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: 20
13
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by HowardRoarkto recap, a little louder, .......only a SMALL FRACTION of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into GROUND MOTION. the GROUND SHAKING that resulted from the collapse was EXTREMELY SMALL.


Well, even if that is true, as Roark said, the collapse still accounts for the 2 largest spikes on the graph presented.




posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:14 AM
link   
I wouldn't go by the graph, because it's not definitive. Should the spikes be largest at the beginning of collapse or the end of the collapse? This can be argued.

What's more definitive, are the things actually caught on tape, and nature of the melting steel. As linked above, the industrialists who certified the steel used in the WTC have stated in legal documents that the steel isn't going to melt unless its temperature is raised far higher and for far longer than could have been possible in the towers.

Anyway, there's a lot more definitive subjects to talk about besides the graph. I haven't mentioned the graph because unlike the tapes of the incidents, we didn't see it being composed, and there's tons of other evidence that's more definitive but is left untouched.

The graph arguments are almost as bad as the cruise missile in the Pentagon theory.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
I wouldn't go by the graph, because it's not definitive. Should the spikes be largest at the beginning of collapse or the end of the collapse? This can be argued.

What's more definitive, are the things actually caught on tape, and nature of the melting steel. As linked above, the industrialists who certified the steel used in the WTC have stated in legal documents that the steel isn't going to melt unless its temperature is raised far higher and for far longer than could have been possible in the towers.

Anyway, there's a lot more definitive subjects to talk about besides the graph. I haven't mentioned the graph because unlike the tapes of the incidents, we didn't see it being composed, and there's tons of other evidence that's more definitive but is left untouched.

The graph arguments are almost as bad as the cruise missile in the Pentagon theory.


Who said the steel needed to be melted into a liquid state in order to lose strength? The steel needs enough heat applied to it to lose it's support, burning jet fuel is perfectly acceptable for this purpose.

Why fly planes into the building when you already have a sub-level demolition charge set to tear the building down? And why would it collapse at the point where the planes impacted and not where the bombs were placed? Simple, these bombs never existed. If the 2 largest spikes you claim are bombs going off inside the building, then the falling of the thousands of tons of debris from hundreds off feet being accelerated by the force of gravity should read just as great as the bomb located inside the building. To state that the acctual collapse never showed significance on the graph is ill-ogic.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

Who said the steel needed to be melted into a liquid state in order to lose strength?



Nobody.



The steel needs enough heat applied to it to lose it's support, burning jet fuel is perfectly acceptable for this purpose.


Read the link above featuring a letter from the industrial company certifiying the strength of WTC structure steel.



Why fly planes into the building when you already have a sub-level demolition charge set to tear the building down?


Its a lot easier to imagine a plot in which plane impacts take down towers than terrorists performing a controlled demo with a couple tons of explosives. And, the plane impacts can always explain the collapse of the towers.



And why would it collapse at the point where the planes impacted and not where the bombs were placed?


Gives the impression that the plane impacts caused the demolition.



To state that the acctual collapse never showed significance on the graph is ill-ogic.


I think people who talk about the graph are arguing that both the demolition and the impact are registering.

If it took 10 seconds for the building to collapse, wouldn't the largest spikes be at the end of the ten-second shakeup?



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:05 AM
link   



Nobody



So why state any information about its melting point?



Read the link above featuring a letter from the industrial company certifiying the strength of WTC structure steel.


Again, if the melting point of the steel is said by nobody to relate to the collapse, why state the information?



Its a lot easier to imagine a plot in which plane impacts take down towers than terrorists performing a controlled demo with a couple tons of explosives. And, the plane impacts can always explain the collapse of the towers.



True, but what are the odds of going undetected planting tons of explosives in an underground level of WTC?



Gives the impression that the plane impacts caused the demolition.


My bad, I should have stated "How" does this occur when the bombs are in an underground level of the building?




I think people who talk about the graph are arguing that both the demolition and the impact are registering.

If it took 10 seconds for the building to collapse, wouldn't the largest spikes be at the end of the ten-second shakeup?


