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.

 

Simulation shows why World Trade Center towers fell: it's the heat

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bismarcksea
 


and let's not overlook the fact that the quoted temperatures are AIR temps, not the temperature of the steel. heating steel with air is not very efficient.
the NIST report found no evidence of steel heated more than 650ºC (1200ºF), but that was a single beam out of several which were tested. three others showed heat exposure of 250ºC (ovens and BBQs get this hot), but the temperature of the other beams tested was not even worth mentioning, apparently.
if i recall, they tested like 16 beams from the area of the plane impact (and the rest of the building was completely ignored).




posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bismarcksea
 


Structural damage is a given, no distortion please, I never said there wasn't any. I was talking about one big fire that included jet fuel in a more or less enclosed space. Rather like an oven. And the forces involved with firing a bullet are not like the dead weight of another object pushing down on it. That is the whole idea of why guns work, the preasure goes the path of least resistance down the barrel pushing the bullet.
And incidently, the rifling, what you call "fluting" on gun barrels are not there to disapate heat I hate to tell you. *KNEW that sounded wrong* Care to lie anymore?

Rifling is the helix-shaped pattern in the barrel of a gun or firearm, which imparts a spin to a projectile around its long axis. This spin serves to gyroscopically stabilize the projectile, improving its aerodynamic stability and accuracy.
Rifling is described by its twist rate, which indicates the distance the bullet must travel to complete one full revolution, such as "1 turn in 10 inches" (1:10 inches), or "1 turn in 30 cm" (1:30 cm). A shorter distance indicates a "faster" twist, meaning that for a given velocity the projectile will be rotating at a higher spin rate.

A combination of the weight, length and shape of a projectile determines the twist rate needed to stabilize it – barrels intended for short, large-diameter projectiles like spherical lead balls require a very low twist rate, such as 1 turn in 48 inches (122 cm).[1] Barrels intended for long, small-diameter bullets, such as the ultra-low-drag, 80-grain 0.223 inch bullets (5.2 g, 5.56 mm), use twist rates of 1 turn in 8 inches (20 cm) or faster.[2]

In some cases, rifling will have twist rates that increases down the length of the barrel, called a gain twist or progressive twist; a twist rate that decreases from breech to muzzle is undesirable, as it cannot reliably stabilize the bullet as it travels down the bore.[3][4] Extremely long projectiles such as flechettes may require impractically high twist rates; these projectiles must be inherently stable, and are often fired from a smoothbore barrel.

History
Main article: Rifle
Muskets were smoothbore, large caliber weapons using ball-shaped ammunition fired at relatively low velocity. Due to the high cost and great difficulty of precision manufacturing, and the need to load readily from the muzzle, the musket ball was a loose fit in the barrel. Consequently on firing the ball bounced off the sides of the barrel when fired and the final direction on leaving the muzzle was unpredictable.

Barrel rifling was invented in Vienna at the end of the fifteenth century by Jaspard Zoller. In 1520 August Kotter an armourer of Nuremberg improved upon the work of Zoller. Though true rifling dates from the mid-15th century, it did not become commonplace until the nineteenth century.
SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...

Also, the MG42 was NOTOROUS for overheating.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I have no problem believing that this simulation explains what happened on that floor. I'd like to see the simulation of what happened to the 95 floors below the impact.

And also I'd LOVE to see a simulation like this done on BLDG. 7.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


There's a video somewhere, where the camera was situated in an adjacent building and must have been on a tripod, and there is a discernable shake to the camera just before the south tower went down. I wish I could find it.

As to the people at the scene, it would be quite the distortion for a fireman to imagine himself getting blown and knocked over from the blast wave of an explosion.

It would seem that the "cognitive dissonance" and the delusion is on the part of some debunkers, who in my view, given the evidence, are in fact deluding themselves by beginning with only one conclusion.

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information and proof against all arguments, and which cannnot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principal is, contempt, prior to investigation."
~ Herbert Spencer



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


Perhaps you should heed your own quote...

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information and proof against all arguments, and which cannnot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principal is, contempt, prior to investigation."
~ Herbert Spencer

Remember this? It was the same post.

It would seem that the "cognitive dissonance" and the delusion is on the part of some debunkers, who in my view, given the evidence, are in fact deluding themselves by beginning with only one conclusion.

All people who disagree with CD are just buying the CD by your own words, not mention let's see stupid, delusional, etc etc etc *the list can go on and on in your not seeing past your nose self rightous rants*. Never occurs to you that maybe some of believe this were crimes committed by the US government 9/11 but just not CD does it?

