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: 21
13
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

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


although i totally agree, i'll pick three words to 'counter' your argument, ...television, generation, and ADD.
we are the neural net of the 'chip body'. although we run circles around the 'tv body', we are too few, and too discarnate to knock down the towering misconception built by the television/sattelite enviroment.

our best hope is we keep repeating the truth enough that the official house of cards 'pancakes' on itself.

we shall never give up!
we shall never surrender(our logic and common sense)!

p.s. pulverization is my favorite, if i had to pick just one. energy sink is a good one(two), also.



SMR

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Nice post Psychoses

I would like someone to explain this.



In this video,you can see explosions (squibs) going off.
Watch the video 29.94 KB

Here is a photo of what I am trying to explain.
How can the top half be tilting and falling away keep going straight down the entire building?
As you can see in the photo,the top portion is falling off to the side,not straight down.So how did the rest of the building collapse straight down?


Now again,for WTC 7
Why didn't this 56 story skyscraper, one of Venezuela's tallest buildings, collapse from this massive fire if the WTC 7 supposedly collapsed from a fire that was much smaller and didn't burn as long?
"Military helicopters doused one of Venezuela's tallest buildings with water Sunday, bringing under control a blaze many feared might cause the tower to collapse.
Earlier, nearby residences and businesses were evacuated. Two floors and some staircases in the building collapsed. But by Sunday afternoon, the temperature inside the burning building had dropped, lessening the danger of a collapse, Caracas fire chief Rodolfo Briceno said.
"Engineers have gone up there and inspected" the building, Briceno said, adding that "it is very solid."
Neighbors of the 56-story, 730-foot office tower were allowed to return to their residential buildings in downtown Caracas' Parque Central complex Sunday afternoon, but firefighters expected to work through the night to extinguish the last flames and keep them from spreading.
The blaze began before midnight Saturday on the 34th floor of the East Tower in the complex, Briceno said. By Sunday afternoon, it had burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors, reaching the roof. The complex was built in 1976 and is considered a Caracas landmark.
The high temperatures also stopped firefighters from reaching the tower's upper floors, where the fire was strongest. Military troops and rescue teams were brought in to help, and military helicopters flew over the building, dropping water on the tower, which houses government offices and ministries.
Firefighters' efforts were also hampered by malfunctioning water pumps and the lack of fire extinguishers inside the building as fire laws are not strictly enforced in Venezuela.
Earlier in the day, officials expressed fears that the building might collapse.
"There is a problem because the building is made of steel. Because of the high temperatures, the structure could collapse," Interior minister Jesse Chacon told President Hugo Chavez during his weekly radio and television show." -CBS (10/18/04)




posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Psychoses
As somebody who works with steel in heavy fabrication, it irritates me when people insist that the fuel caused the steel to fail.


And it irritates me when people remain willfully ignorant of the principles of chemistry, physics, and engineering.


Originally posted by Psychoses
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.

It doesn't matter how many sides are involved, if the entire column is surrounded by fire. Even under normal conditions, the heat of a fire can cause the columns to shorten and buckle. Add to this the fact that the structure was severely compromised and even a small amount of buckling can have disastrous consequences.



Originally posted by Psychoses

originally posted by HowardRoark
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.


No Sh1t, knucklehead, that is exactly what I said. Fireproofing is intended to prevent the steel from heating in a fire. It is the heat that causes the steel to weaken and fail. That is what a fire rating implies.



Originally posted by Psychoses
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.


First off who cares who thick the columns were at the base? The collapse did not initiate from the base, it initiated from the impact zone.

Now take you little pencil experiment and try this. Get a long piece of steel rebar, about 6 feet long. Do the same thing. stand it on end and put al of your weight on the top. If the bar is restrained from bending, it will hold your weight. But, if the bar is allowed to bend, it will and you will fall.

The columns of the WTC towers were restrained from bending by the floor slabs. WHen the floor slabs were wiped out by the impact, those columns were also bent. without the floor slabs to hold them in place, the steel began to creep and deform. Add the high temps from the fire, and the failure was inevitable.


Back to the fireproofing issue. I know that most of you have never seen the structure of a high rise building up close (without the buildout). I have. I have also worked on several buildings that have a similar construction characteristic to the WTC towers.

The towers were the first buildings to use a innovative technique to fireproof the core area. all buildings up until then, and most smaller buildings today use masonry construction in the core areas to provide stiffness and fireproofing to the core area. What they did in the WTC was to use double layers of thick drywall panels to protect the core area. This worked because the building derived it's stiffness to wind-loading from the box grid of the exterior walls, not from the core area.

