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: 26
13
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   
The following analysis has been made as conservative as possible for the sake of minimizing the thermal effects of jet fuel burning on one floor of the WTC towers.

This analysis was based on the following:

Constraints and Assumptions:

1. Though some experts(news-service.stanford.edu..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">1) have estimated that 2/3's of the supports were "shattered and fractured" on the main impact floors of each of the towers, I have opted to perform the following calculations with all external and internal columns intact. This significantly increases the mass of steel that must be heated and therefore significantly caps the maximum temperature the steel can be brought to.

2. I have restricted the volume of burning jet fuel contained on the floor analyzed to just 1000 gal which constitutes less than 1/2 inch of fluid on one floor.

3. Though the dimensions and spacing of the external supports are known, the wall thickness of these square tubes are not known. So it has been assumed to be 1/2".

4. The shape and dimensions of the internal (core column) supports are not known so it is assumed that the same tubular construction was used with the same dimensions and wall thickness.

5. In determining the mass of steel on one floor that must be heated, the entire volume of the external tubes were used - even the outside surface. In addition, the cooling effect of the air on the outside of the building was applied to 1/2 of the volume of steel of each column thereby increasing the BTU requirement to heat the total volume of steel.

6. The floor and ceiling support structure were not taken into account since the support beams would have to be insufficient support before the entire floor could fail. Therefore, the analysis on the degradation of the support beams and not the floor trusses. The floor trusses would have begun to fail (in shear and bending) far before the support columns.

7. No added heating effects due to consumables within the building were taken into account. Only the heat of combustion of the jet fuel.

8. The calculations were made on the following logic. The total BTUs available from the 1000 gallons of jet fuel were calculated. The BTUs required to heat the volume of air contained within the floor was then subtracted from this total. The BTUs required to heat the steel to a given temperature was then calculated and subtracted from the remainder. The BTUs lost due to cooling effects from external air were then calculated and substracted from the remainder. The process was reiterated until the available BTU's from the jet fuel could not raise the temperature of the air and steel by an appreciable amount.

9. The function for the specific heat for air over the temperatures analyzed was taken from (2). An average value was used over every 200 K range (with the exception of from 70F to 600 F - i.e. 300 K to 600 K, in which case the highest number was used




posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   
All I have to say about the above is... "Man I wish I was THAT smart!!!!"

m...



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
You have voted Valhall for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

excellent post Valhall



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Valhall is very conservative in the analysis.

Outstanding job!

You have voted Valhall for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

[edit on 4-6-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
another interesting thing i learned was that many top officials like the mayor, and a few generals were warned not to go into ny city a few days prior to the attacks.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mrexclusive
another interesting thing i learned was that many top officials like the mayor, and a few generals were warned not to go into ny city a few days prior to the attacks.


Yeah i heard about that too

this is interesting aswell

Rudolph Giuliani Got Warning WTC Towers Were Going To Collapse



We first reported this 15 months ago but we have now received the video where then Mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani admits to Peter Jennings that he got a warning that the South Tower was about to collapse.

Why is this important?

No steel framed building had ever collapsed from fire damage before in history. The event was unprecedented. To know the building was about to collapse would require inside knowledge of 'the 9/11 script' and how it was supposed to unfold on that fateful day.


Another Ignored 9/11 Clue: Bomb Sniffing Dogs Removed From WTC Days Before Attack



Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted
By Curtis L. Taylor and Sean Gardiner
STAFF WRITERS

September 12, 2001

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.


Fire was under control

Tapes reveal that fires were under control not raging infernos

Tapes reveal that fires were under control not raging infernos



9:25 a.m.
Ladder 15: "Go ahead, Irons."

Ladder 15 Irons: "Just got a report from the director of Morgan Stanley. Seventy-eight seems to have taken the brunt of this stuff, there's a lot of bodies, they say the stairway is clear all the way up, though."

Ladder 15: "Alright, ten-four Scott. What, what floor are you on?"

Ladder 15 Irons: "Forty-eight right now."

Ladder 15: "Alright, we're coming up behind you."

Battalion Seven Aide: "Battalion Seven, you want me to relay?"

Ladder 15: "Yeah, Steve tell Chief Palmer they got reports that there's more planes in the area, we may have to back down here."

Battalion Seven Aide: "Ten-four."

"Seven Alpha to Seven."

Battalion Seven: "Steve. Seven to Seven Alpha."

Ladder 15: "Fifteen to 15 Roof."

"Fifteen Roof."

Ladder 15: "We got reports of another incoming plane. We may have to take cover. Stay in the stairwell."

Ladder 15 Roof: "Ten-four."

Ladder 15: "Fifteen to 15 Roof. That plane's ours. I repeat. It's ours. What floor are you on, Scotty?"

Ladder 15 Roof: "Fifty-four."

Ladder 15: "Alright. Keep making your way up. We're behind you."

Ladder 15 Roof: "Ten-four."

The officers then describe where they are headed, where they believe the fires to be...

Ladder 15 Lieutenant: "Tommy, listen carefully. I'm sending all the injured down to you on 40. You're going to have to get'em down to the elevator. There's about 10 to 15 people coming down to you."