ALSO, remember that whole thing abotu compressed air? Yea, you do the math. There has been talk of hurricane force winds blowing down the stairwells during the collapse.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Those buildings did not "collapse" at all. That's not what actually occured.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Just imaging, the OS believers will not read any of these transcript because it proves the OS is a lie. These people cannot fathom the idea that our government would kill its own citizens to pull off a false flag operation, to enrage the American people to get their approval to go to war. Most OS believers think they would know if our government would try to fool them. The fact is, they do not want to know that they have been fooled and lied to by our government and the mainstream Press. I guess ignorance is bliss.

So, until they can even come to terms that our government is quite capable of murdering it own citizens, then we are wasting our time having an adult conversation with them, because all they are doing is acting like children and throwing insults at us for speaking and showing them the truth. (Because, they are really hurt)

The heat of the airplane will not be hot enough to melt the steel, any real scientist knows this. The proof is the photo of the woman standing in the impact hole wearing white slacks and they are not even dirty or burnt.

We all know it was demolition that brought down the WTC it is the only thing that cannot be refuted.
Not even the disinformationist, nor the OS believer can refute, or debunk it.
Spreston, thank you for posting some of those eyewitness report I have not even had time to read all of them yet.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 



Ok. What part of cognitive psychological studies is being missed here? It has nothing to do with the crediblity or lack there of the people on the scene and neither does it have anything to do with who supressed what. It's simply how the mind works, end of story. And no matter how many dodges are attempted it won't change that fact. Which is largely why I find mainstream "truther" movement HIGHLY suspect as any contrary bit of information gets marginalized by any means necessary even such silly ones as you two are attempting without even reading the material presented.


Funny, most of the OS is based on eyewitness accounts without it, you have no OS.
Go figure.


And no matter how many dodges are attempted it won't change that fact.


Who is doing these dodges, besides you and just what facts are you rambling about?

My question to you was not about mainstream Truthers period.

I asked you a question and you refuse to answer it so, lets try this again.


Watcher-In-The-Shadows what do you have to say about SPreaston statement of the 503 eywittness that went on record and ALL saw explosions and all heard explosion and saw FLASHES going around the WTC’s. The FBI hid these statements from public view until the New York Times sued the NYC government to release this information to the public, and guess what the New York Times WON their law suit under the F.O.I.A
Here read them for yourself and deny your ignorance.


graphics8.nytimes.com...

I will make the question very simple do you believe "all the 503 eyewitness" are lairs YES or NO.
Just select yes or no, nothing else, it’s just that simple.


[edit on 20-9-2009 by impressme]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
I will make the question very simple do you believe all the 503 eyewitness are lairs YES or NO.
Just select yes or no, nothing else, it’s just that simple.

The key word being ALL of them.

Were they all imagining it, or confusing it with the collapse of the towers?

But some of them were time specific relative to the plane impacts, and to the collapses or destruction of the buildings, were they not?

And the reports come from different places and levels in the building right?

But the impact area and fires they were restricted to certain floors were they not?

So how can this be explained?

And what of the late Barry Jenning's tesimony from WTC7. Some of his experiences were BEFORE the north tower was destroyed, was it not?

I find it odd as well how this is handled by the debunkers which can lead a person to question their motives.

For average Joe who's never heard of any of this, it's a different matter, but for people who've spent a lot of time presumably involved in researching it, the reaction by some is rather odd.

I can understand that some may be staunch patriots, or who cannot fathom the depths of the Big Lie, in other words who were brainwashed on 9/11 in accepting the event as it was sold and presented - but what about other, rational, scientifically minded people - what could their motive possibly be?

I'm just glad to be on the side of the true sceptic who, in examining the evidence, cannot accept the official story as being true, or even based in reality. Anything less involves a type of corruption in the receipt and staunch support of the lie. Some are unwitting dupes, but others I think they know, but continue to guard the lie, for reasons still obscure to me.

The argument of "it can't be true" (that 9/11 as presented was nothing but a ruse and a grotesque lie) just has no basis in rational thought and analysis and it's no argument at all. In the same way that "the 9/11 conspiracy theorists MUST be crazy" ad hominem, has no basis in reason, except on the absolute premise and assumption, in even the face of all evidence to the contrary, that the OS MUST be true and just cannot be a LIE (ie: our own government would NEVER do such a thing). That argument, even if it were to contain any validity, cannot have any impact on the objective evaluation of evidence, or at least it should not, for any such evaluation to maintain any degree of objectivity.

