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.
Originally posted by bsbray11
I just now watched that video, and it definitely does show another source of white smoke from the bases of the WTC. Good find, but at the risk of sounding hard-headed, it just raises more questions for me. Was it out by 10:28, dissipated before the collapse of WTC1? What started the fire in the first place? Was it the only source of white smoke from the bases that morning?
Hell, dude, the perimeter columns didn't even slow the whole time they fell. You know something's up with that.
Originally posted by ihatescifi
Out of curiosity... why would bombs be used in the basement when the collapse is top down?
Originally posted by ihatescifi
The fire at the base is flaming debris that flew down when the second plane hit.
...
Out of curiosity... why would bombs be used in the basement when the collapse is top down?
“If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.”
- Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md.
CDI calls itself “the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures.”
source
How in the world do you debunk something like the witness reports of molten steel? With another witness? Seriously. Think about what you just said. There's either evidence for/against it or no evidence at all. Real science is objective, so where's the proof that there was no molten steel? Where's the proof that people didn't know what they were talking about? Where's the debunking?
Originally posted by AgentSmith
Did you bother reading my posts that touch on the circumstances that could contribute towards high temperature underground fires, as well as the posts relating to the short amount of time that it would take for even Uranium based thermites to cool?
I read them but didn't see much more than speculation. Do I need to comment on that?
Originally posted by AgentSmith
Yes of course what a ridiculous idea, back to the mini-nukes and lepricorns..
..
While your at it please explain how the metal stayed at high temperature without a heat source.. I looked at some sites relating to steel maufacturing and from what I've seen it can stay hot for days - in controlled ovens designed to cool it down slowly... So what kept it hot in this case?
Originally posted by Long Lance
what a ridiculous idea that you believe you can taint our posts and train of thought by bringing up micronukes, that won't work.
So, you're no longer denying it was very hot for a unusually long time?
Interesting, but tbh, i am unable to explain the holes in your theory.
Originally posted by AgentSmith
..
Actually I think you'll find it was laBtop that brought up mini-nukes - a pro-demolition theory person. In his defence he also does his own research and seems like a pretty clever guy.
I've had one pro-demolition person already say to me my theories are viable, in fact he said they were as viable as the explosives idea. So if you can show us, scientifically, how my information is wrong that would be greatly appreciated. You have also neglected to show how the high temperatures were sustained after I have shown they would have fallen within 24 hours.
So you are basing your mockery of my research on what exactly? If you are 'unable to explain the holes in my theory' then how do you know it has any?
Originally posted by Long Lance
i could answer using conjecture: 3k tons of Thermite, Nukes, Coal, and so on, your theory cannot account for the discrepancy, so it's 'debunked' see?
unless you are able to explain what was seen at ground zero by the material present in the towers before the collapse + 2 aircraft + fuel, your theory is useless. when you acknowledge that more and different fuel was present, you.
Originally posted by mdefab01
What if a hidden type of technology was used to bring down the towers?
If a government, a radical nation or select few were planning something as big as 911 you better believe they would have had access to some type of technology unknown to the private or public sector.
A type of technology that can not only bring down three massive steel structures into their own footprint but also pulverize steel and concrete into dust and ash within a matter of seconds.
What type of technology was used, your guess is as good as mine, could be some kind of sound wave technology. Who knows and it doesn’t matter that’s not the point.
Originally posted by AgentSmith
[
Not quite sure what you are getting at, I offered possible explanations (or at least partial explanations) using the expected materials and conditions.
Maybe the words you hear in your head are different to the ones you read or something, I can't explain it. You seem rather muddled in your thoughts anyway. Where's your scientific rebuttel to everyting I said? Bullet points please for clarity.
Originally posted by AgentSmith
In addition I did the same calculations for a 30cm sphere of Liquid Iron (what thermite leaves behind) heated to 2500deg C (2773.15 deg K).
...
After 24 hours through radiative heat loss alone it would be approx 295.81 deg Kelvin or ..... wait for it.... 22.6 deg C
..
The calculations are as follows:
Using an emissitivity of 0.79 (from prevous site), density of 18.95g/cm3 and a boiling point of 4131°C (Boiling point appears to be higher than burning temperature, based on comparison of Iron boiling temperature (2861 °C) and the temperature of the thermite reaction (2500 °C) ).
Once again a 30cm sphere.