The end would be the antenna striking the ground, hardly comparable to the velocity and force created while in the middle of it's decent.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Well, I've typed probably about 10,000 words in this very forum, and repeating myself isn't getting very far. I have already addressed pretty much every point you list. I've read about a million words detailing the entire 9/11 event in books, articles, and newspapers. I have my understanding and theory, you have yours. If you have serious interest in what happened that day, there's more content already available than I could write in 10 lifetimes. If you have a seed of doubt as to what you are told as truth, good luck in your search.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by billybob
to recap, a little louder, .......only a SMALL FRACTION of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into GROUND MOTION. the GROUND SHAKING that resulted from the collapse was EXTREMELY SMALL.


Well, even if that is true, as Roark said, the collapse still accounts for the 2 largest spikes on the graph presented.


i award you the non-sequitor logical reversal of the day award. congradulations!


SMR

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Man,this will never end will it.Oh well,it's fun.

First off,I believe Howard said there were many fires in the building.
That is false and has been documented.There were 2 fires.One was on the 7th floor,the other on the 12th.They were two controlled pockets.
Yet the report says these 2 fires brought it down on it's footprint
Impossible.
But then we have a statement made by many,that it was pulled.And no not the firemen being pulled out,but the building being 'pulled' as in DEMO style.
Let me quote Dan Rather - "...... a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynomite to knock it down"

So which is it?Did fire bring it down or explosives?Contradicting statements from the same people is not very trusting now is it?

As for the towers,
Melting point of steel 1535°C
Max temp of non-pressurized hydrocarbon fire ~825°C
Difference of ~710°C
Feb 23 1991 One Meridian Plaza burned out of control for 18hrs on several floors,,,,it did not collapse.

There were two isolated pockets of fire that caused all 287 columns to weaken and bring down a tower in a telescoping manner?
Now granted a plane damaged much of the floors that they entered.But is it enough to weaken that area and cause a collapes?
If it was indeed so damaged,would it not have just toppled to the side dropping off after maybe taking out say,10 floors at most below it?
I find it hard to believe that the top halfs were equal enough in damage to drop straight down.At one point it would have started leaning to the side.
Atleast 3/4 of one building would have been left standing and the other,perhaps 1/2 to 3/4 left standing.

The lower halves are still very strong to withstand some weight and cause the tops to lean and break off.
The only way the bottom half would be so weak is if they were weakened by something.

If you watch video of the towers falling,you may notice that the floors start buckling before the top half reaches them.Almost 15 floors below.But not only that,they pop out.What causes that?Wouldnt it just shred downward and crumble AS the top half was coming down on it?

Now what about the 'explosions' that can be seen in video.Anyone see these puffs of smoke thrusting outward BEFORE the collaps even starts?
Not only that,but several spaced out and not many of them.They look like charges being set off to weaken the structure.
I cant get my prit scr to work right on video so sorry on the lack of photo images.
One report said that reports of explosions took place 1 hour after the plane hit the south tower.

I think people need to watch this video here very carefully.Not for the hoopla or the sad imagery,but to study it.Watch closely to actual video from that day.Listen to actual radio and TV broadcasts as it was happening.

I firmly believe that explosives other than the planes were used in the collapse of 3 towers on 9-11-2001



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 07:58 AM
link   


I think people need to watch this video here very carefully.Not for the hoopla or the sad imagery,but to study it.Watch closely to actual video from that day.Listen to actual radio and TV broadcasts as it was happening.


thank you for posting that SMR, I had long forgotten what was actually said that day as the reporters were reporting on it. Disturbing stuff.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
Man,this will never end will it.Oh well,it's fun.

First off,I believe Howard said there were many fires in the building.
That is false and has been documented.There were 2 fires.One was on the 7th floor,the other on the 12th.They were two controlled pockets.
Yet the report says these 2 fires brought it down on it's footprint
Impossible.
But then we have a statement made by many,that it was pulled.And no not the firemen being pulled out,but the building being 'pulled' as in DEMO style.
Let me quote Dan Rather - "...... a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynomite to knock it down"

So which is it?Did fire bring it down or explosives?Contradicting statements from the same people is not very trusting now is it?

As for the towers,
Melting point of steel 1535°C
Max temp of non-pressurized hydrocarbon fire ~825°C
Difference of ~710°C
Feb 23 1991 One Meridian Plaza burned out of control for 18hrs on several floors,,,,it did not collapse.

There were two isolated pockets of fire that caused all 287 columns to weaken and bring down a tower in a telescoping manner?
Now granted a plane damaged much of the floors that they entered.But is it enough to weaken that area and cause a collapes?
If it was indeed so damaged,would it not have just toppled to the side dropping off after maybe taking out say,10 floors at most below it?
I find it hard to believe that the top halfs were equal enough in damage to drop straight down.At one point it would have started leaning to the side.
Atleast 3/4 of one building would have been left standing and the other,perhaps 1/2 to 3/4 left standing.

