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.

 

Top Expert comes forth: 9/11 Bldg 7 downed with explosives

page: 10
68
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Thermo Klein
I have a pretty fair knowledge of science - if you mix FeS and FeO the S (sulfur) is used for gaining heat, the O (oxygen) is used for oxygenating the fire, and the iron is the fuel."

I provided the quick version of a reaction thinking you would understand what I meant - but since you think the rest of the world thinks my idea of a reaction is wrong, then you should know why I said it.

The heat, fuel, oxygen formula is standard... it's not MY idea against the rest of the world, you just haven't had hands on experience in the matter.

When you heat the explosive substance found in the world trade center dust (FeS + FeO), as I said before, the Sulfur is the heat, the iron is the fuel and explosivity, and the Oxygen is the oxygen. It takes about 420 C to get the reaction started, once the reaction begins it jumps to around 1600 C (if I recall correctly).



Your scientific and chemical expertise is astounding. I'll have to put this in terms that even you can understand.

Aluminum metal is a component of thermite.

Most everything else you wrote is completely wrong. A reaction does not necessarily involve "heat, fuel, and oxygen." That is generally a description of combustion in air, speaking of which, the 420C temperature is the onset of combustion of the carbonaceous matrix in the paint.
Sulfur is not "heat."
Partially oxidized iron is not a good fuel. You may easily look at the difference in heats of formation between Iron II Oxide and Iron III Oxide to confirm this.




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Not sure if WTC 7 was like that but it doesn't matter if it was.


They were. Therefore they supported gravity loads.

Nice to see that you're ignorant about 7 though.


Are you talking about WTC 7 or the towers? Better check your info


Says the guy who admits he doesn't know something as basic as whether or not the floors are supported by the ext columns. LOL...


WTC7 didn't have a core structure, it was a conventional building with columns throughout.


Covered above. You're ignorant about the building.




How does damage to one side of a building and sporadic fires cause a whole floor to be removed?


Well, since it's proven - by you btw - that you don't know squat about 7, then that's proof that nothing I say will mean anything to you, since you wouldn't know what part of the structure I'm talking about.


And how does removing a floor reduce the load capacity of a column


The floor provides lateral bracing for the ext and core columns. Longer lengths buckle easier. This is basic engineering. Any of bazant's papers can explain it. Alternatively, Google is your friend.


where did you get 9 times from, and what does IIRC mean?


9x is wrong. Tripling the unbraced length results in a 9x reduction.

Again, from Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson, 2008:

heiwaco.tripod.com...

"since the tripling of buckling length
reduces the column capacity 9-times."

So doubling reduces load carrying capacity by 4x.

IIRC=If I Remember Correctly.

BTW, you ran away from the other thread when I provided quotes from this paper that debunked your statement that steel cannot fail at 250C. That's the link that you asked for. please rebut in that thread, or admit that you're wrong again.


I have better things to do than address every failure of yours to debunk anything I've said.



I know one thing that doesn't need debunking....

You've admitted that you're ignorant about 7.

You'll get no argument from me......

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Joey Canoli]

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by ANOK
.

Air is not always the path of least resistance if the object falling can overcome the resistance it meets.



So finally we agree! We finally agree


Get out the camera.

Cuz pigs are bound to be seen flying all over the world tonight.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
What you should be realizing and how scary it is for me that you haven't is the true facts.

The girl injured the trampoline so why didn't the whole trampoline collapse? It has a big gash in it but it is still standing. I bet you could set that trampoline on fire and the steel legs would still be there.


I'm not talking about fire, i'm talking about the path of least resistance.


It's a very simple thing. Object A (pick an object any object) falls with X newtons of force. It impacts with Obect B (pick an object any object) that can support 1/1500th X newtons of force then the path of least resistance will be through object B.



In this case object A was the girl and object B was the fabric of the trampoline.

If a trampoline fell, onto that same trampoline with 15thousand time the force that the trampoline would support then it both trampolines would be crushed into a pile of debri.

In the collapse of the twin towers Object A (the top portion of the building) fell with X netwons of force on top Object B (the lower portion of the building) that can support 1/15000th X.

The path of least resistance is straight down.





You're mixing apples and oranges. Due to the (kinetic energy) Ek = mv2. If an object is already moving with sufficient velocity it could punch a hole through another object. Like a bullet through a wood board for example. The Building 7 collapse started from 0 mph velocity. Because steel frame buildings are so strong they tend to simply toppled over towards the weakness if anything.