Now, in any type of construction like this, the core areas are built out, with the shafts enclosed before the fireproofing is applied. This is because due to the tighter tolerances involved for these areas, you can't install the panels over the columns after they have been fireproofed.

This means that the columns derived some part of their fire resistance from the drywall panels as well as the fireproofing applied to the exposed sections.

Think about what happened when the planes hit. Thousands of tons of debris slammed into those walls at high speed. The fuel blast, which was strong enough to shatter hurricane proof window assemblies, would have also impacted those panels. Those panels would have been breeched, damaged and shattered. when this happened, the unprotected portions of the core columns would have been exposed. This would have made them especially vulnerable to the heat from the fire. Remember this also, even a simple office furniture fire can produce temperatures exceeding 1000 degrees C.


SMR

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 02:46 PM
link   


The towers were the first buildings to use a innovative technique to fireproof the core area. all buildings up until then, and most smaller buildings today use masonry construction in the core areas to provide stiffness and fireproofing to the core area. What they did in the WTC was to use double layers of thick drywall panels to protect the core area. This worked because the building derived it's stiffness to wind-loading from the box grid of the exterior walls, not from the core area.

So then.How did the One Meridian Plaza (built 1968-1973) not fall due to an almost 19hr inferno?
How about the tower in CARACAS, Venezuela, Oct. 18, 2004 that I posted above (built 1976) not falling after 17hr infirno?

Im just try to see how steel/heat/contruction differences match up here.
You have WTC that fell due to fire.Yet was so innovative in construction.
Now take the other towers and compare.Either way,if they were built with or without this innovative construction,it makes the case of WTC look suspicious no?
If built with the same type of innovative construction,why did they not fall from fire.If not built from the same innovative contrustion,how did they not fall from fire?See what Im saying?



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR


The towers were the first buildings to use a innovative technique to fireproof the core area. all buildings up until then, and most smaller buildings today use masonry construction in the core areas to provide stiffness and fireproofing to the core area. What they did in the WTC was to use double layers of thick drywall panels to protect the core area. This worked because the building derived it's stiffness to wind-loading from the box grid of the exterior walls, not from the core area.

So then.How did the One Meridian Plaza (built 1968-1973) not fall due to an almost 19hr inferno?
How about the tower in CARACAS, Venezuela, Oct. 18, 2004 that I posted above (built 1976) not falling after 17hr infirno?

Im just try to see how steel/heat/contruction differences match up here.
You have WTC that fell due to fire.Yet was so innovative in construction.
Now take the other towers and compare.Either way,if they were built with or without this innovative construction,it makes the case of WTC look suspicious no?
If built with the same type of innovative construction,why did they not fall from fire.If not built from the same innovative contrustion,how did they not fall from fire?See what Im saying?


Too bad the building in Caracus didn't have an 80 ton jumbo jet carrying 10,000 gallons of fuel ram into it or else that might have made sense.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR


The towers were the first buildings to use a innovative technique to fireproof the core area. all buildings up until then, and most smaller buildings today use masonry construction in the core areas to provide stiffness and fireproofing to the core area. What they did in the WTC was to use double layers of thick drywall panels to protect the core area. This worked because the building derived it's stiffness to wind-loading from the box grid of the exterior walls, not from the core area.

So then.How did the One Meridian Plaza (built 1968-1973) not fall due to an almost 19hr inferno?
How about the tower in CARACAS, Venezuela, Oct. 18, 2004 that I posted above (built 1976) not falling after 17hr infirno?

Im just try to see how steel/heat/contruction differences match up here.
You have WTC that fell due to fire.Yet was so innovative in construction.
Now take the other towers and compare.Either way,if they were built with or without this innovative construction,it makes the case of WTC look suspicious no?
If built with the same type of innovative construction,why did they not fall from fire.If not built from the same innovative contrustion,how did they not fall from fire?See what Im saying?


Comparing different buildings with different structural designs is like comparing apples to oranges.


you did not read my post carefully. MOST buildings are constructed similer to the Meridian plaza building or the Caracas building. This is NOT the same style of construction that was used in the WTC.


