The Core Comprises Steel Beams And Columns With Reinforced Concrete Infill Panels.

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


We also note that the reaction started and then stopped. The "highly engineered" material extinguished before it reacted completely. Defenders of the Jones paper have never been able to explain this away and I hope that you haven't forgotten this.


"One might speculate that the red thermitic material has been attached to rusty iron by an adhesive. The cooling effect of the iron in such close proximity, acting as a heat sink, might quench the reaction and explain the fact that unreacted red thermitic material, always found by us in thin layers, remains in the dust. These hypotheses invite further experiments." (Harrit, Jones et al., 2009)

"DSC experiments may confirm incomplete reactions caused by heating rates and Al particles." (Granier, 2005)

Then there's the various effects of oxide shell thickness.

None of this though "debunks" anything.

Unless there really was nanothermite in the WTC, if I were to guess about the why of all this, I'd say either the experimental data or the chips were fabricated and then inserted into the dust. I have an idea who might have done that. Needn't necessarily be the "NWO". But all of it is speculation, so I'll keep it to myself.


Your first quote explains the presence of the material in the dust. The question that arises is that if the steel structure quenched the reaction, what did the paint really do?

Granier's statement out of context doesn't add anything. DSC experiments may do many things.

The effects of oxide shell thickness would produce a non-stiochiometric mix but wouldn't explain the products not being mostly iron. A therimte reaction would run to extinction of the limiting reagent [Al] but would produce iron particles, not complex silicates. This would also mean that the thermite wouldn't work very well.
Jones found paint stuck to an oxide surface of the steel. Harrit's paper assumes a certain primer and is published in a captive publication catering to conspiracies.




posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911


Originally posted by Kester
As to complexity. Does this answer give an idea of the complexity I see in this case?


I'm not sure what you mean? You mean the necessity of going to Fresh Kills? Well yes, I can see your point. I fear they're just waiting it out, as they always do.


No, I mean the laying of false trails.

This thread is about the reinforced concrete infill panels apparently paid for by the insurers yet not acknowledged by leading investigators on both sides of the debate. I can't see anything that makes the existence of these panels impossible. If they were there and it was very efficiently covered up there must be a valid reason. Given that the precise method, or more accurately methods of destruction is the main issue that has prevented a satisfactory result I'm pressing for a real debate on the existence or nonexistence of these panels.

I'm waiting for someone to pull the rug out from under me and prove that these panels could not have been part of the towers.

Their waiting it out is one of the aspects that concerns me most. They clearly can't put us all off forever, so what are they waiting for?



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic
Yep, very likely a false lead designed to burn-up years in useless discussions.


You would know.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by septic
Yep, very likely a false lead designed to burn-up years in useless discussions.


You would know.


"I know you are but what am I"? Good grief man, once you let your ego run wild, there's no reigning it in.

Have you ever considered the towers might have been built specifically to be destroyed? The OP has.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones found paint stuck to an oxide surface of the steel. Harrit's paper assumes a certain primer and is published in a captive publication catering to conspiracies.


Yes, yes, the lucidity of willful ignorance. Where is your DSC of WTC primer paint, pteridine? Be sure to ignore this question or otherwise feebly rationalize it. Anyways, I've had my say, and you bore the hell out of me. Carry on.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kester
No, I mean the laying of false trails.

This thread is about the reinforced concrete infill panels apparently paid for by the insurers yet not acknowledged by leading investigators on both sides of the debate. I can't see anything that makes the existence of these panels impossible. If they were there and it was very efficiently covered up there must be a valid reason. Given that the precise method, or more accurately methods of destruction is the main issue that has prevented a satisfactory result I'm pressing for a real debate on the existence or nonexistence of these panels.

I'm waiting for someone to pull the rug out from under me and prove that these panels could not have been part of the towers.

Their waiting it out is one of the aspects that concerns me most. They clearly can't put us all off forever, so what are they waiting for?


