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.

 

9/11 Physics: THE Death Blow to the Official Fairy Tale

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
If I had a few dollars for every ineffective, lame-o 9/11 thread I've seen on this site, I'd probably be able to buy a few more Christmas presents for a few relatives. It's so weird how certain people get ideas that they consider "the smoking gun," or solid enough evidence of 9/11 being something other than what the official fairy tale (OFT) claims, yet they do nothing but leave the believers of the OFT ample room for argument, and the endless loop of vitriol continues. (Of course I fully expect replies based purely on the rhetorical-emotional, not solid science, anyway). Not nearly enough people are in tune with the only, or certainly the most by FAR, effective general area on which to focus concerning 9/11.

In a word, it's PHYSICS, meaning the LAWS of physics that the OFT believers flatly and unversally ignore.

The two 9/11 official reports (9/11 Commission and NIST) claim only that the heat of the jet fuel fires melted the core steel. They mention nothing about the impacts of the jets having any special status of being able to demolish the buildings. We know from the evidence of REAL towering infernos (in Madrid, Beijing etc.), where there were nothing but very hot FLAMES, not the extremely smoky, oxygen-starved (by definition) fires of the WTC jets' impacts, that core steel remains intact in the hottest possible fires. That's just the most basic physics. And it's the most major no-brainer of all time that debris from the twin towers didn't cause the collapse/demolition of WTC7 when a couple or so buildings CLOSER to WTC1 and 2 sustained VERY heavy damage, but didn't collapse.

Elsewhere on 9/11, meaning the Pentagon and (near) Shanksville, since when do planes vaporize when impacting an object or the ground? Who waved a (fairy tale) magic wand and sprinkled pixie dust that flouted real, objective PHYSICS on that day only? Where the # were the planes and their passengers, contents? Such a total disappearance, or "vaporizing," never happened before or since 9/11. Was there some kind of super, super-secret technology used? I highly doubt it, but I guess one never really knows in a paradigm of secrecy-BASED government.

Concerning 9/11, only those who are in touch with what physics does and doesn't do are on the right side of history, at least in the long run. The truth will out. It's just a question of when, or so I want to believe.

I (rightly or wrongly) have a hunch the real or primary reason(s) for the real criminals' actions on 9/11 is something that is, or are things that are, so amazingly uber-secret of which has/have never been hinted at even once on THE most "alternative" web discussion sites. I'm convinced 9/11 was at least partly, if not largely, related to the purely, exclusively RELIGIOUS fanaticism of George W. Bush - he who fervently believes he was appointed by "God Himself" to invade Iraq. As bumbling an idiot as Dubya was/is, he's very apparently about 100,000 times more powerful and dangerous a religious terrorist than Osama bin Laden ever dreamed of being. (That's "dreamed," as in past tense, since bin Laden has obviously been dead for awhile now).

But I digress. I'd be very interested in input particularly on the (real) physics of 9/11, but also whatever else comes up.




posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Incoming, incoming, incoming

Been awhile since I have seen anyone throw such a thread onto ATS. Of course, when compared to reality, it ends up being like the majority of the mortar shells being shot at us here, a dud.




The two 9/11 official reports (9/11 Commission and NIST) claim only that the heat of the jet fuel fires melted the core steel. They mention nothing about the impacts of the jets having any special status of being able to demolish the buildings. We know from the evidence of REAL towering infernos (in Madrid, Beijing etc.), where there were nothing but very hot FLAMES, not the extremely smoky, oxygen-starved (by definition) fires of the WTC jets' impacts, that core steel remains intact in the hottest possible fires.


Melted the core steel? Pretty sure that isnt what they say, I believe it mentions that the temperatures caused the steel to soften to the point where it failed.

Special status? Its been known for quite a while that crashing planes into things can cause their destruction.

Then you mention other towering infernos and how they remained intact, apperantly not knowing that at least one of your examples, DID suffer a collapse. Of course you also mention the oft used lie that the fires at the WTC were "oxygen starved". While you are waiting for a discussion on the physics of the day, you might want to bone up on fire chemistry.




Elsewhere on 9/11, meaning the Pentagon and (near) Shanksville, since when do planes vaporize when impacting an object or the ground?