Ladder 15 Firefighter: "Okay."

Ladder 15 Lieutenant: "Ten civilians coming down. Fifteen to OV."

Ladder 15 Firefighter: "Got that, I'm on 40 right now, Lieu."

9:39 a.m.

Ladder 15 Lieutenant: "Alright Tommy, when you take people down to the lobby, try to get an EMS crew back."

Ladder 15 Firefighter: "Definitely."


Bombs in Twin Towers

More Photographs Unearthed to Suggest Bombs in the Twin Towers





WTC Construction Certifiers Say Towers Should Have Easily Withstood Jet Fuel Temperatures



r. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."


New York Firefighters’ Final Words Fuel Burning Questions About 9-11

Evidence that could debunk the official explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Center is being kept secret by the Department of Justice on a flimsy pretext.



The fact that veteran firefighters had “a coherent plan for putting out” the “two pockets of fire” indicates they judged the blazes to be manageable. These reports from the scene of the crash provide crucial evidence debunking the government’s claim that a raging steel-melting inferno led to the tower’s collapse.




[edit on 4-6-2005 by infinite]



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ADVISOR

Originally posted by MorbidAngel2010
It was like if it was like a demolition or something.


Uhm no, a demolition is completely different.
A demolition starts at the bottom of the building, destroying the foundation of a building making the ENTIRE building fall at once, where the WTC buildings collapsed because of the combination of heat and an increasing weight after the first parts of the building began to fell, in which case the buildings did not move entirely while collapsing.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko

Uhm no, a demolition is completely different.
A demolition starts at the bottom of the building, destroying the foundation of a building making the ENTIRE building fall at once,


ummm, you mean like the way tower seven fell?


Originally posted by Jakko
where the WTC buildings collapsed because of the combination of heat and an increasing weight after the first parts of the building began to fell, in which case the buildings did not move entirely while collapsing.



if you are faking a terrorist attack, you would time the explosives differently, perhaps, so that it's not so controlled.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   


if you are faking a terrorist attack, you would time the explosives differently, perhaps, so that it's not so controlled.


Agreed.

You wouldnt start at the bottom and blow the foundations cause you make it obvisious to the world. You damage the building in different areas, to weaken the structure so it falls and blame it on the plane that hit the building



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
if you are faking a terrorist attack, you would time the explosives differently, perhaps, so that it's not so controlled.


Not really billy, not when there are cameras from all directions pointed at the building. Not when there are still (how many???) people inside this building when this happens, and especially not after a plane just hit the building you put your bombs in.

It is a foolish theory and a senseless hoax.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko

Originally posted by billybob
if you are faking a terrorist attack, you would time the explosives differently, perhaps, so that it's not so controlled.


Not really billy, not when there are cameras from all directions pointed at the building. Not when there are still (how many???) people inside this building when this happens, and especially not after a plane just hit the building you put your bombs in.

It is a foolish theory and a senseless hoax.


okay, well, ...you know best.
it seems there are many frames captured that show explosives and flashes going off. and it seems many people heard this and reported it. the links are all repeatedly linked to here. i like the one excited firemen who gestures as he explains, "bam, bam, bam", as he recalls the explosions knocking out floors sequentially.

of course, "THIS NEVER HAPPENED, NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG!"

the official theory is foolish and sensless.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
the official theory is foolish and sensless.


there is no spine in the official theory, how can you explain off the explosions that were seen and heard? Even news reporters reported explosions aswell on the day, firemen saw it aswell, how can you explain it off?



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Of course there were explosions!!!
What do you think happens when this huuge building sets on a huuuge fire and starts to collapse?
That it goes nice and smooth?

I am kind of getting tired with ATSers trying to "see" the most hilarious conspiracies in one of the most horrible events in the past decades.
This time, there IS no conspiracy.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Of course there were explosions!!!
What do you think happens when this huuge building sets on a huuuge fire and starts to collapse?
That it goes nice and smooth?

I am kind of getting tired with ATSers trying to "see" the most hilarious conspiracies in one of the most horrible events in the past decades.
This time, there IS no conspiracy.


well, you know best.
if you're tired of it, don't visit these threads. simple, no?
i find nothing hilarious about this. except, maybe, that droves of sheep fall for it. that laugh i will share with the evil doers in the star chamber.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Well, it just goes to show you that people whom have closed their minds to any theory but the one they have concocted and hitched their horse too will not see anything, even the basic calculations if it counters their opinion.

It has never been my opinion that there were no bombs put in place because I don't know that for certain. What I do know after looking at the material's properties and now and Val's calculations is that no other force was needed or necessary to topple the twin towers. Thats not to say they were not present just that the known impact and ensuing fire were sufficient to cause the collapse from an engineering standpoint. And one other point as well. The fireproofing and the design on the twin towers did endure for over an hour after sustaining the lethal blow(s).



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
Well, it just goes to show you that people whom have closed their minds to any theory but the one they have concocted and hitched their horse too will not see anything, even the basic calculations if it counters their opinion.
What I do know after looking at the material's properties and now and Val's calculations is that no other force was needed or necessary to topple the twin towers. .


here are some WAYYY less complicated calculations of simple physics. apply occam's razor, and the k.i.s.s. rule and whatnot to the problem....

from 911physics.co.nr...


