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.

 

Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

page: 8
34
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


There was aluminum available from the plane crash to be pouring out in your second picture. As for the other one, weren't there other metals present as well? Are you absolutely certain it was steel?




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


really, well let me help you, since i have found no one who is able to explain something. i'm copying this from another thread because i've typed it many times.
**********************************************************************************************************************************
you say "steel didn't melt". i showed how the color of metal = temperature, and the temperature we see based on that is well over 1300 C. that is hotter than jet fuel can burn by a long shot, and even the source you linked to says temperatures in the tower were around 750C.

see that piece of rebar sticking up that is orange? if that were aluminum, it would be a puddle of liquid, as would the steel that is being picked up. granted, you can see steel dripping off, but aluminum at that temperature is completely melted.

and howabout this picture? where would you say it falls on

because the topmost orange on that picture is 1371C.
www.blksmth.com...

there is simply no denying that temperatures above and beyond what the OS says occurred. i've had enough dishonesty from the OS'ers
**********************************************************************************************************************************
show me where NIST accounts for those temperatures. here's a hint, they don't.


First, what is your explanation for molten steel? Thermite? If thermite was used, why were there explosions, etc, and what of the other truther evidence for a standard controlled demolition using rigged explosives?

In the report, the explanation is as follows:

"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface"

How do you refute that explanation?

As far as me being a "sheep" who just "believes what he is told", spare me the BS. The vast majority of us here are not experts in the field, and have to make a reasoned decision based on the facts we are presented. The majority of the experts are siding with the OS, and I have found no compelling evidence to make me doubt it.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Neither of those caused the collapses. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane.

According to NIST trusses heated up and sagged, pulling in columns and initiating the collapse. A hypothesis easily proven wrong. They did not explain how the collapses continued through the path of most resistance, while mass and Ke was being lost.


Sweet mother of crusty chickens... how many times do you have to be told about WTC 1 hitting WTC 7 with debris? And don't you dare say "but it was only minor," because the firefighters on scene disagree with you. 20 story hole from the bottom up, an 8 story chunk taken out of the corner, a piece broken off from the edge of the roof, and a three-story bulge formed in the building, likely from fire.

Or are you going to deny that this was true?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


everything glows the same color at the same temperatures. it's pretty constant, especially so between metals. it could be aluminum, sure, but it shows that the temperature to melt steel is present.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by humphreysjim

What do you think the plane was, and the fire?


Neither of those caused the collapses. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane.


No, it was hit with debris.


Originally posted by ANOKAccording to NIST trusses heated up and sagged, pulling in columns and initiating the collapse. A hypothesis easily proven wrong. They did not explain how the collapses continued through the path of most resistance, while mass and Ke was being lost.


I don't see the problem. If the floor above cannot support the weight of the floor above it, it will collapse - simple as that.


Originally posted by ANOKEqual opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, would both cause the collapse to slow and arrest long before it could be complete. 15 floors can not crush 95 floors, without extra energy. There are plenty of post that explain this so please do some reading so I don't have to repeat myself for every poster.


According to your "expert" calculations, when should it have stopped, exactly, then?

You're making bald assertions.

What are your credentials, please?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


i support an independent investigation of 9/11, because truth be told, we only have theories attempting to explain the problems of the OS. i believe thermate was involved and possibly conventional explosives too.

as for that explanation you gave, i've seen that verbatim before. 911myths or something, right? and i completely disagree. the color is constant, not spotty as it would be if the color came from pieces of wood or carpet. the first picture in my post shows a piece of orange metal being picked up, which obviously means it's still solid. barely. this means there could be no contamination.

i've welded on contaminated aluminum before, and the slag wasn't orange.
edit on 17-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Have you seen this before?

www.drjudywood.com...



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


i support an independent investigation of 9/11, because truth be told, we only have theories attempting to explain the problems of the OS. i believe thermate was involved and possibly conventional explosives too.

as for that explanation you gave, i've seen that verbatim before. 911myths or something, right? and i completely disagree. the color is constant, not spotty as it would be if the color came from pieces of wood or carpet. the first picture in my post shows a piece of orange metal being picked up, which obviously means it's still solid. barely. this means there could be no contamination.

i've welded on contaminated aluminum before, and the slag wasn't orange.
edit on 17-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)


You believe the government used planes, explosives, AND thermite to take the building down?

