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.

 

Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

page: 12
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Twitchy, you picture is not showing up. However, I think the following illustrates my point pretty well.

Look at the red trace. That is the signal from the impact event. It is also the same signal that makes the large spike on the black trace. They are the same, the scales have been changed, but they are the same. Is it your contention that this is actually aseismic trace from an explosion?

If this is your claim, then you have to explain how the seismologists misinterpreted the data. Also, if this is your claim, then you have to account for the all of the gravitational energy from the falling mass. Where did that go?















[edit on 4-10-2004 by HowardRoark]




posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Here is an interesting report on the One Meridian Plaza fire in 1991.

www.sgh.com...

One thing that his report stresses, and that I have seen in other reports about this fire, is that although the building did not collapse, it was expected to.


The twelve-alarm fire burned for 18 hours. The extreme heat caused window glass and frames to melt and concrete floor slabs and steel beams to buckle and sag dramatically. Large shards of window glass fell from the facade, cutting through fire hoses on the ground around the building. Three firefighters were trapped on a fully engulfed floor, and efforts to rescue them failed


Hot enough to damage the structure.


The fire would not yield and there were increasing concerns about the stability of the structure. Fire officials called off the attack and allowed the fire to "free burn," concentrating their efforts on containing the fire to this building.


Or, as they say in New York, they decided to “Pull.”




When the fire reached the 30th floor, a tenant-installed fire-sprinkler system was activated, and the worst high-rise fire in U.S. history was finally brought under control


It is doubtful that the sprinkler pipes of the WTC could have survived the impact, but if they had, the situation might be different today.


Efforts to stabilize the structure and the facade began immediately and continued for six months. Over 2,000 steel poles were installed to shore the burned-out floors and to brace the steel girders supporting the concrete slab.


The fire had caused extensive damage to the stability of the building.


One Meridian Plaza's glass and granite facade consisted of granite-faced precast concrete spandrel panels, 8 in. thick granite column covers, and 4 in. thick splayed corner panels, surrounding 16 ft wide windows. SGH's investigation focused on the nine floors most affected by the fire by dividing the scope into three discrete yet interrelated pieces (windows, granite panels, and spandrel connections) the fire's dynamic effects can be discerned.


Contrast this with the WTC construction which had no masonry or stone elements around the columns.


Although the cracking of the granite facing was pervasive, the granite generally held to the building. During the fire, many of the structural connections between the precast concrete spandrel panels and the building's steel frame had failed; typically by cracking or spalling of the concrete at the connection. In the one location where the structural connection of precast panel to the structural steel frame did fail, a seven-ton panel fell, landing on a roof below. The result was extremely sobering. It was fortunate other panels with broken connections did not fall from the facade.
At the broken connections, some of the spandrel panels shifted outward approximately 1 in. from the plane of the building. What pushed the panels outward? In many areas with failed connections, the edge of the concrete floor slab was in contact with the interior surface of the spandrel panel, and the slab was crushed around the exterior steel column. The concrete floor slab became very hot during the fire. On the 23rd floor, a firefighter reported that the carpet backing had melted and the wood nailing strip glowed red. The temperature of the slab rose faster than the fireproofed building frame. Consequently, the slab expanded more than the frame, closing the gap between the edge of the slab and the back of the spandrel panel. In moving outward, the slab crushed itself around the exterior columns. Eventually, the expanding slab pushed the spandrel panel outward, breaking the panel connections.


Floor slab damage? You don’t say.

Here is a summary of building collapses due to fire,
www.haifire.com...

While steel framed buildings generally do well in extreme fire conditions, they are not immune to structural damage. There are several instances of the partial collapse of steel structures due to fire.


As for WTC7, you simply do not know the extent of the structural damage to the building form the collapse of the adjacent towers. The building might have been hit by falling debris, like the Bankers Trust building. Or it might be something as simple as a resonance with the ground shaking caused by the tower collapses.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   
TWELVE ALARM fire burning for EIGHTEEN HOURS. and the building DIDN'T fall. good example, howard.
masonry or no masonry, there is a HUGE difference between the heat generated there, and the smoldering embers and small fires(as described by the firemen in there) of the aftermath of the collision.
i wish you were right about this, howard, but i really think there were bombs. the sattelite thermographs of the molten steel in the debris pile pretty well proves it. it just doesn't add up that everything just disappeared. had this been a crime scene of a single murder, NOTHING could be touched or moved without white gloves and documentation of the scene.
there is an obvious cover-up ATTEMPT being made by FEMA and all the sanctioned 'experts' and 'official' agencies.
i could be wrong, but a whole lot of unexplained things would have to be satisfactorily explained, and they haven't even come close.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   
There was definitely bombs in the towers.The collapse was too perfect.How could people buy that fire melted the steel theory?Are they blind,did they not see all the fuel burn up on the outside of the south tower?.And the south tower fell first.I hate people that dont examine all the facts.I was really shocked when i saw the towers fall.I was only expecting the top of the building to fall off.I mean skyscrapers are built to withstand earthquakes and i doubt the impact of those planes were stronger than a earthquake.Can someone answer these questions for me...
1.Did the first plane have the missile pod too?
2.And if not why not?