Ah, right. I know of someone who might know... I'll report back to the thread if I find out.. No promises though.

Do realize: there is a way a journalist would go about this: he would contact persons involved in the construction and/or maintenance of the WTC. Citizen journalism..!
edit on 23-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kester
No, I mean the laying of false trails.

This thread is about the reinforced concrete infill panels apparently paid for by the insurers yet not acknowledged by leading investigators on both sides of the debate. I can't see anything that makes the existence of these panels impossible. If they were there and it was very efficiently covered up there must be a valid reason. Given that the precise method, or more accurately methods of destruction is the main issue that has prevented a satisfactory result I'm pressing for a real debate on the existence or nonexistence of these panels.


Do you know that the insurers insured such panels or are you speculating? Why would the panels be anything more than a construction detail? Why would they have to be related to the collapse?



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones found paint stuck to an oxide surface of the steel. Harrit's paper assumes a certain primer and is published in a captive publication catering to conspiracies.


Yes, yes, the lucidity of willful ignorance. Where is your DSC of WTC primer paint, pteridine? Be sure to ignore this question or otherwise feebly rationalize it. Anyways, I've had my say, and you bore the hell out of me. Carry on.


Where is your DSC showing that the paint and the chips are not the same? Oops, Jones screwed that up, too. Be sure to ignore the question of self-extinguishing highly engineered death thermite or again try to deflect the question with pointless, random comments. You have had your say and it wasn't worth anything. You merely repeat what is on the truther sites. Simple thermo confounds you and them, too. You don't understand much of anything about the Jones paper which is why you have to check the websites before you respond.
It was fun to let the air out of a pompous, bullying poseur like you especially after all those "forgot more than you'll ever know" and "liar" comments. I'd bet you'll be deflating for a while.

ETA: Jones found red paint. Carry on.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Bored ? or bitten off more than you can chew ?



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic

Have you ever considered the towers might have been built specifically to be destroyed? The OP has.


Not only considered it but as sure of it as I am of anything in the whole 9/11 story. To me it answers every major unanswered question or leads to the answers. The overhangs on the surrounding buildings were designed for the photographers to throw themselves under as the debris came down ensuring some of the propaganda images survived. The bathtub was to contain the debris. The uniform construction was to ensure neat demolition. One of the giveaways is the lack of embellishment or other human touch to the towers. Even a crest would have lifted them from the drab, featureless appearance so despised. The widening of the windows at the top was as a result of a campaign during construction by people who didn't want to take their clients to lunch in a restaurant with the best views in the world that didn't take advantage of those views. The original design was narrow windows all the way to the top. The architect was overruled in his desire to surround the plaza with a wall of shops and restaurants. Of course he could see the plaza would suffer from the canyon effect, gritty winds whistling across the plaza made it a very unpleasant place to linger some days. He envisaged a pleasant, sheltered oasis. But they needed it clear for those all important photographers who would get a few blurry images as they whipped their cameras up from the smoking pile to catch the second strike. Planes were part of the original plan. The biggest departure from the plan was the time between the fireballs and the disintegration of the buildings. These were building bombs that failed to detonate first time round giving us the photographic and video evidence central to our investigation. Think of the look on Bush's face when Andy whispered in his ear, "The second tower also failed to detonate".

If you want to roll about laughing at my gullibility try this one.
"I believe that the rendering of useful service is the common duty of mankind and that only in the purifying fire of sacrifice is the dross of selfishness consumed and the greatness of the human soul set free."
Read common duty of mankind as duty of common mankind. The purifying fire of sacrifice is the event. The dross of selfishness is everyone who thought they had a right to prosper other than the perpetrators. The greatness of the human soul set free is the sacrifice victims.
Now can anyone tell me whose creed this is and what possible connection there may be to David and Nelson as the towers were appropriately named?
Answers on a postcard addressed to the Funny Farm.
Thank you.

p.s. The original plan actually intended to create minimal suffering for the unfortunates within the towers. The jumpers were never intended. The firefighters and police running in on a rescue mission were never intended. Most of all the multiple witnesses escaping, all with their own tale to tell, were never intended. Now do you see why they call it the World Trade Centre Disaster?

