LIVE loud explosion heard by firefighters at WTC site - AMAZING!!

CaptainObvious,

Theres alot of contradicting data there, who is right? Who knows

But according to Skilling the Structural Engineering the building should have withstood the impact of the Plane which it clearly did, but they also thought about the ensuing fires that would follow due to the jet fuel dumping in the building.

From the NIST statements i have posted in a couple of posts the steel should not have weakened from the temperatures that NIST have concluded. They contradict alot of the statements and conclusions they come up with. On one hand they claim to weaken the steel and on the other hand they claim from the tests they conducted that temperatures did not reach over 600 degrees thus would not be possible to weaken steel.

You posted some interesting info and I thank you for taking the time in researching, but alot of it is "but he said she said" kind of stuff in other words its contradicting.

BeZerK

CaptainObvious,

In regards to the jet fuel, i was updating what i read and you were probably typing what you wrote while i updated it.

Please read the edited post.

Cheers

BeZerK

Originally posted by BeZerkYou posted some interesting info and I thank you for taking the time in researching, but alot of it is "but he said she said" kind of stuff in other words its contradicting.

You're welcome!

The he said she said crap is because no one want's to take blame for the building collapsing.

The Port Authority is saying "HEY ROBERTSON SAID IT WOULD STAY UP!"

Robertson is like... "Um well.. it did!"

The fact is, the speed testing was not done.(at least none of the engineers remember it, and Robertson can't find that data) and there wasn't any credence was given to what damage the fires would have caused.

As far as the smoke/fuel question goes...I was thinking the same thing. Let me look a little more into it and read more of the boring P.O.S. If I find some more info I will post it tonight.

From the NIST statements i have posted in a couple of posts the steel should not have weakened from the temperatures that NIST have concluded. They contradict alot of the statements and conclusions they come up with. On one hand they claim to weaken the steel and on the other hand they claim from the tests they conducted that temperatures did not reach over 600 degrees thus would not be possible to weaken steel.

Seem to think that entire building would have to be raised to critical
temperature for building to fail - it does not. Only small section of the
steel needs to be heated to failure point for collapse to start. Once that
section begins to fail loads are transferred to nearby components. If
those components are also under strees heat or impact damage will
also been to fail until building structure is overloaded. In WTC critical
failure was section of exterior wall columns where fire was most intense
causing floors to sag and pull them out of alignment. Once this section
of columns failed it pulled rest of building down with it.

The jet fuel acted as accelerant in massive arson fire - as posted earlier
there is more than enough fire load in modern buildings to sustain fires
and heat steel to failure points. Nist attempted to find steel pieces with paint intact (difficult considering thousand feet fall and debris burning
for months later) to see if heat had blistered paint off. Analysis of steel
by crystal structure (examining sections under high power microscope
to check if crystal structure altered by heat) Found many sections of steel
heated over 1000 F some reaching 1800 F - more than enough to cause
steel to fail.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Basement Explosions were in fact fireballs.

It is posting like this... stating a guess as a FACT that totally destroys any credibility that you may think you have here.

Jet fuel fireballs 110+ floors down...

Science, science and progress...

Originally posted by Pootie
Jet fuel fireballs 110+ floors down...

So, the planes hit the roof? Who said anything about them traveling 110+ stories?


Fireballs were seen, and heard by many people. Including Willie Rodriquez. The fireballs injured and killed many people.

Now, I have on several threads posted proof of fireballs. It will be up to you pootie to provide proof that they did not exist.

Thanks

OK. I've been thinking about something.

The engineers were able to calculate what the building would do in a crash with a plane. What type and all is irrelevant to what I'm about to say. So, let's just keep it simple and say back when they were being designed (which would be years before the actual building of the towers) the engineers were able to calculate the impact and everything.

Now, let's shoot to the present where NIST (some 40 years later and aided with computer power and tax payer money) can't calculate what happened? As far as I know, they didn't calculate anything. They used computer models and video and photography. Why didn't they calculate anything when 40 years prior it was obviously not a big deal to calculate what happens to the building with plane impaction.

Am I making any sense?

Griff,

I see your point. What I read leads me to believe that no such study actually took place. Robinson cant find his copy of the report he claims he wrote and engineers he said he worked on it with say the dont remember working on it.

The speed of the plane was irrelevant. There was no way to determine back in 64 to what extent of damage the fire would cause.

I dunno...like i said.. lots of fingerpointing because the buildings fell where claims stated it should have stood.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I see your point. What I read leads me to believe that no such study actually took place. Robinson cant find his copy of the report he claims he wrote and engineers he said he worked on it with say the dont remember working on it.

So, is Robertson lying then? Why would he lie about it? Is he trying to CHA (cover his arse)? Just some questions we can speculate on.

This has always struck me as odd also.