When they compared the crashes they looked totally different.The second plane looked like it disappeared into the building and when i saw that it never stood right with me.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 01:10 PM
link   
You missed my point entirely. That is, to compare the response of any two buildings to fire is like comparing apples to oranges.

The One Meridian Plaza (OMP) building barely survived the fire. As it was, the structure was severely compromised and in imminent danger of collapse after the fire.

If you compare the construction of the two buildings, you can see that there are a number of differences in the construction that give the Meridian Plaza building an edge in the ability to resist fire.



  1. A smaller floor area than either the towers or WTC 7 means that the the total fuel load per floor was less.

  2. Larger window openings in the OMP building meant that the heat and flames had a easier time exiting the building.

  3. 8” of granite curtain wall over the exterior columns protected these structural members from the heat of the fire.

  4. The central core design used concrete masonry construction as opposed to the double thick drywall construction used in the WTC buildings. This includes the structure around the stairs, riser shafts and elevators.

  5. The masonry construction used in the OMP building contributed considerably more fire protection over its rated protection factors when compared to the gypsum board assemblies that were used in the WTC. The 8” thick granite exterior cladding elements on OMP are overkill.

  6. The fire started on the 22nd floor of OMP and worked upward. In WTC 7 the fires started at numerous points as the building was impacted by flaming debris from the tower collapse.

  7. In WTC 7, the heaviest fire was located on the 6th floor.

  8. The fuel load of the WTC 7 building was probably supplemented fy diesel fuel associated with the emergency generator system. For the towers, obviously the jet fuel had a significant impact.




    Thus, while it is true that this building survived a significant fire, it just barely did so. Furthermore, its construction and design provided a more robust fire resistance then the design and materials used to build the WTC did.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
the sattelite thermographs of the molten steel in the debris pile pretty well proves it. .


Again, you are jumping to conclusions that are not supported by the data.

Yes there were hot spots in the rubble, so what.

You have no data to support your contention that these hot spots were caused by “molten steel.”

The pre collapse fires and the collapse of the buildings themselves liberated a huge amount of energy.

Additionally you have no data to support that there was “molten steel” anywhere.

Molten metal, I will accept. But, remember, molten metal could be aluminum, copper, or even a eutectic mixture of some sort.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drew Da General
There was definitely bombs in the towers.The collapse was too perfect.How could people buy that fire melted the steel theory?


The fire did not melt the steel. The only ones claiming that there was melted steel are the supporters of the bomb/thermite theory. The heat from the fire caused the structural steel to weaken and lose strength.


Originally posted by Drew Da General
Are they blind,did they not see all the fuel burn up on the outside of the south tower?.

Did it? I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you do a few calculations. Most estimates put the fuel load on the planes at about 10,000 gallons. At 42MJ/kg, this means that the combustion of the 10,000 gallons of kerosene released 1.2 million Btu.

And you say that all of that energy was released in just a few minutes?


Originally posted by Drew Da General
And the south tower fell first.I hate people that dont examine all the facts.


And I hate it when people don’t bother to try to understand some simple principles of science and engineering before they jump to conclusions.


Originally posted by Drew Da General
I was really shocked when i saw the towers fall.I was only expecting the top of the building to fall off.


In order for that to happen the center of gravity of the top of the building would have had to have shifted 100 feet over. The structure was not designed to withstand that type of deformation and it would have collapsed long before it reached that point.


[edit on 4-10-2004 by HowardRoark]


LL1

posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 06:58 PM
link   
google search: WTC "knowledge & spells" OMG!!!

I can see a professors' face now as he/she reads through your
thesis or dissertation....
The professor then reads through your references....
hmmm...
Grade: "F"

Excellent reference source "WTC Knowledge & spells".
I'm certain there you can find all knowledge and spells of WHY
the towers fell....