And another thing. The narrow window spaces prevented photographs from the outside revealing the construction of the reinforced concrete infill panels.
edit on 23-12-2011 by Kester because: addition



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Kester
 


I'm sure of it too. They were built as tourist traps like the Eiffel tower, and were never intended to house 10 million square feet of office space. They were props for the greatest show on earth.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 

Hey"debunker". I read the other Debunker Article. It does just what you do. Poo - pooing others work without actually presenting any of your own is "ACME" at it's fine/lowest. For instance:


One might ask: Could the report be talking about steel that was melted in the smoldering pile fires, rather than in the WTC fires themselves? Not likely. For one thing, although the report doesn’t define exactly what it does and does not mean by “the WTC Event,” it seems most reasonable to assume that that that term refers to the jet crashes, the subsequent building fires, and then the collapses. More importantly, if indeed the pile fires got hot enough to melt steel, they would most likely have gotten that hot only because they were enclosed enough to prevent heat from escaping. If heat wasn’t escaping, then probebly not very much dust was escaping either – certainly not anywhere near as much dust as was spewed during the collapses.

"Not Likely", huh? (emphasis added). Just like that. Scrap an authoritative dissertation on the fire, collapse and cook of elements by saying, ehh, not likely. The author vaccilates between both choices, i.e., heat escaped and heat didn't escape, which further shows "his" ignorance to the "Event".

Wind swept fires raged at altitude for more than an hour, significantly weakening the structural support to initiate collapse, resulting in the pancake collapse of the entire building (times two). The collapse was like a high speed blender filled with Massive steel girders, car sized blocks of concrete, glass and every kind of office furniture, all churning to the ground for ten seconds (set blender on high).


So, the mystery of the “‘mysterious’ iron spheres” remains unsolved.

Mysterious to you and the author maybe. He described the dynamic as "volatilized". Its that simple. Aerosol droplets of anything, any size form sphericals. I don't care where you find them or of what alloy and size... that was clear in the article but not to you, I guess. Ever seen how lead shot is made? Molten lead drips thru mesh and falls to the bottom of a water tank. Wallah! Sphericals. Water column or air the result is the same. "Falling" drops form round spheres. Like raindrops for instance? If thats not simple enough for you then you are just holding onto some "theory" that someone else made up instead of seeing the obvious. There, I poo pooed on your poo poo. Are we playing tit for tat? Not Likely



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 





Wind swept fires raged at altitude for more than an hour, significantly weakening the structural support to initiate collapse,


Greetings inrptr...I like your stuff and anyone who lays it to snowcrash911 is okay in my book, but I must take issue with the windswept fires weakening steel and causing a total gravitational collapse. If the videos are to be trusted, didn't the fires appear to be dying?



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Kester
 


This thread is about the reinforced concrete infill panels apparently paid for by the insurers yet not acknowledged by leading investigators on both sides of the debate. I can't see anything that makes the existence of these panels impossible. If they were there and it was very efficiently covered up there must be a valid reason.

Hey Kester, I was wondering what this thread is about... DUH, my bad. I keep getting replies that take me off topic. Sorry about that. Between this thread and others my time is divided. To wonder about the panels and their construction baffles me in general. I'm surely behind the curve on this one. Sorry about that. Answered your YouTube about Hutchinson Effect on his video in comments section.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by intrptr
 


Wind swept fires raged at altitude for more than an hour, significantly weakening the structural support to initiate collapse,

Greetings inrptr...I like your stuff and anyone who lays it to snowcrash911 is okay in my book, but I must take issue with the windswept fires weakening steel and causing a total gravitational collapse. If the videos are to be trusted, didn't the fires appear to be dying?