Originally posted by AgentSmith
Actually the white smoke some have attributed to thermite is also explained by the charcoal theory:
The smoke will start out white. This is the water vapor burning off. Next the smoke will go blue/grey which is the alcohols and phenols burning off. Then the smoke appears yellow, which is the tar burning off. Finally the smoke will clear and you will just see waves of heat.
Phase two: cooling the 700° C charcoal to a point where it wouldn't just burst into flames the minute it saw the light of day.
www.regia.org...
700 deg C, sounds familiar.... (Don't forget this is during the process which creates this - it burns hotter).
In addition I'm surprised that more people don't attribute at least some of the white smoke to steam from the water dousing the fires, burst water mains, etc.
Originally posted by Long Lance
if you had ever bothered to use different numbers, you'd have noticed that cooling takes longer with larger pieces, same with radiation based heat transfer, Volume to Area relationship doesn't change. perhaps that's what you did, after all, why did you settle for a measly 30cm ball ?
bear in mind that all of this does not contain any real data, since no-one confirmed a) what the molten metal really was b) how much there was c) the insulating properties of the surroundings are unkown anyway.
ok, so we're supposed to have conditions suitable to creating charcoal inside the rubble - which of course requires oxygen deprivation - then, we need furnace-like conditions and in between you posted the subway tunnel pic, 'cause pics work, right? (post # 1872137)
take your pick, i'd say, but it's all futile, because i'd dead sure you were among the deniers of long lasting high temps a few weeks ago, now you're obviously following the 'if you can't use it - abuse it' logic.
d'bunked.
Originally posted by AgentSmith
You can't tell me an area where the floors join to the exterior columns is designed to have 10 floors swinging on it and not fail are you?
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Hush-a-boom?
Originally posted by billybob
how does a 'buckling failure' happen INSTANTLY?
Originally posted by AgentSmith
Did you watch the artful dodger at work there Jedi? note how Mr BRay said:
How in the world do you debunk something like the witness reports of molten steel? With another witness? Seriously. Think about what you just said. There's either evidence for/against it or no evidence at all. Real science is objective, so where's the proof that there was no molten steel? Where's the proof that people didn't know what they were talking about? Where's the debunking?
After which I did several posts doing exactly what he asked, but when he came back on all he had to say was:
Originally posted by AgentSmith
Did you bother reading my posts that touch on the circumstances that could contribute towards high temperature underground fires, as well as the posts relating to the short amount of time that it would take for even Uranium based thermites to cool?
I read them but didn't see much more than speculation. Do I need to comment on that?
Note that I was giving a reasonable explanation for the molten and hot steel rather than just saying it wasn't true, this is especially irritating to some as rather than debunk their evidence you are suggesting a reasonable explanation for it which is much harder to get out of.
Notice how any theory other than ones relating to explosives are 'just speculation'.
Watch the master at work, the molten steel will eventually be brought up again in the near future once he is sure that everything I wrote is just a distant memory. No-one likes to argue with cold (no pun intended LOL) hard facts.
As to the loss of angular momentum,
as the cap would have pivoted on one side and smashed into the building sideways and down, it will have put an extraordinary diagonal force on the structure below. The tower was designed to withstand a high wind spread across it's whole surface and the downward force of gravity. However it was not designed to have thousands of tons smashing into it sideways.
As it fell in on itself the stress on the picot point on the other side of the building will have been immense and the joints will have failed, not being designed to withstand such a thing obviously.
You can't tell me an area where the floors join to the exterior columns is designed to have 10 floors swinging on it and not fail are you?
Basically, sir, you would have us believe that the area cirlced in red, where the floors join with the exterior columns, should be able to withstand the force of the cap pivoting at that point longer than it did? And then after these joins failed (not because it far, far exceed their load bearing capability though), the cap would carry on turning with no fulcrum and plenty of resistance to stop it, all the while being magically suspended in the air.
You can see that due to the way it pivoted it will have been smashing into the building below in a sideways motion, or should the building have withstood that too?
Can you draw us a diagram of what you think the cap should have done? Slid off maybe? just hung there? cheers
Originally posted by AgentSmith
I've had one pro-demolition person already say to me my theories are viable, in fact he said they were as viable as the explosives idea.
So if you can show us, scientifically, how my information is wrong that would be greatly appreciated. You have also neglected to show how the high temperatures were sustained after I have shown they would have fallen within 24 hours.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
It didn't happen instantly. The buckling of the exterior walls is quite visible in the photos take just before the collapse.