The towers were not designed for an attach such as what happened on 9/11, they were not even as strong as the Empire State Building which was constructed of brick masonry/concrete walls.
If you look at the older buildings in NYC they are constructed of brick, the
newer building are mostly glass, with sheetrock interior.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   
howard roark

what do you do for a living man? NWO agent? NSA operative? Structural Engineer? i am really dying to know! do you find that the theory of illuminati involvment holds any water? follow the money, there are so many logical explainations for why they government would want something like this to happen. with the already astronomical funding the 3 letter agents get, after these attacks their funding goes straight through the roof. this attack had nothing but positive outcome for any and involved with government. who gets the bill? we do. so you see as long as they dont have to pay a single nickle out of their pockets they dont care how many people they kill. public opinion is most easily molded when the people you are molding are scared $hitless

"naturally the commoners dont want war... they will be draged along, whether is is a democracy, or fascist, or dictatorship, or parliment, or communist. all you have to do is tell them they are being attack and denouce the pacifist for a lack of patriotism. it works the same in any country." Herman Goering (one of hitlers top men), during the nuremberg trials

those germans come up with everything!



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   
howard gets his avatar name from an anne raynd novel in which a visionary architect(howard roark) BOMBS HIS OWN BUILDING because the blueprint has been bastardised by suits(you know, execs who have to add there two cents to everything just for the sake of getting their name on it?). our howard certainly has the knowhow to 'pull' the same thing.

i was just watching the tripod video that has the ground, and hence the camera, shaking just before the tower fell. i haven't actually watched one fall for three years. wow.

here's a question howard. how come the completely undamaged portion of the tower DOESN'T BUDGE while the floors above it come crashing down? they FULLY SUPPORTED the initial collapse, and the top portion fell straight down. it was like watching a controlled demolition of only the top potion, and the bottom undamaged part of the tower didn't budge an iota while the tons of debris came raining down on it. IF there was this pancaking and structural failure as described, the inertia of the top part falling would have "pancaking" the bottom portion with equal vigor. what happened though, was that not even a single floor collapsed until the point where the roof debris was nearly flush with completely undamaged floors below. if it occured the way the official lie describes, the lower completely undamaged part of the building which still had its' FULL STRUCTURAL STRENGTH should have begun to disintegrate right away.
if this huge inertia of the upper part was truly responsible for the collapse of the lower part, it would have started breaking right away, instead of waiting until the whole top part turned to dust.
the lie isn't even a good one. pancake, shmancake.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Given the collapses roughly nine seconds each to take place, then you look at the seismic readings, how in the world do you get that the greatest point of energy did not come from the beginning of the collapse? If you take a real good look at the data you present clearly shows the largest seismic readings are not from the impact of the debris. Let me simplify, if you look at teh squiggly lines, the biggest squiggly lines are at the front of the readings. You really should start looking at the seismic readings from other controlled demolitions in similar environments and I think you will find the similarities, or if you like I can point them out for you.

. . . .

and trying to say that the seismic data supports the official story line when it clearly does not. The seismic data shows that the falling debris didn't read nearly as high when the debris hit the ground as it did when the collapse began.


Why do you keep insisting that the seismic data shows something that it does not? The big spike is the impact, the vibrations following the impact are echos and reverberations.

Let's look at it this way.

What was the response of the bedrock substrate as the collapse began?

Let's think about this for a moment. First you have an intact building. then the top part of the structure fails. The falling debris literally rips through the lower structure. the falling debris pushed the exterior columns out, disconnecting the floor slabs, which then add to the falling mass, and the interior columns are unable to bear the exponential increase in loading as they too are distorted, bent and twisted. then the falling mass hits the ground, crashed through to the basement, then finally comes to a stop a split second before the upper portions of the building crush down on top.

But what is happening at each of these steps? First, the columns will begin shifting thier loads prior to the start of the runaway failure, this undoubtedly would have started some vibrations in the substructure. These would have been faint and it is unlikely that they would have been picked up by the seismograph.

There is currently research to develop detectors that can monitor these vibrations in a fire situation.

Once the runaway failure began, what is the substrate response? Well as strange as it seems, when the collapse started, the loading on the base of the tower was reduced, (because the load was now in free fall). Thus, the bedrock would have begun to rebound.

Think of it this way. let's say that you are standing on a trampoline with someone standing on your shoulders. The person on your shoulders falls off. in the seconds before he hits the trampoline, your weight is the only weight on it, not two peole, thus the trampoline will push you up as your partner is coming down. Then, obviously, when he hits, there is a quick downward jolt, then vibrations up and down. (OK, it is a simplified model, but you should get the picture of what I am talking about.)

Some people think that there should have been intermediate shocks as the collapsing mass hit each floor, It is possible that this happened to a very slight degree, but not to the extent that they imagine. This is because, as the top of the building fell downward, it pushed the exterior column assemblies outward, the one direction in which they were the least able to resist force, especially since it did not push the floor slab outward at the same time. The building literally peeled apart like a banana.

The bulk of the impact would have occurred as the falling mass hit the ground. That is what caused that huge spike on the time compressed seismic graph. That is what you are claiming is an "explosive event." You are wrong.