Thank you for that reply septic. I luv your sn. Gives me shudders: Septic.
Makes me think of maggots and Gangrene.
Yes. "Appeared" to be dying. Initial damage caused by the impacts weakened the floors by some percent of load bearing capability. Then the gas spread out engulfing and igniting all office products like plastics in computers, carpets, partitions, etc. Plastic, nylon, and kerosene burns hot with orange flame and greasy black smoke. Inject winds aloft thru the openings in the building where the windows were, and you get an increase in roaring furnace like effect, thus steadily increasing temperatures (as long as winds and fuel supply remain constant). Like blowing on the coals of a campfire.

At that point, the black smoke and apparent flames diminish, but the overall temp increase has now heated the support steel on the exoskeleton and the core supports to the point it begins to "plasticize". Remember, this is steady fire and steady winds aloft from one direction working for an hour. Like a blast furnace, the metal begins to weaken around the remaining outside skeletal supports. The constant pressure of weight of floors above the impact zone, the initial damage by the impacts, the blast furnace forced air fed fires of jet fuel and office products, all combined at once to initiate one floor collapse. I Think that is evident in the videos and one source of confusion on both sides. If the collapse began at the floors of impact and fire, then how did (they) hide the thermite and explosives in the building ahead of time to match where the planes hit without destroying the charges, detonators and firing circuits?

The reason is is it happened just like we all saw it. Scale of all the elements is hard to fathom if you don't take into account the sheer size and speed of the planes, the impacts, unchecked fires and churning collapse from 1500 feet of the tallest buildings around. Hella energies involved on a scale that before that event had not been encountered. Except maybe in nukes and meteorites which is altogether different.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Bored ? or bitten off more than you can chew ?



Bored. You want some attention?



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by snowcrash911
 

Hey"debunker". I read the other Debunker Article. It does just what you do. Poo - pooing others work without actually presenting any of your own is "ACME" at it's fine/lowest. For instance:


One might ask: Could the report be talking about steel that was melted in the smoldering pile fires, rather than in the WTC fires themselves? Not likely. For one thing, although the report doesn’t define exactly what it does and does not mean by “the WTC Event,” it seems most reasonable to assume that that that term refers to the jet crashes, the subsequent building fires, and then the collapses. More importantly, if indeed the pile fires got hot enough to melt steel, they would most likely have gotten that hot only because they were enclosed enough to prevent heat from escaping. If heat wasn’t escaping, then probebly not very much dust was escaping either – certainly not anywhere near as much dust as was spewed during the collapses.

"Not Likely", huh? (emphasis added). Just like that. Scrap an authoritative dissertation on the fire, collapse and cook of elements by saying, ehh, not likely. The author vaccilates between both choices, i.e., heat escaped and heat didn't escape, which further shows "his" ignorance to the "Event".


Whoa. You are right! That is a blatant error on the part of the author of that article. (The remarks about the pile, that is.) Somehow I overlooked this until now. I won't be citing it anymore. Thank you. I'm going to have to write my own.


Originally posted by intrptr

So, the mystery of the “‘mysterious’ iron spheres” remains unsolved.

Mysterious to you and the author maybe. He described the dynamic as "volatilized". Its that simple. Aerosol droplets of anything, any size form sphericals. I don't care where you find them or of what alloy and size... that was clear in the article but not to you, I guess. Ever seen how lead shot is made? Molten lead drips thru mesh and falls to the bottom of a water tank. Wallah! Sphericals. Water column or air the result is the same. "Falling" drops form round spheres. Like raindrops for instance? If thats not simple enough for you then you are just holding onto some "theory" that someone else made up instead of seeing the obvious. There, I poo pooed on your poo poo. Are we playing tit for tat? Not Likely


Yeah. You know, the problem is, each time I have to explain this, I have to start all over again, dig up the same sources I dug up before, etc. etc. I need to centralize this effort. And then I need to start a thread. ATS is one of the few places where there seems to be plenty of activity. I'm mainly here for Pentagon debate though. Tomorrow is Christmas Eve, lots to do, so I wish you a Merry Christmas and I'll see you after.
edit on 23-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


It's a play on the name of the owner of the site. He knows the score.