Average Joe is off the hook in this regard, but not those who've taken a close look at all the evidence that the 9/11 truth movement has unearthed and presented, they must contend directly with the evidence itself, like this first hand testimony by many many people who were at the scene when it happened. How can they all have simply deluded themselves? Firemen were blown off their FEET by blast waves. Jennings saw bodies and a portion of a floor blown out in the lower floors of WTC7 BEFORE the North Tower went down..!

It's not the kind of issue you can just fence sit on I don't think, and it's rather historically impactful, to say the least.

Me I'd rather find myself on the right side of history, truth and reality, no matter how painful. And the alternative is some sort of Orwellian nightmare, especially if it leads to a creaping facism or future police state.

I think, I'm sure, that future historians looking back will hail the "9/11 truthers" as the first real patriots of the 21st century.

So to all rationally minded and objective people who are concerned at what 9/11 unleashed, we ask that you might take the time to do the research and consider the evidence and the alternative POV it points to, with a very sturdy finger, and one which seems to demand truth and justice, or,at the very LEAST that 9/11 might serve future generations as a point of real learning, beyond the formation of the DHS and the recommendations of the 9/11 Omission Commission.


Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories

by David Ray Griffin

www.911truth.org...

9/11 Revisted - were explosives used


Google Video Link


Videos of destruction

911research.wtc7.net...


It's all so obvious, it really makes you wonder where some people are coming from..?

Patriotism? Incredulity because of the magnitude of the "Big Lie"..? Maybe even yes, the occasional "Cointelpro" who's JOB it is to spin everything towards the OS..? It's hard to say.


And some people just can't handle being proven wrong, regardless of the issue or it's importance.

But in some things, especially something as crucial as what took place on 9/11 and what ensued in its wake as a result - if proven wrong, well, you'd just HAVE to be willing to admit the error and proceed on the basis of what is right, true, and just, would you not? I know I would, and did. And it's important I think to remind people that almost ALL "9/11 Truthers" were at one time, to a ONE, official story believers and adherents, even staunchly so, to the degree that we just couldn't wait to "kick some ass" over there in the ME in the aftermath of 9/11. It was an outrage which DEMANDED action, retribution, retaliation, and even vengeance.

In other words, we switched camps after looking at the evidence, at least most of us did, that's how we became so-called 9/11 Truthers. So if you see it too, then join our cause. We still have a couple hundred million Americans to get the info out to, so that talking heads like Hannity and O'Reily will eventually have no one to talk to any more, and will have found themselves clearly on the wrong side of history, trying to defend what amounts to mass murder and an act of barbarity not seen since the time of Adolf Hitler.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


Hate to tell you. Regardless if it was explosives and thusly intentionally caused or whatever it WAS an collapse.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


You don't even know what you are arguing against as you haven't even read the other material and your argument shows it. Which is funny as your constant attempts at qualifying doesn't even register the fact this problem at it's basis is a problem with how the mind incorporates memories which deals with all of us, there is no training to get around it *as funnily enough you think firemen and policemen recieve this mythical training and special ops and soldiers do not*. And making essentially superhumans of the people saying things you want to believe.

And it's funny you guys accepted without question the lies of the so called "gunsmith" that didn't even know what rifling *he called it fluting* was for.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Yeah and W.T.C. 7 fell from the heat as it radiated across the street. Give me a break.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


So... What are YOU Arguing against Watcher-In-The-Shadows?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ablue07
 


WTC 7 was severely damaged by falling debris, to the extent that it was sliced downwards towards the middle of the building.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


While You are entitled to your opinion, it was the opinion of the NIST final report that this did not contribute to building 7's collapse. It is stated directly in the report itself.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Considering they are talking abotu towers one and two it begs the question. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


The NIST report directly states that falling debris was not a contributing factor to the collapse of building 7.

Other than initiating the fires in wtc7, the damage from the debris from wtc1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of wtc7.
NSTAR 1A, pxxxiii



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


And the OP was talking about the NIST? Or even basing his argument on the NIST? Where is that?

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Fair enough. Even if it takes 24,000 gallons to weaken three high rises, taht means even a portion of that could do damage. Even a van full could do damage in a basement.

If the heat has that much power, that means any tanker truck can be considered a possible terror weapon, but it isn't.

My other question is, I thought the WTC were designed to withstand plane hits, woudl they have not considered the jet fuel? I find it hardly plausible they overlooked that little fact.

and like someone pointed out on ats long ago, which I can't remember who, sorry!:

If the building was so weak that it could not withstand this attack, then why wasn't every skyscraper in every city shut down for an inspection?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


If the heat has that much power, that means any tanker truck can be considered a possible terror weapon, but it isn't.


Actually. They are. But not one you can really put out of use.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join