The lower halves are still very strong to withstand some weight and cause the tops to lean and break off.
The only way the bottom half would be so weak is if they were weakened by something.

If you watch video of the towers falling,you may notice that the floors start buckling before the top half reaches them.Almost 15 floors below.But not only that,they pop out.What causes that?Wouldnt it just shred downward and crumble AS the top half was coming down on it?

Now what about the 'explosions' that can be seen in video.Anyone see these puffs of smoke thrusting outward BEFORE the collaps even starts?
Not only that,but several spaced out and not many of them.They look like charges being set off to weaken the structure.
I cant get my prit scr to work right on video so sorry on the lack of photo images.
One report said that reports of explosions took place 1 hour after the plane hit the south tower.

I think people need to watch this video here very carefully.Not for the hoopla or the sad imagery,but to study it.Watch closely to actual video from that day.Listen to actual radio and TV broadcasts as it was happening.

I firmly believe that explosives other than the planes were used in the collapse of 3 towers on 9-11-2001


Why would it fall to the side? There was no force applied to topple it in such a manner. If the fire was buring on two floors inside the building with the floors above it exposed to the prevailing heat, the collapse would occur from the inside then take the outer portions of the building, not the other way around.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Frosty you really need to go back and read through this thread, your questions have been addressed in previous posts, I'm not trying to sound facetious but this is a very long thread and there is alot of information that is covered, take the time and read through all the information so we can avoid redundancies in replying.


Edit:
Sort of off subject but an interesting read...
www.libertyforum.org...

[edit on 23-11-2004 by twitchy]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 09:54 PM
link   
What I don't get is why people say that the melting point of the steel has nothing to do with the collapse of the building by offering me documents on the steel. Seems contradictory to me. I have looked around the thread, not all the pages, but most of them, but none offer explanations as to how a sub-ground level bomb would account for the collapse of the buildings at the impact point of the planes.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Steel looses much of its strength long before it reaches its melting point.

That is why they apply fireproofing to steel. Fireproofing is not there to keep the steel from burning
, it is there to insulate the steel from the high temperature of the fire.

However, if the fireproofing is damaged it will not work. Also, the if the heat source last long enough, the heat will eventually penetrate the fireproofing. This lenght of time is called the fire rating. Fire ratings are based on typical fuel loads of office furniture, paper, etc. The fuel loads in office buildings have changed considerably from when the WTC towers were constructed to today. Add to that, jet fuel and flamable jet cabin parts (plastics).



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 01:36 AM
link   

So since we're debating what took down the 3 WTC buildings, name a single building besides them that's a steel structure collapsed by fire.


I'll answer this for everyone: can't think of one at the moment as there is no evidence for this every occuring. Ok, now answer this: Name one steel structure besides WTC and Pentagon that had a commercial jumbo jet equiped with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel ram into it?


SMR

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

So since we're debating what took down the 3 WTC buildings, name a single building besides them that's a steel structure collapsed by fire.


I'll answer this for everyone: can't think of one at the moment as there is no evidence for this every occuring. Ok, now answer this: Name one steel structure besides WTC and Pentagon that had a commercial jumbo jet equiped with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel ram into it?


One Meridian Plaza:

One Meridian Plaza is a 38-story high-rise office building.
The building is rectangular in shape, approximately 243 feet in
length by 92 feet in width (approximately 22,400 gross square feet), with
roughly 17,000 net usable square feet per floor. (See Appendix A for floor
plan.) Site work for construction began in 1968, and the building was
completed and approved for occupancy in 1973.
Construction was classified by the Philadelphia Department of
Licenses and Inspections as equivalent to BOCA Type 1B construction
which requires 3-hour fire rated building columns, 2-hour fire rated
horizontal beams and floor/ceiling systems, and l-hour fire rated corridors
and tenant separations. Shafts, including stairways, are required to be 2-
hour fire rated construction, and roofs must have l-hour fire rated
assemblies.

The building frame is structural steel with concrete floors poured
over metal decks. All structural steel and floor assemblies were protected
with spray-on fireproofing material. The exterior of the building was
covered by granite curtain wall panels with glass windows attached to the
perimeter floor girders and spandrels.