Never in history has their every been a global collapse of a steel frame building except when demolished with explosives.

If my humble self is wrong please correct me and show us all an example.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doctor Smith

Due to the (kinetic energy) Ek = mv2. If an object is already moving with sufficient velocity it could punch a hole through another object. Like a bullet through a wood board for example. The Building 7 collapse started from 0 mph velocity.


Your point about ke is of course correct.

But the engineering facts prove that once the colmns buckled, it gained velocity, and pe was converted into enough ke to go straight down.


Because steel frame buildings are so strong they tend to simply toppled over towards the weakness if anything.


Yes they're strong.

7 did in fact lean towards the slight damage received from 1's collapse. There's video proof of this.

So your condition is met. Slight damage = slight leaning. If it was major damage, then there should be major leaning.

If you're of the opinion that it should topple like a tree, that has been proven false for a long time, from multiple sources.

These rebuttals are for the towers, but the same engineering applies:

www.911-strike.com...

web.mit.edu...

www.911myths.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   
alright... I'm done with the FeS+FeO / paint chip / thermite / "phases of steel" debacle... we all clearly have no idea what we're talking about at any provable level.

Since I use science as my guide and not blog posts I'll accept that I don't have enough to prove there was thermite there. The "explosive" (rapid heating from 400 to 1600 degrees C) substance in the Jones et al article was not thermite, according to the wiki definition. I find it slightly curious that the Jones article hasn't been followed up and more people haven't gotten into this argument.

By the way, the line "We also have information from another source of Jones' chips namely a chip that has also had SEM and EDS analysis performed on them." means absolutely nothing and could mean they studied something entirely different than the Jones substance. It is also based on blog posts without appropriate scientific rigor or peer review. If anyone actually cared to look further the French article can EASILY be translated using Google Translate - I personally don't care, enough of my time has been wasted.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
An expert's testimony wouldn't be necessary if people would just acknowledge the fact that Larry Silverstein already admitted the building was brought down in a demolition. End of story. . . (at least you'd think it would be).

This is something that the government has done an excellent job with. They have created this illusion that one has to understand physics and architecture to come to be able to have a valid opinion about whether or not any of the towers fell due to controlled demolitions.

I don't need any expert to tell me that what I saw were three demolitions take place on 9/11. Anyone can argue that point with me till the cows come home. I don't have to be a physics professor to state that with confidence. I saw what I saw and my belief is the same today as it was on 9/11 when I first witnessed the collapses on television. It's certainly nice to have these experts come forward, though. . . that goes without saying.

And, skeptics, don't bother with the attacks about how I'm not qualified to have an opinion. I don't care what you think at this point.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Their was a Slight lean. This is normal for controlled demolition. They don't come down exactly straight. Especially one as tall as building 7. And a little buckling of some of the steel beams isn't going to cut it. They would have to all fail at the same time or it would simply fall over if anything. The buildings are over built to withstand these types of forces.


NIST computer animation failed to reproduce a collapse similar to what actually happened to building 7. They exaggerated everything. Came up with unlikely theories like thermal expansion causing beams to jump off their supports etc etc etc and still could not get a similar collapse. Even admitted their theory was extremely unlikely.

Science is based on experiments. All the experiments prove it is impossible. Therefore if their is absolutely no scientific evidence of a global collapse of a steel frame building in the history of mankind without CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, I conclude that it was demolition.

And I know I'm right as no one can come up with any example of a total global collapse of a steel frame building without controlled demolition. When I see it I'll believe it.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy
An expert's testimony wouldn't be necessary if people would just acknowledge the fact that Larry Silverstein already admitted the building was brought down in a demolition. End of story. . . (at least you'd think it would be).

No he didn't. 'Pull it' never has been and never was demolitiong slang for anything other than physically attaching cables to a building and pulling it down (as happened to WTC6). Silverstein was referring to the decision to pull firefighters away from WTC7 in anticipation of the weakened buildings impeding collapse, a decision which was made by the fire chief on scene.

I wish people would realise this.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

Science is based on experiments. All the experiments prove it is impossible. Therefore if their is absolutely no scientific evidence of a global collapse of a steel frame building in the history of mankind without CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, I conclude that it was demolition.

Also the first time in history that two jetliners had been deliberately flown into a pair of skyscrapers; the first time two skyscrapers had collapsed; the first time a 47-story building had been showered by debris, etc. etc.


And I know I'm right as no one can come up with any example of a total global collapse of a steel frame building without controlled demolition. When I see it I'll believe it.

