on chemical nobody would have known was the right new chemical or not.

www.asbestos.com...


Thank you for the link, but I regret to say that your own information only disproves your claim. It specifically said that asbestos was only used in the lower 40 or so floors, and no asbestos was used above that, because asbestos had been banned by the time construction had reached that level. The problem for you is that every video in existence of the collapse showed the initial point of structural failure was up where the aircraft had hit at the ninety-somethingth floor, where no asbestos was ever used, and therefore, the fireproofing would not have been replaced in that area.

You may disbelieve the commission report, and you may even disbelieve the NIST and FEMA report, but you can still certainly believe the bean counter accountants would forbid maintenance crews from doing unauthorized extra work and padding their bills.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Actually, looking at the electron micrographs, the particles are widely distributed in size and do not show evidence of being produced or separated over a narrow band of sizes.


...which means the particles had to have been created by some uncontrolled method which randomized their size, rather than some manufactured process which would ensure the controlled uniformity in size which explosives would certainly need. This practically certifies that it's residue created from the structures themselves, rather than any planted explosives.

Thank you for helping me prove my point.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072

How can anyone support the official theory when not one part of it makes any sense? Fires 80 floors up in a building causes floors 50 stories below to instantly fail on command? Get real. This forum is full of ignorance, we should really change the moto.


Extremely bad logic. Each floor was built exactly the same way as every other floor, so if the design of the towers had a design oversight with would cause a chain reaction of structural failure, then the structural failure of one floor would certainly cause the structural failure of next floor below it. It's like claiming the last domino in a row of dominos shouldn't fall becuase you only touched the first domino.

The claim that "this forum is full of ignorance" however, does have merit. People here insist that the 9/11 commission report is full of lies, but they all but admit they've never actually read it. How someone can insist that something is full of lies when they don't know what it even says to begin with, is being rather spurious.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blazers7


Better read up on your history of the Twin Towers.

It was very public knowledge before the 9/11 the Twin Towers were in the middle of a very, very expensive ASBESTOS fire retardant removal project. Workers had been going floor to floor removing asbestos fire retardant, and replacing that asbestos fire retardant with some spray on chemical nobody would have known was the right new chemical or not.

www.asbestos.com...


In the article, it points to another statement made by the NYPA. Stating that 50% of the asbestos had been replaced at the WTC.

Here (from your source):


"Anticipating a ban (on the use of asbestos in construction in NY), the builders stopped using the materials by the time they reached the 40th floor on the north tower, the first one to go up..." According to a spokesperson for the Port Authority, "more than half of the original asbestos-containing material was later replaced."


So, the first 40 floors of the FIRST tower to go up had asbestos. We can assume (although no source for the quote was supplied) that 50+ percent of the original fireproofing was replaced. So, it is possible that ONE of the towers had it's asbestos replaced starting no higher than the 40th floor of ONE of the towers.

What about the South Tower? What about were the collapses initiated?

I am no history professor....but someone else here needs the brush up.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

So, the first 40 floors of the FIRST tower to go up had asbestos. We can assume (although no source for the quote was supplied) that 50+ percent of the original fireproofing was replaced. So, it is possible that ONE of the towers had it's asbestos replaced starting no higher than the 40th floor of ONE of the towers.


All right, that sounds logical, and I will even accept for the sake of argument that it was true for both towers, but I don't see how it matters. By the time the 40th floor began to collapse there was already a hundred thousand ton juggernaut slamming down upon it, so thermite or no, there'd be no way it would be able to withstand that kind of force of weight.


What about the South Tower? What about were the collapses initiated?


The videos show they both began to collapse at the point of impact of the aircraft. I think for the other tower, it was at the eighty-somethingth floor.


I am no history professor....but someone else here needs the brush up.



It's not history that needs a brush up, it's simple logic. Nefarious activity aside, whatever these hypothetical saboteurs would have needed to do to get it to fall, they necessarily had to do it at the section of building which started collapsing, otherwise it wouldn't have even fallen to begin with. All the videos show it was at the upper section of the structure(s), where the aircraft hit, ergo, that was the spot where they would have needed to sabotage the structure. In both cases, they were well above the section that had the asbestos.

If, and I state this as a very big, state of Texas sized if, the towers really were sabotaged, the replacement of the asbestos within the towers would not be a practical cover story to do it becuase there was no asbestos in that area to replace.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dude... you're preaching to the choir. I agree 100% The asbestos B.S. has been proven false for years.

The latest Jones joke is about to be proven false as well.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Dude... you're preaching to the choir. I agree 100% The asbestos B.S. has been proven false for years.

The latest Jones joke is about to be proven false as well.


Ah! My bad.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


What is also forgotten and often unmentioned is the design of the WTC floor trusses and how they connected to the exterior and interior columns. What we see during the collapse is the floors coming down, shearing off the connections of the floor trusses to the exterior columns. You can even see the dust and debris for a second coming down, before you see the exterior columns falling over. The tower practically telescoped into itself and the exterior columns just toppled over since they were freestanding without the support of the floor trusses. People are still under the false impression that the WTCs were designed with a frame like the Empire State Building, with heavy I-beams and columns producing a web skeleton that is very tough and sturdy. WTC 1+2 were not like that. And then this also disproves the thermite nonsense because there are no viable or believable places where therm*te would have been placed, to produce what we saw. Not ONE person of the conspiracy threorist camp has explained why the exterior columns were bowing INWARDS prior to collapse. Not one.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


It is understood that you believe WTC 1, 2 and 7 had unique structural features that caused them to be the only steel frame high-rises in history to implode but, as that isn't the topic of this thread, it could be considered a deliberate effort to derail.

Interview with Kevin Ryan on KPFK RADIO about the paper. He talks about how/when the samples were obtained and what they found in them.