If you are still unable to grasp why this is, consider the energy involved. According to the Columbia paper, only a small fraction of the potential energy was converted to ground motion. they have based this on the total energy that they measured from the seismograph readings. If you are claiming that the majority of the energy was in fact some sort of explosive event, then what happened to the enormous potential energy of the towers when they collapsed? This just didn't go away. You have to account for it. You have not and you can not.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
TWELVE ALARM fire burning for EIGHTEEN HOURS. and the building DIDN'T fall. good example, howard.
masonry or no masonry, there is a HUGE difference between the heat generated there, and the smoldering embers and small fires(as described by the firemen in there) of the aftermath of the collision.


No, I don't think so, I don't recall hearing anything about "smoldering embers and small fires."

Can you post the specific refrence to this?



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
howard gets his avatar name from an anne raynd novel in which a visionary architect(howard roark) BOMBS HIS OWN BUILDING because the blueprint has been bastardised by suits(you know, execs who have to add there two cents to everything just for the sake of getting their name on it?). our howard certainly has the knowhow to 'pull' the same thing.


Heh Heh, my little joke. Billybob is one of the few that picked up on it.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
They are the same, the scales have been changed, but they are the same. Is it your contention that this is actually aseismic trace from an explosion?
If this is your claim, then you have to explain how the seismologists misinterpreted the data. Also, if this is your claim, then you have to account for the all of the gravitational energy from the falling mass. Where did that go?

One Big anamolous spike as the disaster begins is not indicative of anything to you?!? The falling mass failed to register as high of a reading subterrainian as the supporting columns no longer supported the mass, because they had been severed by your incredibly hot steel cloumn melting carpet and kerosene fire huh? The only one misinterpreting the seismic data is you. And now your trying to say the impact of the aircraft caused the greatest seismic activity after just arguing in a prior post about how the truck bomb didn't even register? No, the impact of the aircraft was detected and minimal, the debris hitting the ground showed and was still not as signifigant a reading as whent he building starts to collapse. you still haven't addressed the squibs or eyewitness reports of explosions, fire fighter's reporting explosions, not to mention the fact that secrity pulled the bomb sniffing dogs out before it happened? Explain that one? Explain the power down the weekened before? Why did they pull the bomb sniffing dogs out of the building despite an unusual number of phone threats. Your seismic arguement is shot man, look, a big spike then the expected seismic activity of the main supports (now severed) as they carry the last of the mass they are capable of transfering into the ground, then the debris causes less subterrain waves. Trying to argue that the impact of the planes caused the greatest energy release is ridiculous adn shows your own lack of understanding of the readings.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
While steel framed buildings generally do well in extreme fire conditions, they are not immune to structural damage. There are several instances of the partial collapse of steel structures due to fire.

Partial Collapse? What is that? We aren't talking about a typical steel framed building roark, we are talking about pretty much a man made wonder. The most over designed High Rise of it's time. Yes they do, they leave spaces in the construction of large steel high rises for the implementation of controlled demolitions, You pretty much summed up a rebuttal of your own argument with, "While steel framed buildings generally do well in extreme fire conditions..." Extreme fire conditions...


Pointing to the Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia in 1991, Hufschmid
writes, "The Meridian Plaza fire was extreme, but it did not cause the
building to collapse. The fire in the South Tower seems insignificant by
comparison to both the Meridian Plaza fire and the fire in the North Tower.
How could the tiny fire in the South Tower cause the entire structure to
shatter into dust after 56 minutes while much more extreme fires did not
cause the Meridian Plaza building to even crack into two pieces?"


Originally posted by HowardRoark
As for WTC7, you simply do not know the extent of the structural damage to the building form the collapse of the adjacent towers. The building might have been hit by falling debris, like the Bankers Trust building. Or it might be something as simple as a resonance with the ground shaking caused by the tower collapses.

resonance with the ground shaking caused by the tower collapses... Wow a 2.something caused WTC7 to collapse? Come on now, you got to do better than that. Yes the building was hit by debris, look at the sattelite photos, debris doesn't cause a gaping crater and footprint perfect collapse. That would be like building a house of cards, dropping a rock on it, and the cards end up shuffled and stacked. Given the corresponding times of the collapses, I won't even waste my time writing rebuttal to your debris earthquake.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
You missed my point entirely. That is, to compare the response of any two buildings to fire is like comparing apples to oranges.

i love it when you debunk yourself.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The fire started on the 22nd floor of OMP and worked upward. In WTC 7 the fires started at numerous points as the building was impacted by flaming debris from the tower collapse.
In WTC 7, the heaviest fire was located on the 6th floor.
The fuel load of the WTC 7 building was probably supplemented fy diesel fuel associated with the emergency generator system. For the towers, obviously the jet fuel had a significant impact.