Can you say the most ridiculously complicated plan ever thought up?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Sweet mother of crusty chickens... how many times do you have to be told about WTC 1 hitting WTC 7 with debris? And don't you dare say "but it was only minor," because the firefighters on scene disagree with you. 20 story hole from the bottom up, an 8 story chunk taken out of the corner, a piece broken off from the edge of the roof, and a three-story bulge formed in the building, likely from fire.

Or are you going to deny that this was true?


So what?

Asymmetrical damage is not going to cause a building to symmetrically collapse into its own footprint.

The collapse did not even initiate from that damage, according to the OS. Supposedly column 79 failed due to the fires, caused by the debris, not the damage. Just like the planes did not cause the collapse of the towers, only started the fires that supposedly caused the initiation of the collapse. Once the collapses started, the fires and damage had NOTHING to do with the collapses. Collapse initiation does not lead to automatic complete collapses.

www.nist.gov...

Yes sweet mother of crusty chickens indeed, you can't even get your own argument straight...



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I have no problem with an independent investigation, by the way. I'm not going to campaign for it or anything, as I'm not convinced it is necessary, but I would be perfectly happy for it to happen.

The more knowledge the better.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


How could they make bringing down two high rise steel buildings and blaming it on terrorists any easier and believable?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Varemia
Sweet mother of crusty chickens... how many times do you have to be told about WTC 1 hitting WTC 7 with debris? And don't you dare say "but it was only minor," because the firefighters on scene disagree with you. 20 story hole from the bottom up, an 8 story chunk taken out of the corner, a piece broken off from the edge of the roof, and a three-story bulge formed in the building, likely from fire.

Or are you going to deny that this was true?


So what?

Asymmetrical damage is not going to cause a building to symmetrically collapse into its own footprint.

The collapse did not even initiate from that damage, according to the OS. Supposedly column 79 failed due to the fires, caused by the debris, not the damage. Just like the planes did not cause the collapse of the towers, only started the fires that supposedly caused the initiation of the collapse. Once the collapses started, the fires and damage had NOTHING to do with the collapses. Collapse initiation does not lead to automatic complete collapses.

www.nist.gov...

Yes sweet mother of crusty chickens indeed, you can't even get your own argument straight...


The building did not collapse into its own footprint.

And of course both the damage from the plane and the damage from the fire played a part in the collapse. The planes stripped off fire-proofing, for a start.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Varemia
Sweet mother of crusty chickens... how many times do you have to be told about WTC 1 hitting WTC 7 with debris? And don't you dare say "but it was only minor," because the firefighters on scene disagree with you. 20 story hole from the bottom up, an 8 story chunk taken out of the corner, a piece broken off from the edge of the roof, and a three-story bulge formed in the building, likely from fire.

Or are you going to deny that this was true?


So what?

Asymmetrical damage is not going to cause a building to symmetrically collapse into its own footprint.

The collapse did not even initiate from that damage, according to the OS. Supposedly column 79 failed due to the fires, caused by the debris, not the damage. Just like the planes did not cause the collapse of the towers, only started the fires that supposedly caused the initiation of the collapse. Once the collapses started, the fires and damage had NOTHING to do with the collapses. Collapse initiation does not lead to automatic complete collapses.

www.nist.gov...

Yes sweet mother of crusty chickens indeed, you can't even get your own argument straight...


You really haven't paid attention to any of the information anyone has tried to give you. It's ridiculous how much it has to be repeated that the fire and the damage led to a collapse like the one we saw, which was not automatically a complete collapse. One column failed, which caused the floors above it to collapse inward, making the penthouse collapse in. Then, the force from the floors impacting below caused a buckling where the building was missing support at the 8 story chunk in the corner. This caused 8 stories of basic free-fall, after which the building came down on its own accord.

But whatever. You've made up your mind already, and no amount of explanation will suffice...

As it is, I found a link that has a lot of the chatter over the red hot and molten steel which was acknowledged as such and explained along with thermal shots of the hot spots within the rubble:

thermalimages.nfshost.com...



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Se7enex
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


How could they make bringing down two high rise steel buildings and blaming it on terrorists any easier and believable?


Thermite was completely unnecessary. Rigging the buildings with explosives and ramming a plane into them, as well as using thermite, was insanely complicated and outrageously risky/dumb. You give the government far too much credit assuming they could pull something like this off.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
According to OP there should be about 80 tons of explosives per floor. No one in the building would ever notice that.

This is why I love the truth movement. Endless entertainment.