[edit on 8-4-2009 by EvilAxis]



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


I am not derailing this thread. I am just adding more information to the topic. Big difference.

As for the chips, others have already pointed out the fallacies and blatant mistakes and errors in the "analysis" of the mystery chips and dust. The whole thing was conducted worse than a high school lab experiment. In fact the actual outcome of these "tests" would prove inconclusive because of the severe flaws in the sample taking, testing, and recording of info. To a lay person who doesn't understand the scientific method, these tests might seem amazing and proof. But to those of us who understand the scientific method, these tests are a joke and wrong wrong wrong.

Finding microspheres of iron is nothing new. Do you know where else they find such things? In garbage incinerators. Its called flyash. Its what happens when you burn garbage (or in this case office supplies, aircraft, people, jet fuel, etc etc etc) and the resulting outcome is much like the flyash. Also lets not forget it was also burning in the rubble, and this also would behave like an incinerator. Finding micro-spheres and elements commonly found in such situations is nothing new. And as it has ben countlessly pointed out before, if this was THERMATE then the barium nitrate would HAVE to be in it, along with sulfur. Finding iron oxide and aluminum is also a non-surprise. Hematite is found in red paint pigmints. Aluminum? Check the exterior cladding and the airplane. And after reviewing the elements found, it looks more and more like the paint they painted on the beams. Not therm*te. Not super therm*te, not magical pixy dust therm*te.

And pray tell, when was this magic therm*te painted on the beams? To be more exact, where? And where was the eyewitness accounts from the workers and steel workers in the rubble discovering beams that were destroyed in this way? The majority said the beams were snapped apart, either in half or at the connections. Also failures at the bolted ends from high stress. NOT from blast patterns. Corrosion of the steel that was found weeks later was from the conditions inside the pile. You have no idea the caustic environment that can be at a site like this. The steel would understandably be rusting, heating up, mixing with the sulfur from the thousands of lbs of pulverized drywall, and this can produce the same effects. Also where is the temperature analsis of the steel? Not a single beam discovered ever had a temperature exposure higher than 2,000F. Not even that high. At what temperature does therm*te burn? 3-4,000F. No sign of this intense heat anywhere. But what shoud have been discovered was very hgih temp exposure by the super thermite which as is claimed, burns superhot. So, where is it?



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by EvilAxis
 

I am not derailing this thread. I am just adding more information to the topic. Big difference.


OK, but if we let the topic drift too much we end up going over ground that has been covered many times in other threads.

I find your claim that the collecting of samples and tests were unscientific rather ironic given that NIST who were officially charged with finding the cause of the implosions simply refused to sample and analyse the dust at all. That sounds less scientific to me.


Originally posted by GenRadek
And pray tell, when was this magic therm*te painted on the beams? To be more exact, where?


Kevin Ryan has pointed out the striking correlation between the areas of WTC 1 and 2 where fireproofing was upgraded and the impact and failure zones.



Another amazing coincidence related to the WTC


Originally posted by GenRadek
And where was the eyewitness accounts from the workers and steel workers in the rubble discovering beams that were destroyed in this way? The majority said the beams were snapped apart, either in half or at the connections.


No they didn't:


"All the iron is all crumpled, I don't know if a person that's never been an iron worker could imagine but all of this massive iron - I mean pieces that weigh 20 tons, 50 tons - all mangled and just crushed and crumpled up."



"I found it hard to believe that it actually bent because of the size of it and how there's no cracks in the iron. It bent without almost a single crack in it. It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this." "Typically, you'd have buckling and tearing of the tension side - but there's no buckling at all."



"Architects, engineers - people who worked with steel - welders, have just never seen the level of destruction and the level of deformation of this material in our lives."





Originally posted by GenRadek
Also where is the temperature analsis of the steel? Not a single beam discovered ever had a temperature exposure higher than 2,000F. Not even that high. At what temperature does therm*te burn? 3-4,000F.


NIST stated: "...the steel used in the construction of WTC 7 is described based solely on data from the literature, because no steel from the building was recovered."

Spot a problem with scientific method here?


Originally posted by GenRadek
No sign of this intense heat anywhere. But what shoud have been discovered was very hgih temp exposure by the super thermite which as is claimed, burns superhot. So, where is it?


From a small piece of WTC 7 that evidently was recovered and examined by in the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study:


Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular 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.
FEMA WTC Building Performance Study



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
By the time the 40th floor began to collapse there was already a hundred thousand ton juggernaut slamming down upon it, so thermite or no, there'd be no way it would be able to withstand that kind of force of weight.


Though it may sound vaguely plausible at first, there are a couple of problems with that theory. Firstly, if you watch the videos, you will not see a "descending juggernaut". The upper part of the building can be seen to explode outwards early in the descent, dissipating its mass away from the structure below. Secondly, even if the upper part had continued to fall as a solid mass, its "force of weight" as you call it would be the same that the building had always supported, plus some momentum. Simply put - dropping a small steel box onto a larger heavier steel box will not cause the larger heavier steel box either to implode or be crushed to the ground.

To put it more technically:

You cannot crush an isotropic or composite 3-D structure A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on A using gravity. Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little. It is quite basic and all due to gravity. Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least. Part C of A cannot destroy A.


Shipping disaster investigator Anders Björkman uses the analogy of colliding steel ships. Despite massive momentum at impact, they do not/cannot crush themselves into a fraction of their original size. They bounce and bend a bit. All that gravity can supply is some momentum (like the ship's engines). It requires vastly more energy to completely flatten a steel framed building.

To suggest that upper structural damage and 56 minutes of fire (WTC 2) would cause the whole structure to just give up the ghost and implode to the ground is not just unscientific - it's absurd.
heiwaco.tripod.com...



[edit on 8-4-2009 by EvilAxis]



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join