Fire Does not cause steel frame high rises to collapse. It doesn't matter what story they started or burned on unless they focused on the steel beams and support columns in a forced air situation. Do you not find it odd that wtc7 went down only moments after the order came to "pull it"? If you are still trying to say that Silverstien meant pull the firefighters off it, then you are forgetting that Silverstien isn't even a firefighter. Even if he had some unprecedneted athority over the crews of the NYFD, that would be some uncanny damn timing. When the order came down to pull it, the building collapsed.


Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by billybob
the sattelite thermographs of the molten steel in the debris pile pretty well proves it. .

Again, you are jumping to conclusions that are not supported by the data.
Yes there were hot spots in the rubble, so what.
You have no data to support your contention that these hot spots were caused by “molten steel.” The pre collapse fires and the collapse of the buildings themselves liberated a huge amount of energy. Additionally you have no data to support that there was “molten steel” anywhere. Molten metal, I will accept. But, remember, molten metal could be aluminum, copper, or even a eutectic mixture of some sort.

LOL are you still trying to argue that there wasn't pools of molten steel in the ruins? No data to support it? Dude, CDI said themselves that there were pools of molten steel. They didn't say aluminum, they didn't say copper, they said steel. It doesn't matter what you accept, the matter of molten steel pools is a clsoed issue, they were there. The themal hotspots does not conclusively point to molten steel, but the statements by the contracted clean up crew certainly does. There is very little photgraphic evidence of these pools available because FEMA was arresting people who took pictures of the early stages of clean up. Are you saying that CDI wouldn't know a pool of steel from a pool of copper? Your whole arguement in regards to the fires causing the collapses is totally shot down by the exsistance of those pools of molten steel. Get over it, they were there and that is a matter of public record. Contractors, FEMA employees and firefighters at the clean-up all reported that pools of molten steel were surrounding the base of the core columns, which were still hot weeks after the collapse.
physics911.org...


Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center.
Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris from the site.
Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures."
Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.
AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.
"Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements."
These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said.
The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon....
The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was available, were much cooler than the molten steel found in the basements.
Five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site's hot spots.
Dozens of hot spots were mapped, the hottest being in the east corner of the South Tower where a temperature of 1,377 degrees F was recorded.
This is, however, less than half as hot at the molten steel in the basement.



Steel will do all kinds of “tricks,” but melting requires the basic melting temperature – or greater. To obtain the melting temperature for steel - not iron - one needs the external temperature of approximately 2,900 degrees (F) with enough time for the metal to convert from a solid to a liquid. The process can be accelerated, but only with a much higher temperature – such as Thermite – approximately 5,400 degrees (F). That's almost twice the needed heat. All the pooled jet fuel in the world won't burn hot enough to produce molten steel - under any conditions.
Relative to the 'temperature' argument, the imagery of the WTC does NOT reveal the aluminum siding of the WTC towers deforming. Thus, given the constant exposure - over time - to any escaping heat, it is difficult to imagine the fires being so hot as to cause either catastrophic or abrupt damage to the WTC vertical support structure. None of the images of the outer steel structure show the otherwise expected red-hot glow. All images show the outer shell mechanically destroyed, versus collapsing from thermal cause. Given the mechanics of the heat escape, the outer columns were the most vulnerable to heat damage. No matter what fire dynamics were going on within the building, the heat escape was almost exclusively - and constantly - around the outer columns. Hence, given both time and temperature, the outer columns should have been the structural 'weak-link.'



