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.
www.theblackvault.com...
" In addition to the observation of the collapse, theorists draw upon the post collapse elements surrounding the World Trade Center. The compilation of the following is put forward by opponents of the official story to further the idea of a controlled demolition as well as government involvement.
1) The rubble of the Twin Towers smoldered for weeks after the collapse.
* This claim is meant to point out that steel could only have smoldered as a result of pre-placed explosives. A handful of individuals working in and around the debris field utilized phrases containing the words “molten metal” or “molten steel” to describe the devastation. Physicist Steven E. Jones has pointed out that these molten metal observations cannot be known to be steel without a metallurgical analysis being done. The following are some of the more common statements seen:
o Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y described "literally molten steel" at the WTC.
o The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers in a second hand account by James Williams who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."
2) The lobby of one of the towers was partially destroyed (broken windows and marble panels) and a dust cloud can be seen rising from the ground during the moments of collapse.
* Sarah Atlas of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, one of the first on the scene said "Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins" (Penn Arts and Sciences, Summer 2002). Similarly, Dr. Allison Geyh, a public health investigator from Johns Hopkins, recalled in the late fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel."
* Obtaining a conclusive answer to these molten metal arguments is difficult for a lack of documented research on the issue. While NASA's satellite images of Ground Zero do show large hot spots well after 9/11, they do not provide an exact measure of temperatures within the rubble pile since this type of remote sensing captures only the temperatures on the surface of a debris pile. Independent scientific investigation into what sort of metal, if any, was liquefied has yet to be conducted.
3) Most of the columns came down in sections about 30 ft (10 m) long and large sections of steel destined for recycling were quickly sent to areas in SE Asia.
* This claim suggests the building was destroyed to provide for an easy clean-up and removal of debris, often implying little study was done of the evidence.
* It is important to recognize the longest beam surrounding the towers was no greater than 38 feet.
* Ground Zero actually took more than eight months to remove all of the debris.
* Furthermore, Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team on the site, responded to this notion and the evaluation of evidence, "The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples." NIST has numerous sections of steel from both Towers as well as WTC 7.."
Originally posted by trueforger
let's discuss the little balls of iron.Formed while molten and airborne.These resemble welding 'berries',the hardened spray of plasma state weld droplets of steel,having the carbon burned out ,in the process.Only these are much smaller,indicating more energy required in formation.What else besides the nano thermate(which is explosive) can produce these,eh?
Originally posted by trueforger
Exploding transformers do not have the force to produce this tiny a particle size.The smaller the particle,the more force required to atomize STEEL.And by the way,did ya see that horse shoe shaped piece of 6" thick flange I beam?Mighty.
Or did you mean TRANSFORMERS,the toy?That makes more sense...
Originally posted by mmiichael
Electrical transformers, of which there were many in those buildings, violently explode at high temperatures.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by mmiichael
Electrical transformers, of which there were many in those buildings, violently explode at high temperatures.
This is really reaching. First of all, they don't just explode because they're hot. Something has to short inside of them and they have to be introduced to much more current than they're made to withstand before they start spewing molten metal, which means a breaker ALSO has to fail. And even then I've only seen them spew molten aluminum, not steel, which requires over twice the temperature and much greater heat energy. There is a much greater chance the circuit is simply going to be broken, no energy is going to flow, and nothing is going to happen. There were also no reports whatsoever of transformers or any other electrical equipment exploding.
Originally posted by mmiichael
This is total guess work on your part. You have never tested large scale electrical transformers at extreme temperatures and under tons of pressure.
Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't KNOW that a transformer didn't explode in there, but I find it extremely unlikely that it would happen and no one would see or hear it to report it. Hell, I find it unlikely to begin with. And of course there is no evidence of it at all. If there were such a problem it would persist until the power was cut to it, and it would be very bright and very loud and would produce a LOT of smoke.
Originally posted by mmiichael
Building with the amount of materials, equipment, machinery, and even population of a small town hit by the equivalent of a giant bomb and absolute chaos and turmoil with raging fires.
And you talk about what would be expected to be seen by witnesses.
Originally posted by bsbray11
The meat of my argument here is based on the fact that things will short electrically much sooner in any situation than they are going to allow for a massive amount of current to be transferred, and a massive amount of current is the only way to make a transformer explode (without explosives ).
Originally posted by mmiichael
Works fine when your audience of the converted has high school physics.
Originally posted by Warbaby
reply to post by bsbray11
How about eyewitness accounts? Never seems to make much difference to people, few of whom were actually there or saw anything other than doctored videos on conspiracy sites.
The real question is, why are you so sure something other than terrorists (all identified, including Moussaoui, who admitted to the plot-