[edit on 24-11-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Here you go Roark, since you are such an engineering expert, here's a chance to make a buck...
Good Luck.


www.rense.com...
Mega-Millionaire Offers $100,000
Reward For Scientific Proof
WTC Towers Collapsed As
Bush Administration Claims
From Ilene Proctor
Proctor & Associates
11-22-4
www.nytimes.com...
www.nypost.com...
CNN Poll 11-10-04: 90% Believe US Complicity In 911 Attacks
$100,000 REWARD to the first person to deliver a full mathematical, engineering proof of how the impact and/or fires caused any of the WTC buildings to collapse the way the government claims! It must include all the fuel, mass, critical temperatures, likely temperatures and their causes, energy needed to crush concrete into fine powder, force needed to sheer bolts and rivets, time calculations, and all the other relevant data in a detailed analysis to be reviewed by accredited engineers on a team headed by Jeff King 911review.org... engineer and doctor educated at MIT. ...
~ DEADLINE: JUNE 30, 2005 ~


I checked it out outside of Rense, it's legit...



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 12:45 AM
link   
You're a live one, aren't you Howard?


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Think about what happened when the planes hit. Thousands of tons of debris slammed into those walls at high speed


Come on man, the 767 fully loaded takeoff weight is only 159,210kg (351,000lb)/Link. If passenger jets weighed thousands of tons they would never get off the ground so you would have to cut their wings off and call them busses.



Originally posted by HowardRoark
And it irritates me when people remain willfully ignorant of the principles of chemistry, physics, and engineering.

It doesn't matter how many sides are involved, if the entire column is surrounded by fire. Even under normal conditions, the heat of a fire can cause the columns to shorten and buckle. Add to this the fact that the structure was severely compromised and even a small amount of buckling can have disastrous consequences.


I'm not saying that steel won't bend if heated to the required temperature, but if you had of bothered to do the experiment with the bin, you're "principles of chemistry, physics, and engineering" would be glaring you in the face.

Even when the bin is left to burn for 2 hours(longer than the fires burned at WTC) the RHS never even gets hot enough to change colour,let alone get red hot. In fact, the sides of the bin(which are less than 1mm-roughly 0.0313in) don't even get red hot. The reason for this is burning fuel just can't get it that hot. The simple fact is, the heat of the fire did not cause the structural integrity of the steel to fail.

HOW TOUGH WERE THE TOWERS?


Originally posted by HowardRoark
The columns of the WTC towers were restrained from bending by the floor slabs. WHen the floor slabs were wiped out by the impact, those columns were also bent. without the floor slabs to hold them in place, the steel began to creep and deform. Add the high temps from the fire, and the failure was inevitable.


Lets take a look at the design of the WTC. This is a basic diagram of the design.



One of the lead engineer's who worked on the WTC was shocked that the towers collapsed from the planes impact. Lee Robertson, the tower's structural engineer, specifically addressed the problem of an aviation disaster when drawing the plans, claiming he designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it.



Those 4 cranes you see in the photo, are perched atop the central support core of the tower. This core is built of sheer concrete reinforced by 44 beams of construction grade steel.



Look at the pictures, Howard. There is no way jet fuel is deforming all that steel and concrete. It is just too heavily reinforced.

Now lets look at how the impacts and fires effected the buildings. We will use the first impact as the example as it would tend to substantiate your theory.



As you can see, with the second impact most of the fuel burned up on the outside of the building in the atmosphere. In the first impact most of the fuel burnt inside the building so would obviously generated more heat. With the fire raging it's understandable that the steel would bend and melt, but this is not the case.



This photo was taken of the North Tower well before it collapsed. The jetfuel has finished burning and there are only a few spot fires. This was confirmed in the radio message recieved from the firefightes on the scene in the buiding.

There is also no intense heat as if you look closely you can see a woman standing at the edge of the hole looking out.

So presented with this evidence, it's obvious that the critcal period has passed and if the steel columns were actually heated they would be now already cooling down.

As far as the damage to the floor caused by the impact, only 18% of the total floor area on that level was destroyed. Maybe a normal building would have collapsed but as you stated to SMR, this was not a normal design because this building had been designed to withstand a jetliner hitting it!


Originally posted by HowardRoark
First off who cares who thick the columns were at the base? The collapse did not initiate from the base, it initiated from the impact zone.


Well I was curious as to how you would dismiss this information as irrelavent? Would you care to explain how these beams were sheard from the bedrock and why there were thermal pockets with the molten steel from these thick columns found in the basement area of the WTC weeks after 9/11? I hope your not going to say it was the jet fuel that ran down the elevator shafts.