According to an article about Controlled Demolition Inc.'s "controlled progressive collapse" of the Biltmore Hotel in McGraw-Hill's Construction Weekly on October 20, 1977, " When it fell, the 245-ft-high structure became the tallest steel-framed building to be demolished with explosives." This demolition is visually very similar to the "collapses" of both the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center.
The Twin Towers were 110 stories high each and were also extremely strong steel framed structures. It is a matter of public record that Controlled Demolition, Inc. was hired to dispose of the remains of the Twin Towers and that CDI (Controlled Demolition, Inc.) is the world's leader in controlled demolition. It is also a matter of public record that CDI did the demolition and cleanup of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City after the tragic multiple bomb bombing of that building in 1995. In the case of the Murrah Federal Building, the rubble was taken to an isolated spot in the desert, buried, and surrounded by fencing and security guards.
Since the controlled demolition of the Biltmore Hotel, so strongly resembles that of each of the Twin Towers and since the Biltmore Hotel was made of similar construction materials as those used in the construction of the Twin Towers it may be useful to examine how the Biltmore was demolished.
The 1977 article goes on to say, "CDI placed 991 seperate charges, about 800 lbs. of explosives in all, on seven floors from the basement to the 14th floor and detonated them over a five-second interval. CDI's detonation sequence aimed to drop the building in a southerly direction in what is called a controlled progressive collapse in order to lay out the demolished structure to ease removal of debris."...
The tower that was hit second collapsed first, that is, the South Tower was progressively demolished 56 minutes after flight 175 was flown into it's corner, while the North Tower was progressively collapsed 1 hour and 44 minutes after being hit directly by flight 11. The fire in the North Tower, which is alleged to have lead to it's collapse in whole or in part, was more intense than in the South Tower for which fire was also alleged to have been the cause or one of the causes of collapse.
Neither jet fuel nor office furniture and building materials could have produced temperatures high enough (1538oC, i.e. 2800oF) to melt or collapse the massive steel beams and trusses in the World Trade Center towers. Especially strong were the enormous core-columns in the center of the towers near the elavator shafts. Fire has never in history caused the collapse of a steel-framed building and there have been many fires in steel framed buildings that were much more intense and which burned much longer than those in the Twin Towers. Fire did not and could not have caused the Twin Towers or any other building's concrete to spontaneously explode into a fine powder nor could fire have caused steel beams to be broken and propelled hundreds of feets horizontally.
Since the fire theory was exposed as laugh-out-loud stupid another pseudo-explanation has emerged. Now we are being told that perhaps a combination of the impact of the airplanes, the fires, and the incompetence of the architecture of the Twin Towers lead to their demise. There are a number of huge problems with this idiotic explanation.
1. The World Trade Center was made with some of the largest, strongest fire-retardant steel beams of any building in history.
2. If the Twin Towers had collapsed due to unsemetrical impact and unsemetrical fires then the collapses of the Twin Towers would not have been semetrical they would have been messy, partial, incomplete, and much more dangerous to people, structures, and equiptment in the surrounding area as they would have either sheared off vertically or buckled and toppled onto the surrounding buildings and people. Instead they collapsed completely and vertically, aside from the fractured steel and other solid debris that was propelled, at high speeds, horizontally, hundreds of feet in all directions and the huge clouds of powderized concrete which were propelled thousands of feet in all directions, down the streets and avenues of Lower Manhattan.
3. As anyone can plainly see from any and all photos and/or videos of the destruction of the World Trade Center, the Twin Towers did not fall apart and fall down they each exploded in a progressive wave from their upper floors and near their impact zones downward toward their basements.
4. World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed in the manner of a conventional implosion style controlled demolition at 5:20 PM on September 11th 2001. Building 7 was also a steel-framed building bringing the number of steel-framed buildings that have collapsed allegedly due to fire to a grand total of three. That's only three steel-framed buildings that have allegedly collapsed due to fire throughout history and they all collapsed on the same day in the same part of town in the same city. Are you really stupid enough to believe that that is even remotely possible?
5. The Twin Towers each fell at roughly the rate of free fall. That is, they each fell at about the same speed that an object would if it were dropped from the roof of either of the Twin Towers. In the case of each Twin Tower, within 15 seconds there was nothing left to collapse. They fell as though there were no floors below the collapsing section to "pancake" onto, as though there was no resistance to the progressive collapse, but air. The only way this is possible is if the floors were destroyed progressively before the mass above them could meet their resistance. A "controlled progressive collapse" similar to the one used by CDI to destroy the Biltmore Hotel best explains the lack of any resistance to the force of gravity.
6. Seismographs show "spikes" or "mini earthquakes" at the beginnings of each of the Twin Towers' collapses, but not at the end when the rubble hit the ground. It is logical that there were no "spikes" at the end of the collapses as steel beams alone probably would not shake the earth enough to significantly register on a seismograph. Also, since everything but the steel had been blown to bits and most of the concrete was now a fine atomized dust there probably was nothing else that could have caused a "mini earthquake" at the end of the fifteen second collapse intervals. However, it is also perfectly logical that there would be "spikes" on the seismographs at the beginning of each tower's collapse due to the detonation of explosives.
7. A number of office workers, firemen, and people in the surrounding area are on record that they heard bombs going off before and during the collapses.



Originally posted by HowardRoark
The fire did not melt the steel. The only ones claiming that there was melted steel are the supporters of the bomb/thermite theory. The heat from the fire caused the structural steel to weaken and lose strength.

Then what did melt the steel? Sulfides? Heat Corrosion?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Most estimates put the fuel load on the planes at about 10,000 gallons. At 42MJ/kg, this means that the combustion of the 10,000 gallons of kerosene released 1.2 million Btu.
And you say that all of that energy was released in just a few minutes?

It wouldn't matter if there was 50 million gallons of fuel, you can't explain or even resonably argue that 'kerosene like' jet fuel burns hot enough to melt steel. It doesn't.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
And I hate it when people don’t bother to try to understand some simple principles of science and engineering before they jump to conclusions.
In order for that to happen the center of gravity of the top of the building would have had to have shifted 100 feet over. The structure was not designed to withstand that type of deformation and it would have collapsed long before it reached that point.