There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later. The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel.

scott-juris.blogspot.com...

Now, why is the fire from jet fuel "inevitable" just like the B-25's but no one took it into account? Just like Rice could never foresee them using planes as missiles? And why are these people still employed again?

The speed of the plane was irrelevant. There was no way to determine back in 64 to what extent of damage the fire would cause.

Why? There was precedent about steel behavior in fire in '64.

I dunno...like i said.. lots of fingerpointing because the buildings fell where claims stated it should have stood.

Maybe someone knows that the buildings were built shoddy?

Either built shoddy....or quick to label it as indestructable...similar to the Titanic being unsinkable!

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Either built shoddy....or quick to label it as indestructable...similar to the Titanic being unsinkable!

I would take built shoddy myself. That would be the only way (other than some kind of CD) that would explain what we observed. Well, at least some of it. Again, just my opinion.

It was the car explosions on the next street... in that very direction... caused by gas lines and car explosion chain reactions.

I hate to demystify this one. Several months ago I thought I was going to build a powerful WTC7 video with that as a prime piece of evidence to hammer it all home... but then I got wrapped up in (debunking) the "melted cars" "nuke" claims and then I finally figured it out.

The one interesting thing, however, is I do possess rather hard evidence that the blast in that video occured at about 10:16AM: between the 2 tower collapses.

I meant to do a huge thread on this entire ordeal awhile back but got sucked into new video projects.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The one interesting thing, however, is I do possess rather hard evidence that the blast in that video occured at about 10:16AM: between the 2 tower collapses.

Could you post the evidence? Thanks. I'm interested.

@thedman, good call.

however, the parts of the tower underneath would not give way 100% at exactly the same time.

lets take a look at this from outside the box. pretend were into demolition.

it costs us a lot of money to down a building. lets just burn them down with kerosene. from 5 floors towards the top.

if that was a viable scenario dont you think it would be in practice today? just heat the steel at the top of the buildings and it comes down in a nice pile.

i mean, i hate to sim;ify it down to that point, but lets look at who has more experience here, billion dollar demolition companies or us?

if it was viable, they would do it.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
So...this video that has been posted on here for the past year on several occasions proves there were explosions. Not sure how many times we have to say that explosions do dont always mean BOMBS!

It was reported from firefighters that they witnessed tires exploding on cars that were near WTC7

Are you saying that noise is tires exploding? Is it one tire, or is it an orchestrated event of several tires exploding, all at the same time? Maybe the firemen were really concerned about exploding tires?

Yeah, that's it.

Cars:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'll have to post up the time materials later, from home, back from vacation, havent even been home to hook up the new MB yet. Hint: WATCH, and light angles.

Fires DO NOT and CAN NOT explain a global collapse with no resistance, the expulsion of steel facade laterally up to 600ft away, and the pulverization of concrete etc...And don't forget the tilt of the South Tower. How many times does this have to be said?

Can you explain those facts within the official story? They are not even mentioned in the official story. You are arguing something that you would clearly see is wrong if you would only learn some basic physics.

Originally posted by ANOK
You are arguing something that you would clearly see is wrong if you would only learn some basic physics.

Who are you talking to?

Originally posted by ANOK
Fires DO NOT and CAN NOT explain a global collapse with no resistance

Multiply that by three and one of those wasn't even hit by an airplane.

There is a large amount of video footage showing multiple explosions sounding off; how about the camera shake prior to WTC1 going down?

uk.youtube.com...

That ain't no gas cylinder!

As i have stated numerous times, i don't think conventional explosives were used, but thats not important, what is important are the numerous characteristics that arise from the buildings collapse that are evident and which we can see from watching the horrifying events of that day. We obviously cannot prove to you exactly what type of explosive was used and so, but then again if NIST conducted its research in a correct manner we would not have received this nonsense:

Did NIST look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.

NIST STATEMENT: "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

If they had tested for these compounds we could have determined what type of explosive was used and so on.

Molten steel was found under ALL 3 buildings. How is it possible for molten steel to be found under WTC7 when no plane crashed into it, thus no jet fuel, also the fact that no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fires, so once again how did WTC7 collapse without the means of some sort of explosive?

Moreover,

Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.

They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "inter granular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon - Source

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion." Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.

The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.

liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

- Source

We also know from numerous studies conducted by Professor Steven Jones on the theory of Thermate that characteristics such as severe corrosion, intra granular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory.

Please watch the lecture of Professor Steven Jones below for an in depth analysis and research he proves without a shadow of a doubt that thermate was used to destroy the buildings. He conducted his research using a Electron microscope and analyzed steel spheres from WTC site, what he found was a thermate signature and compounds of thermate.

Google Video Link

Link for above video - LINK

BeZerK



[edit on 10-7-2007 by BeZerk]