As you can see from my diagram, the WTC was 1350 ft. tall, the WTC was not in a total vacuum (just thought I would mention that) so it could not fall as fast as an object falling in free fall, not only that but the section that supposedly was damage by fire, had more than half a building of resistance.

1350 / (32.16/2) =  83.9552

Square Root of 83.9552 = 9.1267 Seconds

9.1267 seconds is the fastest time an object can fall in free fall in a total vacuum from a height of 1350 ft. The South Tower fell in 10.4 seconds, which is quite interesting because that is very close to the rate of free fall, considering there was more than half a building of resistance you would expect the time to be more, The North Tower felling 8.1 seconds, THIS DEFIES THE LAWS OF GRAVITY!!! not only did the lower floors give no resistance but something actually pulled the building down, the only thing capable of doing this is a Hi-Tech explosive called RDX which creates a vacuum around the building and pulls the building down "at a faster than normal rate."

After the Towers collapsed fire fighters continue to spray the debris with water, they did this for literally weeks, why was the debris from the Towers still smoking weeks after when only two small fires were inside each Tower? NASA decided they would do an aerial shot of the area and get temperature readings.


RDX creates a vaccuum? NASA? these towers offered ZERO resistance, and NEGATIVE RESISTANCE(!!!!) to the downward rush of material.
valhall's calculations are good for thosse easily distracted by shiny objects.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
does it explain how alleged terrorists that smashed into towers are still alive?


For all of you that are buying the BS, how do you answer the above question? This barely got a sniff by the national media..............why? Hello........McFly!!!!!!!

Forget the calculations and the theories about how the towers fell. That's what they want us to argue about. Have any of the questions that billybob posted been answered to anyone's satisfaction????? If not then who cares how the towers fell???? It doesn't really matter in the whole scheme of things. There's more than enough unanswered questions left to support a cover-up.

Peace


[edit on 6-6-2005 by Dr Love]



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
For all of you that are buying the BS, how do answer the above question? This barely got a sniff by the national media..............why? Hello........McFly!!!!!!!

Forget the calculations and the theories about how the towers fell. That's what they want us to argue about. Have any of the questions that billybob posted been answered to anyone's satisfaction????? If not then who cares how the towers fell???? It doesn't really matter in the whole scheme of things. There's more than enough unanswered questions left to support a cover-up.

Peace


Internet crusaders and their calculations spew out heavily flawed Intel. You can manipulate math equations all you want until you're able to come up with a factoring number that proves jet fuel fires can smelt steel in a New York minute, or in the case of 9/11 a New York hour.

However,

It does nothing to explain how a paper passport belonging to Mohammed Atta can survive a different fate.


[edit on 6-6-2005 by syntaxer]



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer
It does nothing to explain how a paper passport belonging to Mohammed Atta can survive a different fate.

[edit on 6-6-2005 by syntaxer]


Yeah, I mean it wasn't even a good cover-up and it worked like a charm. Are we just that dumb as a whole or do we just not care? Way to go Joe Citizen!!!

Peace



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i like the one excited firemen who gestures as he explains, "bam, bam, bam", as he recalls the explosions knocking out floors sequentially.


No, That is not what they said, I believe the term was that they heard the floors “popping out.”

In any event, what do you think it would sound like if the floors fell on each other in sequence just though the force of gravity? Do you think that it wouldn’t make any noise?




Originally posted by billybob
As you can see from my diagram, the WTC was 1350 ft. tall, the WTC was not in a total vacuum (just thought I would mention that) so it could not fall as fast as an object falling in free fall, not only that but the section that supposedly was damage by fire, had more than half a building of resistance.

1350 / (32.16/2) = 83.9552

Square Root of 83.9552 = 9.1267 Seconds

9.1267 seconds is the fastest time an object can fall in free fall in a total vacuum from a height of 1350 ft. The South Tower fell in 10.4 seconds, which is quite interesting because that is very close to the rate of free fall, considering there was more than half a building of resistance you would expect the time to be more, The North Tower felling 8.1 seconds, THIS DEFIES THE LAWS OF GRAVITY!!! not only did the lower floors give no resistance but something actually pulled the building down, the only thing capable of doing this is a Hi-Tech explosive called RDX which creates a vacuum around the building and pulls the building down "at a faster than normal rate."




Like I pointed out a number of times before. If you watch the video of the collapse, you will see that portions of the exterior walls fell outward so of course these parts of the building fell in a free fall. The dust cloud is blown outward and also begins to fall in a free fall, obscuring the actual progress of the collapse of the building itself.

Also you can’t assume that the lower part of the building was completely unaffected by the collapse until the falling mass reached it. Due the building’s construction, the falling mass would have pushed outward on the exterior walls and columns, thus pulling them away from the floor trusses before the falling mass actually reached that point.

Finally, once the momentum of the falling debris builds up a bit, the ratio of the impact force to the building’s ability to withstand that would quickly increase to the point where the resistance of the lower parts of the building were negligible.


[edit on 6-6-2005 by HowardRoark]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join