Except, the airliners didnt vaporize. There are plenty of photos and witness accounts about the wreckage of both aircraft.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 30-11-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Softened, melted. Whatever semantics. How would the entire structures have softened/melted, and so quickly, when the impacts would have affected only a few floors?

Where are there photos of anything more than a burned patch of grass at Shanksville, and anything resembling an entire plane at the Pentagon? Again, pixie dust, fairy tales.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Softened, melted. Whatever semantics. How would the entire structures have softened/melted, and so quickly, when the impacts would have affected only a few floors?

Where are there photos of anything more than a burned patch of grass at Shanksville, and anything resembling an entire plane at the Pentagon? Again, pixie dust, fairy tales.



Wow, for a guy wringing his hands about physics you take a pretty lax attitude when defining the state of matter. Maybe that is why you're sooooo upset about the seeming lack of physical credulity, you have no clue as to how the real world acts.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Good grief, you have really been thoroughly been mind-raped by those damned fool conspiracy web sites.

1) NOWHERE in the 9/11 commission report did it document how the towers collapsed. It was to document who was responsible, how they did it, and how the US defenses responded.

2) NOWHERE did NIST ever say the fires melted the steel. It said the fires heated the steel enough so that it lost its structural integrity and couldn't hold the weight load anymore.

3) The Madrid and Beijing skyscrapers were of a completely different design than the WTC towers. This is becuase the WTC had a radically different design which no other structure in the world had, except for each other. It was this unique design that was the main reason for the collapse.

4) Wreckage from the aircraft hitting the Pentagon WAS found inside, as well as bits and pieces lying all over the lawn. The thing flew right over a highway during rush hour, so hundreds of eyewitnesses say that it was a plane anyway.

You see? THIS is the reason why I hold those damned fool conspiracy web sites in such utter contempt. They're deliberately feeding you complete rubbish exactly like what you posted to get you all paranoid over shadows so they can sell you their trinkets. All you need to do is look at the investigate 9/11 rallys on Youtube to see someone is making a fortune from selling "investigate 9/11" T-shirts.

Dude, all I can do is point out how you're being conned. You gotta know enough to walk away from these con artists on your own.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Dean Goldberry
 


If I had a few dollars for every ineffective, lame-o 9/11 thread I've seen on this site, I'd probably be able to buy a few more Christmas presents for a few relatives. It's so weird how certain people get ideas that they consider "the smoking gun," or solid enough evidence of 9/11 being something other than what the official fairy tale (OFT) claims, yet they do nothing but leave the believers of the OFT ample room for argument, and the endless loop of vitriol continues.

to apply an apt quote...



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
1) NOWHERE in the 9/11 commission report did it document how the towers collapsed. It was to document who was responsible, how they did it, and how the US defenses responded.

OK, no biggie. Point is there's nothing that explains how they collapsed, which is the most vital area of the crime.

2) NOWHERE did NIST ever say the fires melted the steel. It said the fires heated the steel enough so that it lost its structural integrity and couldn't hold the weight load anymore.

Again, semantics. I'm not sweating the small stuff.

3) ... WTC had a radically different design...

Source, please, on that radically new tidbit. How can there be any significant variation in core steel columns?

4) Wreckage from the aircraft hitting the Pentagon WAS found inside, as well as bits and pieces lying all over the lawn.


How do an entire fuselage, wings, tail, and especially, engines just "vaporize?"

add: Aaargh! Sorry I messed up the quote function. I'll stick with just "reply" from now on.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by Dean Goldberry]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

3) The Madrid and Beijing skyscrapers were of a completely different design than the WTC towers. This is becuase the WTC had a radically different design which no other structure in the world had, except for each other. It was this unique design that was the main reason for the collapse.

4) Wreckage from the aircraft hitting the Pentagon WAS found inside, as well as bits and pieces lying all over the lawn. The thing flew right over a highway during rush hour, so hundreds of eyewitnesses say that it was a plane anyway.



On #3)

I disagree. This is the first I have heard that the WTC were designed so different than any other building in the world. gee.. I guess those hijackers were really smart to know they had such a terrible flaw that would make them collapse like they did. I just don't buy that at all. Where do you get your info on this please?

On #4)

I disagree. If you study pictures of the same type of plane crashing and the pics the Gov presented, there is a Huge difference by the lack of debris in those photos. In any event, the plane would have made a different type and size of hole in the Pentagon.