This conjecture of yours is hardly relevant, and really self contradicting. You hate 'jumping to conclusions, but can pull 100 feet out of your er...



Originally posted by HowardRoark
Why do you keep insisting that the seismic data shows something that it does not? The big spike is the impact, the vibrations following the impact are echos and reverberations.

Oh i don't know, maybe the big anamolous seismic spikes at the bginning of each collapse? Maybe the readings being consistent with underground explosions, or their similarites to other seismci readings of controlled demolitions? Maybe the eyewitness reports of explosions that you still refuse to acknowlege? Security pulling the bomb sniffing dogs out of the buildings the weekend before should be enough in itself to make you realize the possibility of explosives. Why did they pull the dogs out roark? Who ordered the steel be removed prior to investigation, that alone is a criminal destruction of evidence. That alone is indictable, and criminal. How in the hell did FEMA just happen to have an emergency response team already ordered into NYC on 9-10? You are still no addressing some key issues here...

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Let's look at it this way.
What was the response of the bedrock substrate as the collapse began?
Let's think about this for a moment. First you have an intact building. then the top part of the structure fails. The falling debris literally rips through the lower structure. the falling debris pushed the exterior columns out, disconnecting the floor slabs, which then add to the falling mass, and the interior columns are unable to bear the exponential increase in loading as they too are distorted, bent and twisted. then the falling mass hits the ground, crashed through to the basement, then finally comes to a stop a split second before the upper portions of the building crush down on top.
But what is happening at each of these steps? First, the columns will begin shifting thier loads prior to the start of the runaway failure, this undoubtedly would have started some vibrations in the substructure. These would have been faint and it is unlikely that they would have been picked up by the seismograph.
There is currently research to develop detectors that can monitor these vibrations in a fire situation.
Once the runaway failure began, what is the substrate response? Well as strange as it seems, when the collapse started, the loading on the base of the tower was reduced, (because the load was now in free fall). Thus, the bedrock would have begun to rebound.
Think of it this way. let's say that you are standing on a trampoline with someone standing on your shoulders. The person on your shoulders falls off. in the seconds before he hits the trampoline, your weight is the only weight on it, not two peole, thus the trampoline will push you up as your partner is coming down. Then, obviously, when he hits, there is a quick downward jolt, then vibrations up and down. (OK, it is a simplified model, but you should get the picture of what I am talking about.)
Some people think that there should have been intermediate shocks as the collapsing mass hit each floor, It is possible that this happened to a very slight degree, but not to the extent that they imagine. This is because, as the top of the building fell downward, it pushed the exterior column assemblies outward, the one direction in which they were the least able to resist force, especially since it did not push the floor slab outward at the same time. The building literally peeled apart like a banana.
The bulk of the impact would have occurred as the falling mass hit the ground. That is what caused that huge spike on the time compressed seismic graph. That is what you are claiming is an "explosive event." You are wrong.
If you are still unable to grasp why this is, consider the energy involved. According to the Columbia paper, only a small fraction of the potential energy was converted to ground motion. they have based this on the total energy that they measured from the seismograph readings. If you are claiming that the majority of the energy was in fact some sort of explosive event, then what happened to the enormous potential energy of the towers when they collapsed? This just didn't go away. You have to account for it. You have not and you can not.

federallabs.org eh? lol, yeah I'm sure that would be a great place to look for evidence damning the US Government. Let's look at it this way, planes impact, minimal seismic response. Towers smolder but still are sturdy enough for fighters to call the situation controllable adn proceed with normal rescue adn fire fighting operations. Explosions are reported, huge anamolous spikes in seismic readings, an instant later the 1st tower collapsed. High seismic readings as the NOW SEVERED steel verticle supports slam their remaining load bearing energies into the ground, seismic activity tapers off as the debris falls. Demolition. Now as your pancaking floor rubbish, how do you explain the near terminal veloicty of the falling debris if the floor trusses are pancaking down? The tops of the buildings fell through the rest of the buildings with no resistance. If the buildings would have collapsed from stress or fire, they sure as hell would have met with resistance from the lower floors and supports. The only way for a building, especially a high rise structure to fall through itself with no resistance is by severing the lower support structures in synchronocity. You can argue kinetic and or potential energy loss all you like, but the horizontal ejection of material and the pulverization of concrete and steel, the perfect foot print impacts, and explosions aren't consistent with collapse. You have obviously never seen a controlled demolition before, and if you have then you are either blind or simply unwilling to accept the fact that the WTC towers were brought down by a very controlled series of explosions. To argue that the towers collapsed without the aide of demolition is to bend the laws of physics into surreality.
Free falling steel through support structures might happen in roark-topia, but in the real world, steel high rises dont unless they get a little help from, in this case, a company known as CDI.
Here's a few more sites to check out, see if you can debunk all these without addressing any other issues like the security lapses at WTC the weekend before, or the hijackers still being alive and well in other parts of the world, etc. In other words, why'd they take the bomb dogs out roark? And other questions to whit, ad nauseum. In the mean time I'm going to the store to pick up some kerosene to weld my car into a molten pool of steel. lol
216.239.41.104...:IdyP-8oS4O4J:www.seekinglight.net/911vis/rwtcdoc.doc+pools+of+molten+steel+wtc&hl=en
lists.iskra.net...
www.apfn.org...
worldtradeaftermath.com...
www.rumormillnews.com...
www.deprogram.info...
home.comcast.net...
911research.wtc7.net...
www.consciousevolution.com...
911review.org...
capitalism is great if you have capital, otherwise, "Get back to work!" lol