Windsor Tower. The upper part of the building, which was steelframed, collapsed spectacularly. Fortunately, the lower part of the building, as well as the core, had been construced with reinforced concrete , which resisted the fire and prevented a total collapse.

And before you run off to find the pictures of the TVCC tower, let me remind you that that building had been constructed with the recommendations of the WTC7 report in mind.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 





Windsor Tower. The upper part of the building, which was steelframed, collapsed spectacularly. Fortunately, the lower part of the building, as well as the core, had been construced with reinforced concrete , which resisted the fire and prevented a total collapse.


The Windsor Tower didn't even come close to collapsing and it was an inferno. The concrete that you use as an excuse is the only thing that did fail on the Windsor Tower. The big heavy Crane on top of the building was still their after the fire. Plus buildings 1 and 2 had 4 inches of concrete on every floor.

www.dailymotion.com...

www.dailymotion.com...

[edit on 1-7-2010 by Doctor Smith]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   
This is not a total collapse, nor spectacular as you call it by any stretch.....

however, it did burn for 18 hours at 800 degrees...and never collapsed....it was eventually taken apart piece by piece using cranes...





t



On the other hand, heres a woman standing exactly where the plane hit on 9/11....clearly its not even hot....yet you have us accept the drivel that fires caused the total collapse...

So....
We have 18 hours of inferno = no collapse

Versus 56 minutes(South Tower) of, by comparison, NOTHING = TOTAL COLLAPSE (which wasnt a collapse but an explosion.)








I see no similarity.


Heres something spectacular mate.....an exploding building.



Note the total lack of inferno on the North Tower on the left...29 minutes later, it too would explode, in IDENTICAL FASHION.


Do you really really believe what you write???

Who actually are the whack jobs I ask....???



Scary...



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni


Do you really really believe what you write???

Who actually are the whack jobs I ask....???



Scary...


This is one of most telling photographs ever taken of the 9/11 false flag event. Here's a woman standing, un-burned in the exact location of the airplane strike - and the people who believe the original story have the audacity to say the building collapsed because of heat... unimaginably ignorant.

That woman was murdered that day, it was the last day of her life. I truly look forward to justice being realized.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Here's a woman standing, un-burned in the exact location of the airplane strike - and the people who believe the original story have the audacity to say the building collapsed because of heat... unimaginably ignorant.

That woman was murdered that day, it was the last day of her life. I truly look forward to justice being realized.


Sadly, this woman jumped to her death. She certainly couldn't have know a collapse was imminent. Why would she jump?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
This is not a total collapse, nor spectacular as you call it by any stretch.....


You obviously did not read his post clearly. The STEEL section of the building absolutely failed and collapsed. It was a pretty solid building, with a central core of reinforced concrete that resisted the high temperatures of the fire without collapsing. This is more than likely the only reason it did NOT collapse. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.


Preliminary findings suggest that a combination of the upper technical floor and the excellent passive fire resistance of the tower's concrete columns and core prevented total building collapse


www.concretecentre.com...

In addition:


Dr. Pal Chana of the British Cement Association demonstrated the relative likelihood of floor collapse in a steel versus concrete framed building, using the vivid example of the Madrid Windsor Tower fire which raged over 26 hours on 14-15 February 2005. This former landmark office block of 30 storeys featured a concrete core throughout, but with concrete columns up to the 21st floor and steel columns between the 22nd and 30th floors. Remarkably, despite the intensity and duration of the fire, the concrete floors and columns remained intact however, the steel supported floors above the 21st floor collapsed, leaving the concrete core in-situ and exposed.


www.concretefireforum.org.uk...

You may also want to read this:

Collapse Mechanism of the Windsor Building by Fire in Madrid
and the Plan for its Demolition Process


www.ncdr.nat.gov.tw...



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   


Heres someone else also standing in the impact site......no fires there either.

So, if you are to be believed, the Windsor burned in a total raging inferno, yet it stood for 18 hours, but less than one hour...yes one hour after the plane hit, the South Tower fell...minus the raging inferno....

I read his post....the WTC Towers lacked the raging inferno...yet exploded , in the case of the South Tower, within 56 minutes, compared to the 1080 odd minutes of the inferno that totally engulfed the Windsor Hotel...

See a problem?????



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
alright... I'm done with the FeS+FeO / paint chip / thermite / "phases of steel" debacle... we all clearly have no idea what we're talking about at any provable level.