There should be holes in the sides of the building in the shape of a cross where the wings would impact the building. yet all we see is one big hole. ( and that hole is not even that big!) Not possible if it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon. We also know this from watching footage of plane crashes. Plus the grass and other surroundings would show damage and scorch marks were there is none in those pictures.

Lastly, The Plane that hit the pentagon is Very Heavy. its forward momentum would have carried it much further than this plane did wiping out half if not more of the whole pentagon. And yet conveniently the damage was confined to those areas already sealed off for construction work?

None of this adds up.



[edit on 30-11-2009 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Really?? All these years and you have never heard that the WTC towers were a very unique design? Being the largest and tallest structures of its kind at one time and it never occured to you that maybe they might have been designed a little differently than the Empire State Building or the Chrysler building?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 





disagree. This is the first I have heard that the WTC were designed so different than any other building in the world. gee.. I guess those hijackers were really smart to know they had such a terrible flaw that would make them collapse like they did. I just don't buy that at all. Where do you get your info on this please?


Then, with all due respect, you havent done enough research. The WTC towers were built so that the floors were open, (i.e. no internal load bearing walls). You had trusses running from the center core to the outer wall. The design gave unparalleled (at the time of their construction) floor space compared to other office buildings. It was also a fatal flaw on 9/11.




There should be holes in the sides of the building in the shape of a cross where the wings would impact the building. yet all we see is one big hole. ( and that hole is not even that big!) Not possible if it was an airplane that hit the Pentagon. We also know this from watching footage of plane crashes. Plus the grass and other surroundings would show damage and scorch marks were there is none in those pictures.


Hmm, the 'hole' you are referring to, was wider than fuselage of the jet that hit the building. In addition, the total length of the impact area was over 90 feet, and yes, the tail and wings did leave their marks on the building.




Lastly, The Plane that hit the pentagon is Very Heavy. its forward momentum would have carried it much further than this plane did wiping out half if not more of the whole pentagon. And yet conveniently the damage was confined to those areas already sealed off for construction work?


Have you been to the Pentagon? The length of ONE side is several times the wingspan of the airliner..not to mention HAD the jet penetrated all five wings, it would have had to cross the courtyard to get to the other side...and you think it the building should have been completely destroyed? Good grief....



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I get your points, but I smell disinfo agents here...

The OP may be patchy and eggsageratory in his outline, but the facts remain. The steel could withstand 2x and possibly even 3x the temperature of the burning fuel from the planes.

Also, what about the explosions that were heard by A LOT OF CREDIBLE PEOPLE!

What about the precision Thermite-cut girders that were all over the wreckage and clearly visible in OFFICIAL photographs?

What about WTC7?

What about the COUNTLESS other evidences that this didn't happen the way they said?

Anyone who thinks 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy needs their necks wringing out of sheer ignorance, along with the BAS**RDS and MURDERERS who committed this attrocity.

[EDIT: Spelling]



[edit on 30-11-2009 by NibiruWarrior]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by NibiruWarrior


The OP may be patchy and eggsageratory in his outline, but the facts remain. The steel could withstand 2x and possibly even 3x the temperature of the burning fuel from the planes.


False. Steel demonstratively looses its strength and stability AT HALF its melting point.

the Steel didn't need to melt, it just needed to get hot enough to no longer be able to handle the load that it was holding up. Which is what happened.


Answer this: If steel was so strong and reliable, why do they bother to FIRE proof steel buildings againsgt FIRE?

oh, and the average home and office fire can reach up to temperatures that reach ABOVE the half way point to melt steel.

Spoke to a firefighter? doubt it.


Also, what about the explosions that were heard by A LOT OF CREDIBLE PEOPLE!


no one disputes hearing explosions, but you not all explosions are due to explosives.

A few witnesses in the lobbies thought they heard explosions; in fact it wasn't. what they heard was the BODIES of people who jumped to their deaths and landing on the structures outside.

There were several floors that housed generators.

Ever seen what happens when a CRT monitor is subject to high heat? Lound bangs

How much checmicals can be found in a office building? how many aerosal cans, cleaning supplies, computers, and the like?

Cars outside the buildings that were hit with flaming debris from the impact also caused explosions.

many source of explosions...none from explosives.