I don't know where you are coming up with the hot temperatures inside the towers, for the same reasons I don't know where the NIST came up with their assumptions.

I suppose you already know I don't buy the "aluminum wings slicing steel" meme, I'm wondering why you think speeding up a plane wing to 500 MPH makes it a steel-slicing machete. For someone with such a keen eye for detail, I'm surprised that's your stance.

edit on 23-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kester

And another thing. The narrow window spaces prevented photographs from the outside revealing the construction of the reinforced concrete infill panels.
edit on 23-12-2011 by Kester because: addition



Knowing The Score

Quote:
Minoru Yamasaki will forever be remembered alongside America’s most profound architectural disaster. Whatever he was before 2001—which was dead, maligned, and mainly sliding away into obscurity—he is forever after the designer of the most ambitious modern structure ever to end up as a gaping hole.

Besides building the Port Authority’s props, Yamasaki’s legacy also included the destruction of the U.S. Military Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri, which he designed without fire extinguishers, per the client’s instructions. There were several attempts at arson before the final attempt succeeded in gutting the building and destroying decades’ worth of records for military personnel, a great way to erase the pasts of intelligence assets.


Quote:
A building commissioned in 1951 by the Department of Defense was built without a sprinkler system, and then burned in a spectacular fire. That building, the U.S. Military Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri, housed 38 million individual service records and 4,000 employees. When it was completed in 1956, the six-story concrete and aluminum behemoth was one of the twenty largest buildings in the world.

Today, the Personnel Records Center informs those seeking information that, as a result of the fire, it cannot provide access to 80 percent of army files on personnel discharged between 1912 and 1960, as well as 75 percent of air force personnel discharged between 1947 and 1964. Information about hundreds of thousands of veterans vanished from the face of the earth. The building survived.
americancity.org...

It was an honor to have IBM, Consolidated Gas, the Defense Department, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey as his clients, even if they wanted their buildings with no fire sprinklers, or in a no man’s land, or too tall. “Since they were the client,” he said of the Records Building in St. Louis, “we went along with their option.” Yamasaki’s firm was selected for the design of the World Trade Center precisely because he could be counted on to be agreeable, to accommodate the developer’s demands. It gave him ulcers, but Yamasaki made real the visions of America’s leaders—and left everyone else to suffer the consequences.





We must assume that if architecture magazines know Yamasaki was a favorite of the likes of the Defense Department, IBM, The Port Authority and not to mention the Saudis, it was because he would do what other architects might have balked at. Therefore, we must also assume the Port Authority got the buildings they wanted; and all the complaints about aesthetics are to be expected when you’re making a couple of nondescript chameleons.





Building the Props for the Greatest Show on Earth

Each floor was almost the same as the other, and the 22 inch windows were difficult to see into from the outside unless standing directly in front of them, thanks to the copper tinted windows being set-back 12 inches from the face; a feature which protected the windows from all but direct sunlight, assisting with heating and cooling, but also helping to keep away prying eyes. The towers were positioned in such a way that you could not look directly into one, while standing in the other.

letsrollforums.com...
edit on 23-12-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by intrptr
 

It's a play on the name of the owner of the site. He knows the score.

Got it LOL.


I suppose you already know I don't buy the "aluminum wings slicing steel" meme, I'm wondering why you think speeding up a plane wing to 500 MPH makes it a steel-slicing machete. For someone with such a keen eye for detail, I'm surprised that's your stance.

I don't have a pic of it handy, but one facsimile to your point is that straw is driven into telephone poles during tornados and at 2 or 3 hundred miles an hour. A lot less than the planes. And I'm not sure the wings did that much damage compared to the engines and main body.

The temps in the buildings come from my knowledge of smelting and blast furnaces. But more later on that.






top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join