Damn I still can't get my photo to post... any suggestions?



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 05:28 AM
link   
www.implosionworld.com...

compare and contrast, stiking similarities to the larger building brought down. the manner in which some of the buildings crumble into themselves looks like the WTC. as well as further debunkage of the inferno scenario, isnt it most likely that the force the plane hit the building with oblitorated and blew all of the office funiture away? surely the abundance of fuel for the flames were taken out with the initial impact. just a little food for thought. twitchy my man, you are way above top secret!



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Let me ask you one simple question.

If it is impossible for a fire to cause a steel framed building to collapse, then why do they bother to apply fireproofing to the beams and columns?


I am looking forward to reading your answer.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Wow Twitchy! That was a kick-ss rebuttal! Nice job!



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by HowardRoark
They are the same, the scales have been changed, but they are the same. Is it your contention that this is actually aseismic trace from an explosion?
If this is your claim, then you have to explain how the seismologists misinterpreted the data. Also, if this is your claim, then you have to account for the all of the gravitational energy from the falling mass. Where did that go?

One Big anamolous spike as the disaster begins is not indicative of anything to you?!? The falling mass failed to register as high of a reading subterrainian as the supporting columns no longer supported the mass, because they had been severed by your incredibly hot steel cloumn melting carpet and kerosene fire huh? The only one misinterpreting the seismic data is you.

And now your trying to say the impact of the aircraft caused the greatest seismic activity after just arguing in a prior post about how the truck bomb didn't even register?


WHOA!!!! Who said anything about the impact of the airplane?

In none of my posts have I been talking about the impact of the plane.

All I have ever been talking about in these posts is the impact of the falling building with the ground. If you have been under the impression that I was talking about the impact of the plane, then I apologize. I thought that I was being pretty precise when I was talking about the impact of the mass of the building with the ground, but appernetly we have been talking about two separate things.

You seem to think that the seismic record started when the first floor collapsed. No, that is not what I am saying. The seismic spike that you are talking about is the impact of the falling mass of the building hitting the ground.

That is what the following graph shows.

There is no “anomalous spike.”

There is just the impact of the building with the ground.



The trace on the left (the black line) is at maximum sensitivity and the minor vibrations that come after the big shock are just minor reverberations, echoes, and such. The red trace on the right is the expanded view of the “anomalous spike,” as you call it.

That is the energy signature that the seismologists look at. That is what they are referring to in the text of the report. That is what you should look at. The black trace is too time compressed to provide useful information. Notice the red trace indicates that the vibrations from the impact lasted about 15 seconds. This is not the same as saying that the collapse lasted 15 seconds. This is saying that the signal form the impact of the mass with the ground lasted 15 seconds as recorded at that station.

The passage of the seismic waves through rock is kind of like passing light through a prism. Different frequencies propagate at different speeds. This is illustrated in the following figure. As you get farther away from the source the signal spreads out more.




I hope that was a little clearer.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
First, the columns will begin shifting thier loads prior to the start of the runaway failure, this undoubtedly would have started some vibrations in the substructure. These would have been faint and it is unlikely that they would have been picked up by the seismograph.
There is currently research to develop detectors that can monitor these vibrations in a fire situation.



Originally posted by twitchy

federallabs.org eh? lol, yeah I'm sure that would be a great place to look for evidence damning the US Government.


Oh, for pete’s sake, turn the paranoia meter down a little bit, it is starting to go off the scale.


Here is a group of people trying to develop a method to help save lives and to protect firefighters from being killed in building collapses, and you have to see all kinds of evil intentions behind it?



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I would like to point out the Fireman’s video, I will keep pointing it out for more people to view
These Firemen put their lives at risk 24/7, year in year out, to save our hides, why would they make up a story of bombs in the WTC Towers,
Why would they lie to you? They have nothing to gain from it. But who does??

Watch the windows media below or right click and save:
www.letsroll911.org...



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join