Notice how there are only hotspots in WTC 1,2 and 7! What a remarkable coincidence. Here is the link to the USG Source.

There was a lot more happening on 9/11 than meets the eye.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Still, no one has bothered to come around and explain how a sub-ground level bomb could collapse the world trade centers at the point of impact by the planes.
I will stick to the official reports.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Still, no one has bothered to come around and explain how a sub-ground level bomb could collapse the world trade centers at the point of impact by the planes.
I will stick to the official reports.


Which "official" report are you referring to?

What are your conclusions as to why there were thermal pockets?



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Psychoses

Originally posted by Frosty
Still, no one has bothered to come around and explain how a sub-ground level bomb could collapse the world trade centers at the point of impact by the planes.
I will stick to the official reports.


Which "official" report are you referring to?

What are your conclusions as to why there were thermal pockets?


The report claimed by this man, I assume that it has some degree of officialness to it if someone is willing to give 100 grand to someone to verify it. www.rense.com...


My conclusion as to why there were thermal pockets comes from the fact that there was jet fuel strewn about the building and emitted smoke from the building suggest they were there. I mean, I guess, not sure where else smoke comes from but from a thermal source.

[edit on 25-11-2004 by Frosty]



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Residual hot spots in the rubble pile are a common occurance in controlled demolitions, thermite and other compounds are capable of melting steel and once buried under the rubble they retain an enormous amount of heat. These thermal hot spots did not come from fires in oxygen poor rubble piles, they came from pools of molten steel found at the base of the towers. This has been addressed in this thread already as well.


Edit: Nice post Psychoses


[edit on 25-11-2004 by twitchy]


SMR

posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by SMR


The towers were the first buildings to use a innovative technique to fireproof the core area. all buildings up until then, and most smaller buildings today use masonry construction in the core areas to provide stiffness and fireproofing to the core area. What they did in the WTC was to use double layers of thick drywall panels to protect the core area. This worked because the building derived it's stiffness to wind-loading from the box grid of the exterior walls, not from the core area.

So then.How did the One Meridian Plaza (built 1968-1973) not fall due to an almost 19hr inferno?
How about the tower in CARACAS, Venezuela, Oct. 18, 2004 that I posted above (built 1976) not falling after 17hr infirno?

Im just try to see how steel/heat/contruction differences match up here.
You have WTC that fell due to fire.Yet was so innovative in construction.
Now take the other towers and compare.Either way,if they were built with or without this innovative construction,it makes the case of WTC look suspicious no?
If built with the same type of innovative construction,why did they not fall from fire.If not built from the same innovative contrustion,how did they not fall from fire?See what Im saying?


Comparing different buildings with different structural designs is like comparing apples to oranges.


you did not read my post carefully. MOST buildings are constructed similer to the Meridian plaza building or the Caracas building. This is NOT the same style of construction that was used in the WTC.


[edit on 24-11-2004 by HowardRoark]

Apples and oranges again...........why does that analogy always come up in these discussions?
Look,the buildings may not have been exact in construction,but very close.
If your trying to say that WTC was built better,then that supports my theory even more.If it was stronger,then any of the two other buildings should have been demolished.But they werent.They stood standings as should have the WTC.
If WTC was weaker in construction than the other two,which I doubt,then I can understand.But the fact that they were either very similar or equal supports that they (WTC) did not fall from fire weakening.

There is no way in hell that a few SMALL fires weakened the steel making it collapse.I dont care how much fuel was used.That fuel burned up almost instantly.Look at video and images.You can see the color of smoke indicating that the fuel burned rather quickly.Most of it was shot OUT of the buildings when they hit.It wasnt like the fuel was thrown into one spot and stayed there to burn.MOST,and I figure from images and video,that 70-80% of the fuel was thrown outward at impact.What was left quickly set fire evaporatings.

As I have noted,the fuel did NOT and CANNOT burn hot enough to melt steel.
What fuel was left to burn was like campfire hot and although it burned for a bit,was not hot enough to weaken the steel.

Fire did NOT cause the steel to weaken causing the towers to fall.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
As I have noted,the fuel did NOT and CANNOT burn hot enough to melt steel.


True, but during the initial blast the concrete structures were discimated to rubble and large debris, and the steel beams must have been melted to some degree. But as stated many times, the steel itself "does not need to be liquified" in order for it to lose strength. There was evidence of molten steel found at the base of at least one of the WTC, we know this for a fact.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by SMR
As I have noted,the fuel did NOT and CANNOT burn hot enough to melt steel.