The building utilizes a central core design, although one side of the
core is adjacent to the south exterior wall. The core area is approximately
38 feet wide by 124 feet long and contains two stairways, four banks of
elevators, two HVAC supply duct shafts, bathroom utility chases, and
telephone and electrical risers.

Seems very similar to WTC and yet it burned out of control for almost 19hrs and was still standing after it was long put out.I think a 19hr fire is damaging to steel dont you think?
Yet the steel in WTC was weakened in a matter of hours making it collapse?



Unprotected penetrations in fireresistance
rated assemblies and the
absence of fire dampers in ventilation
shafts permitted fire and smoke to
spread vertically and horizontally.

Unprotected by failing assemblies,yet still stood standing after an almost 19hr fire.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 02:50 AM
link   
It could have been a billion gallons of jet fuel and still no caused the pools of molten steel at the base of WTC. The amount of fuel (most of which burned off quickly and or evaporated) is a moot point, fire did not and could not have caused the collapse fo the two main towers and it is very unlikely to have caused the collapse of the other. As far as the collapses happening at the point of impact, that is a dead give away that you have not been doing your homework.

Does this look to a fire related collapse to you?


Two or three terms for you, lateral ejection, pulverization, and squibs.


SMR

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Yeah,people arent getting the picture here.The fuel was long burned after impact.It did not get hot enough to do the damage they say it did.If it did and it was SO intense,then why do we see people standing in the entry hole?There are tons of images showing the plane impact hole and people standing in them.
If it was so hot and 'melting' steel,how did they not melt


And how is it hard to picture the top halves toppling over?
If it was caused by fire and steel loosing it's strength,it would fall to the side after so many meters of falling.Not straight down ALL the way down.Momentom will carry the top halves down to a certain point,but not all the way.The bottom half below the crash entry(s) is still very much intact and strong.

The only way those buildings came down on their footprints is from controlled explosives in the right places.

Watch the videos again and look at the 'streams' of debris and smoke just below before it starts to come down.In the video I posted,you can see from one angle,3 seperate occasions when this happens as it is falling.

I need to somehow get my printscreen working so I can point these things out.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Well don't bother using google image search for squibs+WTC, a year and half ago a similar image search pulled thousands of hits, now it's four.

one of which I'll post here...
from this site...
www.plaguepuppy.net...



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Probably one of the better sites out there for research is this one...
911research.wtc7.net...
It's a huge site with alot of links and info, I'd reccomend checking it out if you want a good single resource to get started with...



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 04:12 AM
link   
As somebody who works with steel in heavy fabrication, it irritates me when people insist that the fuel caused the steel to fail.



Steel looses much of its strength long before it reaches its melting point.


This is true to a certain extent. A piece of steel flat bar has 2 sides. If you heat the piece of flat bar until it is red hot it will bend a lot easier than when it is cold, but the supports that held WTC up were not flat bar. They were box section, and designed to be extremely strong. The WTC supports had 12 sides. No way were these ever going to bend, hot or not, and that's why the engineers used them.



That is why they apply fireproofing to steel. Fireproofing is not there to keep the steel from burning , it is there to insulate the steel from the high temperature of the fire.


Steel has a fire rating of forever because it doesn't burn. A simle experiment to do is go to the scap metal yard and grab a piece of 4in x 4in x3/8 RHS about 4ft long. Half fill a steel garbage can with kero(a good substitute for jet fuel), place the RHS in the bin and set it on fire. Come back in one hour and see if you can bend it, or even dent it. Not. The support columns even had natural heat sinks built in in case of fire.

Now to apply a simple law of physics. How strong is that pencil on the desk in front of you. If you pick it up in you hands and squeeze the middle it will snap. Not very strong. Now take another pencil and stand it upright on the desk. With your other hand push straight down and try to break it. Pencil is now incredibly strong and can take an extreme amount of downward pressure. Bear in mind that the wall thickness of the box section columns in WTC was nearly 4in at the base.

Now I don't profess to know what happened on 9/11 in regard to this whole mystery, but I can tell you without a doubt that those buildings did not just fall down. If they were going to fall, it would have done so when the plane hit. Thats why I believe there were other factors involved and whether they were explosives or whatever was used, I don't know. The fact they found molten steel in the basement 6 weeks later suggests foul play.

As far as WTC 7 goes, well that collapse just defies all logic.




top topics



 
13
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join