What about the precision Thermite-cut girders that were all over the wreckage and clearly visible in OFFICIAL photographs?


those weren't cut by thermite, and the "photograph" that is commonly used was taken DURING THE CLEAN up operations, where crews were USING PLASMA torches to cut through the steel beams in order to get to sizes that would be easy to haul off.

BTW, there is no device IN existence that can direct thermite to cut latteraly. Thermite is a gravity driven incendiary.


What about WTC7?


stuck in 2008?

WTC 7 report has been release. There is no issues on WTC 7 that hasn't been answered.




What about the COUNTLESS other evidences that this didn't happen the way they said?


Please list them here. Make sure to provide an explanation for each.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Softened, melted. Whatever semantics. How would the entire structures have softened/melted, and so quickly, when the impacts would have affected only a few floors?

Where are there photos of anything more than a burned patch of grass at Shanksville, and anything resembling an entire plane at the Pentagon? Again, pixie dust, fairy tales.



Wow, for a guy wringing his hands about physics you take a pretty lax attitude when defining the state of matter. Maybe that is why you're sooooo upset about the seeming lack of physical credulity, you have no clue as to how the real world acts.


We know for a fact the steel melted as its in the FEMA report and we can physically see it in pictures.

You know how real world physics work so your brain uses a different mechanism, denial.

To each their own.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420


We know for a fact the steel melted as its in the FEMA report and we can physically see it in pictures.


Actually FEMA never confirmed it was steel (it was more likely aluminum - has a lower melting temperature and there WERE a lot more of it since the entire exterior of the towers had an Aluminum facade) because they never tested it. They also didn't complete their report and left it up to NIST to provide a concise report as to what happened.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
Actually FEMA never confirmed it was steel


Actually you are wrong.

FEMA, Appendix C of their report.

Read appendix C.

They chemically analyze corrosion and find it to have been the result of a eutectic reaction that melted the steel. Look it up and read it for yourself. Or I could post the relevant quotes here if you are too lazy to read the same reports you refer to.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



Melted the core steel? Pretty sure that isnt what they say, I believe it mentions that the temperatures caused the steel to soften to the point where it failed.


NIST couldn’t account to what cause the fires to get so hot to melt the steel in one hour.


The steel in the WTC had been tested, to last hours in over 2000 degree fires yet, the WTC exploded in an hour and we know airplane jet fuel only burns at 1500 degrees which was not hot enough to melt the steel. So something else helped to bring down the WTC that much is already known.


There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel ? burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I?m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.


www.rense.com...


Except, the airliners didnt vaporize. There are plenty of photos and witness accounts about the wreckage of both aircraft.


No one has seen any real proof that those aircraft parts belong to said airplanes and witness can be bought since you are given your opinion here is mine and if you choose to call your facts so, are mine. Think people cant be bought then you are ignorant.

As fare as airplanes vaporizing we all know the pentagon crash lost a missing airliner engine. Either it vaporized or there was no plane crash. Because, the last time I check the Boeing 757 and 767 have two engines, not one.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Everyone is so focused on these small details such as melting metal, vaped plane parts, burned patches in Pennsylvania etc that they are missing the bigger questions that will lead to answers for all of that....

Who

How

Why

I'm glad some of these people aren't criminal investigators because their cases would be so full of sh** it wouldn't stand the scruitny of a jury consisting of teens.

spelling errors

[edit on 1-12-2009 by mikelee]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
So you really believe the official story as to how 911 happened, your either stupid or a disinfo agent. You, and people like you (sheeple) are why TPTB have so much unruly power, what jokes. You are the reason why people have their liberties stolen.

Disgusting! Go back to sleep!



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
2) NOWHERE did NIST ever say the fires melted the steel. It said the fires heated the steel enough so that it lost its structural integrity and couldn't hold the weight load anymore.

3) The Madrid and Beijing skyscrapers were of a completely different design than the WTC towers. This is becuase the WTC had a radically different design which no other structure in the world had, except for each other. It was this unique design that was the main reason for the collapse.


This argument, even if it were true, certainly doesn't fly as to why WTC7 collapsed.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Dean Goldberry
 


CIA, MI5 and Mossad did it. They have infiltrated Al Qaeda, between the layer of executioners and the highest command. Those hijackers really thought they were operating for AQ, whereas in reality they were operating for their opponents.

It's as simple as that.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join