True, but during the initial blast the concrete structures were discimated to rubble and large debris, and the steel beams must have been melted to some degree. But as stated many times, the steel itself "does not need to be liquified" in order for it to lose strength. There was evidence of molten steel found at the base of at least one of the WTC, we know this for a fact.

No it wasn't rubble and large debris in the initial blast, had it been a true collapse caused either by instability of the frame, or by structural weakening due to fire, there would most certainly have been rubble and large debris, however the concrete being ejected by the initial collapse of the structure was literally pulverized, even a large amount was atomized. Professional demolitions companies do this as a norm to minimize the clean up involved with large debris and rubble... Companies like CDI. Collapses by fire or imapct do not.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by SMR
As I have noted,the fuel did NOT and CANNOT burn hot enough to melt steel.


True, but during the initial blast the concrete structures were discimated to rubble and large debris, and the steel beams must have been melted to some degree. But as stated many times, the steel itself "does not need to be liquified" in order for it to lose strength. There was evidence of molten steel found at the base of at least one of the WTC, we know this for a fact.


must have been melted to some degree. that's scientific. exactly how many degrees to melt steel?

my favourite leap in logic is, 'does not need to be liquified(AKA molten), in order to lose it's strength.' and then, next sentence, 'there was evidence of molten steel'. so if it didn't need to be molten to lose it's strength, which is the logic behind it falling like that without the melting point of steel being reached, then HOW DID THE STEEL MELT? it was molten WEEKS later. that means it was a BIG POOL OF MOLTEN STEEL. the law of thermodynamics DEMANDS that there be enough potential energy to turn that much steel into liquid, good luck with that one disinfo pros.

but wait! how much molten steel was there? how many tons? where are all the beams that weren't melted? where are the beams that were?
#ing disappeared, that's where.
perhaps there is still enough SOLID evidence to prove that the official house of cards is about to pancake.
it really is a case of fairly simple physics.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Watch the movie 911 in plane site, there are som CNN-pictures that shows a large smokestack rising frn the WTC-ground while both towers are still standing. That indicates that there were an explosion in the bottom segments before the collapse.

www.thepowerhour.com...



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by SMR
As I have noted,the fuel did NOT and CANNOT burn hot enough to melt steel.


True, but during the initial blast the concrete structures were discimated to rubble and large debris, and the steel beams must have been melted to some degree. But as stated many times, the steel itself "does not need to be liquified" in order for it to lose strength. There was evidence of molten steel found at the base of at least one of the WTC, we know this for a fact.


must have been melted to some degree. that's scientific. exactly how many degrees to melt steel?

my favourite leap in logic is, 'does not need to be liquified(AKA molten), in order to lose it's strength.' and then, next sentence, 'there was evidence of molten steel'. so if it didn't need to be molten to lose it's strength, which is the logic behind it falling like that without the melting point of steel being reached, then HOW DID THE STEEL MELT? it was molten WEEKS later. that means it was a BIG POOL OF MOLTEN STEEL. the law of thermodynamics DEMANDS that there be enough potential energy to turn that much steel into liquid, good luck with that one disinfo pros.

but wait! how much molten steel was there? how many tons? where are all the beams that weren't melted? where are the beams that were?
#ing disappeared, that's where.
perhaps there is still enough SOLID evidence to prove that the official house of cards is about to pancake.
it really is a case of fairly simple physics.


I'm not saying it didn't melt, I'm saying it didn't needed to be melted. For all we now it could have been an isolated beam that was melted that had very little to do with the collapse of the strucuture, maybe it melted after it fell, who knows for sure? There has also been no evidence of a bomb going off in the subground level of the building itself (which to me makes very little to no sense) or anywhere else.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrSpeedo
Watch the movie 911 in plane site, there are som CNN-pictures that shows a large smokestack rising frn the WTC-ground while both towers are still standing. That indicates that there were an explosion in the bottom segments before the collapse.

www.thepowerhour.com...




posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
I'm not saying it didn't melt, I'm saying it didn't needed to be melted........
(snip) ..... maybe it melted after it fell, who knows for sure?


melted after it fell?
i'm just not answering you in particular anymore. you have no sense of logic.
you're melted to me, frosty.

i'm going to continue to monitor your scattered thoughts, though, because it amazes me that anyone can make such bizarre leaps in illogic.




top topics



 
13
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join