Shouldn't the collapse of the building look something like this.


edit on 17-9-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


To the contrary, I think the general population gives terrorists with boxcutters and very shaky skills at flying small Cessna's too much credit. When I have seen far more evidence against the official story than supporting it, it makes more sense to me. Am I an architect? Would I possibly know what it takes? No. But many architects (some who have made multi-million dollar steel rise buildings) have spoken out against 9/11 and I put my trust in them.
edit on 17-9-2011 by Se7enex because: extra



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
The building did not collapse into its own footprint.


Oh for crusty chickens sake yes it did...




And of course both the damage from the plane and the damage from the fire played a part in the collapse. The planes stripped off fire-proofing, for a start.


Fireproofing, or not, the majority of the steel came no where near any fire. WTC 2 was on fire for less than an hour, nowhere near enough time for steel to reach anything like critical temps. Even if it did there would be obvious local failure of the steel that got too hot, not the whole building suddenly failing.

Your arguments are so old, and have been debunked years ago.

Seriously ATS needs a 911 for beginners, that they have to read before posting, sod we don't have to keep continuously going over these already debunked points.


Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

www.doctorfire.com...


edit on 9/17/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


yes. that supports what i've been saying.


The aluminum has the same glow as the tungsten.

exactly. aluminum and tungsten are practically opposites, yet they glow the same. aluminum has a relatively low melting point, but tungsten has the highest melting point out of all metals, and the second highest on the periodic table. carbon is the only thing that beats it.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


Bob, in response to this image, what do you say to the following statement:

"This picture appears in Steven Jones’ current (last checked August 1, 2007) September 2006 “Why Indeed” paper, which also states the photographer to be Frank Silecchia, and that the picture was taken on 9/27/01 according to the photographer’s aid. But is the picture authentic?

We notice the slag being lifted by a metal crane. Note the close proximity between the slag and the exposed hydraulics.

According to Jones’ paper (and confirmed by the charts he references), the color of the solid metal slag indicates a temperature over 845° C.

Yet, mechanical engineering handbooks reveal hydraulics to fail at a fraction of the temperature of Jones’ slag:

Machinery Lubrication – “Hydraulic Equipment Reliability: Beyond Contamination Control”
Quote (emphasis added): “Hydraulic fluid temperatures above 82°C (180ºF) damage most seal compounds and accelerate oil degradation. A single overtemperature event of sufficient magnitude can permanently damage all the seals in an entire hydraulic system, resulting in numerous leaks. The by-products of thermal degradation of the oil (soft particles) can cause reliability problems such as valve-spool stiction and filter clogging.”


Machinery Lubrication – “ Symptoms of Common Hydraulic Problems and Their Root Causes”
Quote (emphasis added): “Fluid temperatures above 180°F (82°C) can damage seals and accelerate degradation of the fluid. This means that the operation of any hydraulic system at temperatures above 180°F is detrimental and should be avoided. Fluid temperature is too high when viscosity falls below the optimum value for the system’s components. The temperature at which this occurs is dependent on the viscosity grade of the fluid in the system and can be well below 180°F.”


Machine Design – “Predicting the life of hydraulic hose”
Quote (emphasis added): “Temperature range recommended for typical rubber hose spans about –40 to 212°F [212° F = 100° C]. Fluid or ambient temperatures outside these bounds impact service life. Plasticizers leach out of elastomers faster at high temperatures, though the rate depends on the actual temperature and duration. Heat-related failure is evident when the cover shows signs of hardening and cracking, and the hose shape takes on a permanent set.
Temperatures below recommended will also shorten service life. This problem is evident when the inner tube shows signs of stiffness and cracks. Specials are available for either extreme: Low-temperature hoses for service to –67°F and high-temperature versions for applications exceeding 300°F. [300° F = 149° C]”

Jones’ slag is over 845° C, yet hydraulic fluid systems fail above 82° C.

The recommended highest temperature for standard hydraulic rubber hoses is 100° C, with special heavy duty hoses available for temperatures above 149° C.

Given the vast temperature differences between the slag and the maximum operating temperatures for hydraulics, is it plausible for Jones’ photo to be real? The temperature of the slag is over 10 times greater than the maximum allowable temperature for hydraulic fluid systems.


If there was molten metal in the ruins below,
the hydraulic systems in those orange grapplers would be destroyed."



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


no, because the planes weren't sufficient. besides, your argument is a logical fallacy. you're saying it didn't happen, not because the evidence supports you, but because it would be "complicated".

the evidence speaks for itself. let's debate that.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join