Weird, It doesn't look like that at all to me. Only one person on here came up with the incorrect formulation for a reaction. Only one thought that Sulfur = heat.

I don't know a lot about physics or chemistry but even I can tell when someone knows what they're talking about.


Since I use science as my guide and not blog posts I'll accept that I don't have enough to prove there was thermite there.


Don't worry, Jones's new paper will be out any day soon.

Won't it?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Can somebody post a video of the plane that hit the Windsor Tower?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
alright... I'm done with the FeS+FeO / paint chip / thermite / "phases of steel" debacle... we all clearly have no idea what we're talking about at any provable level.

Since I use science as my guide and not blog posts I'll accept that I don't have enough to prove there was thermite there. The "explosive" (rapid heating from 400 to 1600 degrees C) substance in the Jones et al article was not thermite, according to the wiki definition. I find it slightly curious that the Jones article hasn't been followed up and more people haven't gotten into this argument.

By the way, the line "We also have information from another source of Jones' chips namely a chip that has also had SEM and EDS analysis performed on them." means absolutely nothing and could mean they studied something entirely different than the Jones substance. It is also based on blog posts without appropriate scientific rigor or peer review. If anyone actually cared to look further the French article can EASILY be translated using Google Translate - I personally don't care, enough of my time has been wasted.


Speak for yourself. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I recommend that before you post and refer to a paper that you actually read the paper you are referring to.
There was no explosive heating from 400 to 1600 C measured in Jones DSC experiment. The igniton temperature was around 400 C; flame temperature was not measured.
Jones claims thermite which is why he uses the EDAX to seek elemental aluminum. This last is questionable, because most SEM stages are aluminum and it is easy to find if you aren't careful about the beam location.
Your comment on the French report does not refer to any of my posts in response to you. Henryco's darksideofgravity.com site shows DSC of the chips under inert and finds no reaction. Henryco believes that his chips were sabotaged because he really wants them to be thermite. Alas, Jones incompetence has raised the hopes of many CTer's only to have them dashed by reality.
Jones found....red paint. There is no evidence of WTC7 demolition in spite of the gut feelings of a demo technician.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Relative to the woman photographed in the hole made by the aircraft in the WTC tower and the obvious lack of a serious fire in her vicinity, I wanted to draw attention to the large volumes of smoke issuing from the towers and to suggest a source for that smoke.

People most often refer to the combustion of office furniture, carpets, plastic computers, etc., ignited by the burning jet fuel, as the source for that smoke.

Personally, I think that a lot of that smoke could well have come from the core of the building where some kind of incendiary material could have been used to sever core columns of the building without explosive charges.

I know that numerous isolated explosions have been cited by survivors of the WTC but I suspect that some incendiaries could have been planted in the core, possibly inside the beams themselves to accomplish the severing of core columns in such a way as to minimize the need for large explosive detonations.

Smoke from the burning of these materials would then rise through the core and exit the buildings at the point where they had been impacted by the aircraft, thus giving the impression of sustained fires burning at that level, such as to effect serious weakening of the building supports at that level.

Personally, I don't think the jet fuel fires on the upper levels of the building had anything more than a superficial effect on the building. They burned intensely in places, as can be seen from some photos, but these appear to have been near windows, with a lot of the heat being vented out the window.

The leaning of the building observed by helicopter pilots was undoubtedly the result of the severing of core columns caused by occasional explosive charges heard throughout the lead up to the collapse and the slow action of incendiaries burning through steel throughout the core of the building.

One possible incendiary that could have been used is rocket fuel, introduced through holes into the interior of large beams in the core. It burns at around F. 5000 deg., which is hot enough to vaporize steel.

This could account for the molten metal found after the collapse and possibly for the disappearance of a lot of steel, depending on how much of the fuel may have been used and in what manner it may have been used.

Some photos just after the collapse show the entire core of the building, top to bottom, engulfed in smoke, and indeed, appearing to emit smoke.

From what?

I first learned of the rocket fuel thesis on a website called hawkscafe.com. I'm not endorsing other ideas expounded on that website, some of which are quite extravagant, but bringing a material like rocket fuel into the story of the destruction of the WTC may not be far fetched.

Undoubtely the fuel would have been ignited after most people would have started running for the exits and have been descending the staircases.

Any pyrotechnic effects associated with burning it may have gone unnoticed or have been misinterpreted by people who, by that time, were way beyond taking time to examine what was going on in the elevator shafts of the building.


[edit on 1-7-2010 by ipsedixit]



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join